Cardiology

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 women and primary care clinicians must be educated on the symptoms of heart disease so that they can be on the alert and provide patients with comprehensive treatments when necessary.

“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 women and primary care clinicians must be educated on the symptoms of heart disease so that they can be on the alert and provide patients with comprehensive treatments when necessary.

“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 women and primary care clinicians must be educated on the symptoms of heart disease so that they can be on the alert and provide patients with comprehensive treatments when necessary.

“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.

Recorded Aug. 26, 2023. This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Robert A. Harrington, MD: I’m here with my good friend, Manesh Patel, from Duke University. We’re at the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) congress in Amsterdam, and I pulled Manesh into the studio for a conversation about something that’s really topical right now: sudden cardiac death in athletes.

What I hope to do [in this interview] is really pick Manesh’s brain on how we are thinking about this. Are we going to think about treatment issues? Are we going to think about prevention issues? Are we thinking about screening? We’ll try to make it practical.

Dr. Manesh Patel is chief of cardiovascular medicine at Duke University and also the director of the Duke Heart Center. Manesh, thanks for joining me here.
 

Bronny James and Damar Hamlin

Manesh R. Patel, MD: Excited to be here, Bob. Always.

Harrington: [Recently,] a news article comes out about the cause of Bronny James’ sudden cardiac death. Let me put this into a bigger societal context.

Last winter, Damar Hamlin, from the Buffalo Bills, suffered a traumatic injury on the field, and with that, had cardiac arrest. He’s back playing football – great to see. You and I are involved with the American Heart Association. He’s been very supportive of our efforts around things like CPR. He’s been terrific. It’s great to see him playing.

We know a little less about Bronny James. The news articles say the cause is both functional and anatomical, and it seems to be congenital, but we don’t have any details beyond this. Let’s not focus on the people; let’s focus on the topic.

Patel: I’m excited that we’re having the conversation. First and foremost, we’re excited that, with what we’ve seen on a national stage, these two individuals are doing well. They survived sudden cardiac death, which is a testament to all the things that we’ll talk about.

There are many important questions, like, is this increasing? Is this something we can prevent? And what are those things that might be happening to athletes?

Harrington: Can we predict it?

Patel: Right. I think the idea of sudden cardiac death in athletes is really a critical one for us to think about because it does concern participation and what we think about that. There are many experts who’ve been studying this for years that I now get to work with.

Harrington: Tell us a little bit about the kind of things you’ve been doing in this area.

Patel: Even before these events in the COVID era, we were wondering about athletes getting myocarditis, just in general, what do we know about that? People like Aaron Baggish, Kim Harmon, Jonathan Drezner, and others have been studying this.

Harrington: You and I did a show on athletes and COVID-19.

Patel: With the American Heart Association (AHA), the Cornell Foundation, and others, we started the Outcomes Registry for Cardiac Conditions in Athletes (ORCCA). This registry is across the United States, and athletes can sign up.

Harrington: Is it voluntary? Do the schools sign them up?

Patel: The athletes sign up. Team trainers and doctors talk to the athletes. We don’t really know the risks of some of these conditions. There’s a lot of gray area – people with certain conditions that were really interesting; aortas that are dilated in tall people.

Harrington: Long QT.

Patel: Long QT. There are certainly things that we know we should be intervening on and others where participation is a question. All of these we are trying to longitudinally put into the registry and follow them over time.

The second thing is understanding from the last Bethesda Conference that we want shared decision-making. There are going to be conditions where you say, “Look, I think your risk is high. You’ve a family history of sudden cardiac death. You have arrhythmias while you’re exercising.”

Harrington: You have a big, thick heart.

Patel: If you have hypertrophic cardiomyopathy, whether you’re an athlete or a 40-year-old adult, we’re going to have the same conversation. I think that holds. There’s a variety or a spectrum where we don’t know. I think the registry is one big step.

Thinking back to when somebody has an event, I would say take the teachable moment with the AHA and others to make sure your communities and your areas have automated external defibrillators (AEDs) and CPR training, and that we get to 100%: 100% response, 100% CPR, 100% defibrillation. I think that’s the first step.
 

Chain of survival

Harrington: Let’s really focus on the chain of survival. It is a chain: If any link is broken, your chance of survival really drops. We’ve had some well-known cases within our AHA community, including somebody who talks about it regularly: Kevin Volpp, from the University of Pennsylvania, a health economist. He had almost the perfect chain of survival. He had sudden cardiac death in a restaurant that was immediately observed, CPR started, EMTs called, and AED on the scene. Impressive.

Patel: That was in Cincinnati, where there are communities that have really worked on these things. I think you’re right. The chain of survival with rapid CPR to build a nation of survivors is key. The people at the AHA are helping us do this; there is a national call to make sure CPR is something that people feel comfortable doing. That they do it in men and women. They do it for anyone that goes down. And realize that it’s CPR that is hands-only. I think that’s an important lesson from Damar’s work, Nancy Brown’s, and AHA’s. Actually, schools in many countries require that to get through primary school.

Harrington: CPR training is a requirement to graduate from high school in some states.

Patel: My son just graduated from high school, and we spent time at his school making sure that everybody had access to CPR training. I think the way to do this is to start with that. Now, getting more specific about teams and athletes, I think most have emergency action plans, but it’s having action plans that work because of where you are and where the AED locations might be, or what the sport is. Having a plan on how you’re going to get that athlete to a place where you can help them recover is an important piece.

From there, I think the conversation for us is about what can we do as a society and as a country to answer some critical questions, including some real-world questions that people are asking: We had COVID-19 and we’re hearing these cases. Is this going up or down, and are these related?

Soon, hopefully the same group I talked about and others will have a publication, working with the NCAA to look at all of the deaths that they observed in NCAA Division I athletes over 20 years, including the sudden cardiac deaths. I won’t share the results because the publication isn’t out, but I think that’s the kind of important information that will help us understand if these rates are going up or down.

Harrington: What’s associated with that risk? Then we can start getting at whether it is something that, when we’re doing assessment for suitability for sports, has risk factors that should warrant more investigation.

Patel: Much like the field of cardiology, we haven’t enough of an evidence base, the right technologies, or the studies to determine how we should do screening, or not screening, across the board. Again, there is variation. There are some countries where anyone participating is going to get an ECG and an echocardiogram. There are other countries, like the United States, where it’s going to be a bit dependent on athlete risk.

Harrington: And where you live.

Patel: And where you live. Unfortunately, again, that brings in the idea that it might not be equitable in how we’re evaluating these individuals. I do think the opportunity to start to standardize that evaluation exists, and it likely comes from the ability to look back and say, “Here are some higher-risk individuals or some higher-risk scenarios.”

Harrington: Isn’t this what we do all the time in clinical medicine?

Patel: It’s going to be applied to a population that maybe is not as studied. I said this to you before we came on. The other thing is to make sure that the shared decision-making allows athletes who feel like they have a chance or want to play. During COVID, we had many college athletes, high school athletes, and kids not able to participate in sports. There was significant depression, feeling of loneliness, and even physical loss. People were actually getting less conditioned quickly. There’s a great benefit to sports participation.

Harrington: We were extrapolating from older data. If I’ve just had this new infection, COVID, and I’ve maybe got some signs of it in my heart, why can’t I exercise? That’s extrapolating from old myocarditis data.

Patel: We’re having to learn and follow it. I think there’s value in following that and getting those data. The second thing I think is really valuable is that we’ve shown that these individuals, if you do have these conversations and follow them, can participate and can be part of understanding the risk just like anything else.

Harrington: Is it sport specific? Are there some sports where maybe the conversation should be a little more intense than in other sports?

Patel: I think what we’ll see is that the conversations may be sport specific, and some may concern the number of athletes tested. At times, it’s pretty complicated. It does look like there are, as you know, different weight-bearing performance athletes, endurance athletes, or what I’ll call burst sports. There will probably be data that will identify certain sports where we may need to pay a bit more attention.

Harrington: What about the contact issues? Damar had a very specific thing, we think, happen to him. Football is a violent, contact-oriented sport, but fortunately we don’t regularly see what happened to Damar.

Patel: We’re talking about sudden cardiac death, but obviously, contact issues and neurologic evaluation is a whole other topic. That’s another big issue that I know many are following, and the NCAA is carefully, too. For Damar, I think we know that it was commotio cordis. At least when that happens, when there’s a ball or a trauma to the chest, those things have to be timed just so to actually lead to this event. Thankfully, it’s not very frequent, but it can happen.

Harrington: Hockey pucks, baseballs, soccer balls, a helmet to the chest ...

Patel: You have to be in a specific cycle of the squeeze. We don’t see that very frequently. I do think the evaluation and treatment, hopefully, makes a difference. One thing that we’re evolving in the screening world is our imaging; it’s getting better. We are not just doing echocardiograms; we are able to do other studies. There’s a mix of imaging and other technologies.

Is screening the answer?

Harrington: Let’s talk about that because screening is the area, I would say, with the most controversy – and a large amount of emotional controversy. Some argue that the data are not good enough to screen, or doctors are saying, “Wait a minute, why are we screening all these kids?” You said you were at your son’s high school doing CPR training. How many athletes are at his high school? There are many, and that’s a pretty small high school. Big communities, big universities, and the professional sports can afford it. Should we be doing this at the community level?

Patel: There have been some data. The Italians have done standard screening for some time, and it’s shown us that if you did echocardiograms in many individuals, you do find some cases that are hypertrophic cardiomyopathy in pathology. The issue is just how much you have to do and the resource utilization. I think as we get to a world where screening studies can happen with smaller technology and AI, that can be democratizing in how we get to athletes.

Harrington: Give an example of that. We were talking outside, you and I, about some of the new stethoscope technology.

Patel: Yes, stethoscopes are going to be one of the examples. We have stethoscopes that have the ability to get sounds and ECG signals, or at least some lead signals.

Harrington: Yes.

Patel: Potentially you can imagine that sound and ECG tracing in an AI environment, at least getting you from “everyone gets a listen with one stethoscope in their gym from their coach,” and it goes to the cloud. When there are enough questions, these are the ones that have to go further. Now, that’s a big study that has to be carried out; I’m not in any way saying we should do that.

Harrington: The technology is coming.

Patel: We start to see that our ability to rapidly do something to meet our athletes or our patients where they are will happen soon. Remember that the performance curve can vary, but once you have a sound where you can start to say that this is a regular flow murmur vs. “I’m worried about this,” especially as you mark it with ECG – that’s one example.

Smaller imaging is another example. For many years, ECGs have been talked about. There are entire courses that we run looking at ECGs in athletes. Remembering that Aaron Baggish and others are publishing that these individuals are large. When we look at their hearts, we see that they’re large, but when you adjust for size, often you can identify that many of them are within what we think are normal. Structurally, there are still many cases where you look at hearts and you’re asking, “Is this a thick heart? Is this noncompaction? Is this some pathology?”

That’s where you need imaging expertise. I think you have to have those individuals. I’m not advocating screening. I’m advocating studying it and that we should be thinking about the population. I don’t see a world where we don’t eventually start to really look to prevent those.

Harrington: Right. Whether it’s understanding that there are certain risk factors associated with this and we have to dedicate screening resources to those individuals, or if we want to do it more broadly on the population level to understand this with deeper dives into certain individuals, we’ve got to study it.

Patel: Some of the experts in sports medicine and sports cardiology have been collecting these data for a while. It’s time that we are there, because with these events we have the opportunity to share more of these data and maybe raise awareness – not in the teachable moment only – to get others to contribute.

I do believe that long term there’s an opportunity. We’ve seen that. We see that the rates, unfortunately, for marathon runners, where people unfortunately have events, seem to be higher. And we’ve seen the studies on troponin leaks in these individuals or evidence that there’s some effect on the heart from these events. We want people to be able to be long-term healthy.
 

Early defibrillation

Harrington: A large amount of work needs to be done. We talked with regard to screening, we’ve talked about CPR. We really need to have a nation of people who can do hands-only CPR. Let’s talk about AEDs, another key part of the chain of survival.

Patel: We have another important study going on, but an important message first: AEDs are critical to survival. We know that CPR is critical, but so is getting people to a defibrillator.

Harrington: Early defibrillation.

Patel: Early defibrillation. Early CPR is one of the biggest markers of making sure we perfuse people to get to early defibrillation, but then you have to get early defibrillation. There’s been a huge push in many communities, again, along with AHA and others, to make sure that AEDs are available not only in the U.S. but around the world. We’re at ESC and we see the push around the world to get AEDs available. They’ve come down in size and come down in cost, and that’s made it much more accessible. That’s really good. They’re still not always there.

We’ve seen really interesting randomized studies with people in some European countries where they have certain areas, just because of the locations, where bystanders will help get an AED  vs. randomizing to the EMS truck. They seem better in some of those variations. Chris Granger, at our institution, with Monique Starks, Dan Mark, and others, is doing a study in North Carolina where we’re testing different ways to potentially get AEDs in communities. We’re randomizing counties to one or two ways of getting AEDs to those individuals.

Harrington: Can you have an app where you just click “Find me an AED”?

Patel: Is there a world where the AED is found or is something bringing you the AED? Are there drones? Are there people driving? Are there ways that an AED is brought to the scene? All of those are going to be critical. It starts with continuing to figure out ways to support the costs of getting AEDs in places. The technology is continuing to evolve.

Harrington: It really is the premedical system stuff that makes the difference. Once EMS arrives with trained individuals who can defibrillate, they can transport you to a medical facility where trained physicians are at. It’s that pre-EMS thing that is so critical.

Patel: We talk often about athletes, but cardiac arrest care in general, and the chain of survival with CPR and AEDs, is critical. I still see patients in the CICU at Duke where, unfortunately, the biggest driver, as you just highlighted in that chain of survival, is how rapid we were in that golden hour. In the first 15 minutes, are you getting CPR, are you getting AED? Are you getting to a system?

Harrington: Are you getting a rapid transport?

Patel: Are you getting a neurologic assessment? Are you getting cooled or not? Those are important things.

Harrington: All right. Let’s try to wrap this up. Teachable moments, we talked about. One of the things about cases in prominent athletes is that it makes it to the newspaper and then it raises awareness. There is a drawing inference from a small group of cases to the broader societal issues. That’s an important topic.

We’ve talked about possible screening options, identifying at-risk individuals and high-risk individuals. A large amount of data has already been accumulated, but there is more work to be done. We focused on how to use those teachable moments to really influence the chain of survival, not just for athletes but for society at large.

I love your point about the Bethesda Conference on shared decision-making. Like with everything else, we have to have that two-way conversation: What are the athlete’s goals, hopes, and aspirations?

Patel: That group of experts, in addition to shared decision-making, gave us a whole list of conditions that we should be aware of and the cutpoints of where we think normal and not normal live for athletes. I think that’s used by many.

Can we build our systems to make research happen faster for the individuals? These athletes are at colleges that are obviously doing so much to make sure they’re okay. The people who are helping with this registry, and others, are going to continue to work to ask whether we can engage them as citizen participants and scientists. I think athletes are going to become some of our best advocates for why you’d want to know about yourself and how to perform CPR.

Harrington: I love the concept of citizen scientists, that we all have an obligation to contribute to the evidence base because we all want to use that evidence.

This has been a terrific conversation. I’ve been joined by my good friend, Dr. Manesh Patel from Duke University. I hope you’ve enjoyed our discussion here at the ESC. We have been taking a little break from the science going on around us to talk about sudden cardiac death in athletes. It really does have implications for broader societal concepts.

Dr. Harrington is the Stephen and Suzanne Weiss Dean of Weill Cornell Medicine and provost for medical affairs of Cornell University, New York, as well as a former president of the American Heart Association. He has disclosed the following relevant financial relationships: Research relationships with Baim Institute (DSMB); CSL (RCT executive committee); Janssen (RCT chair); National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (RCT executive committee, DSMB chair); Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (RCT co-chair); Duke Clinical Research Institute. Consulting relationships with Atropos Health; Bitterroot Bio; Bristol Myers Squibb; BridgeBio; Element Science; Edwards Lifesciences; Foresite Labs; Medscape/WebMD Board of Directors for: American Heart Association; College of the Holy Cross; Cytokinetics. Dr. Patel is professor of medicine, Duke University; chief, division of cardiology; director, Duke Heart Center, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, N.C. He has disclosed the following relevant financial relationships: Serve(d) as a director, officer, partner, employee, adviser, consultant, or trustee for Bayer; Janssen; Novartis (consultant). Received research grant from Bayer; Janssen.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Recorded Aug. 26, 2023. This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Robert A. Harrington, MD: I’m here with my good friend, Manesh Patel, from Duke University. We’re at the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) congress in Amsterdam, and I pulled Manesh into the studio for a conversation about something that’s really topical right now: sudden cardiac death in athletes.

What I hope to do [in this interview] is really pick Manesh’s brain on how we are thinking about this. Are we going to think about treatment issues? Are we going to think about prevention issues? Are we thinking about screening? We’ll try to make it practical.

Dr. Manesh Patel is chief of cardiovascular medicine at Duke University and also the director of the Duke Heart Center. Manesh, thanks for joining me here.
 

Bronny James and Damar Hamlin

Manesh R. Patel, MD: Excited to be here, Bob. Always.

Harrington: [Recently,] a news article comes out about the cause of Bronny James’ sudden cardiac death. Let me put this into a bigger societal context.

Last winter, Damar Hamlin, from the Buffalo Bills, suffered a traumatic injury on the field, and with that, had cardiac arrest. He’s back playing football – great to see. You and I are involved with the American Heart Association. He’s been very supportive of our efforts around things like CPR. He’s been terrific. It’s great to see him playing.

We know a little less about Bronny James. The news articles say the cause is both functional and anatomical, and it seems to be congenital, but we don’t have any details beyond this. Let’s not focus on the people; let’s focus on the topic.

Patel: I’m excited that we’re having the conversation. First and foremost, we’re excited that, with what we’ve seen on a national stage, these two individuals are doing well. They survived sudden cardiac death, which is a testament to all the things that we’ll talk about.

There are many important questions, like, is this increasing? Is this something we can prevent? And what are those things that might be happening to athletes?

Harrington: Can we predict it?

Patel: Right. I think the idea of sudden cardiac death in athletes is really a critical one for us to think about because it does concern participation and what we think about that. There are many experts who’ve been studying this for years that I now get to work with.

Harrington: Tell us a little bit about the kind of things you’ve been doing in this area.

Patel: Even before these events in the COVID era, we were wondering about athletes getting myocarditis, just in general, what do we know about that? People like Aaron Baggish, Kim Harmon, Jonathan Drezner, and others have been studying this.

Harrington: You and I did a show on athletes and COVID-19.

Patel: With the American Heart Association (AHA), the Cornell Foundation, and others, we started the Outcomes Registry for Cardiac Conditions in Athletes (ORCCA). This registry is across the United States, and athletes can sign up.

Harrington: Is it voluntary? Do the schools sign them up?

Patel: The athletes sign up. Team trainers and doctors talk to the athletes. We don’t really know the risks of some of these conditions. There’s a lot of gray area – people with certain conditions that were really interesting; aortas that are dilated in tall people.

Harrington: Long QT.

Patel: Long QT. There are certainly things that we know we should be intervening on and others where participation is a question. All of these we are trying to longitudinally put into the registry and follow them over time.

The second thing is understanding from the last Bethesda Conference that we want shared decision-making. There are going to be conditions where you say, “Look, I think your risk is high. You’ve a family history of sudden cardiac death. You have arrhythmias while you’re exercising.”

Harrington: You have a big, thick heart.

Patel: If you have hypertrophic cardiomyopathy, whether you’re an athlete or a 40-year-old adult, we’re going to have the same conversation. I think that holds. There’s a variety or a spectrum where we don’t know. I think the registry is one big step.

Thinking back to when somebody has an event, I would say take the teachable moment with the AHA and others to make sure your communities and your areas have automated external defibrillators (AEDs) and CPR training, and that we get to 100%: 100% response, 100% CPR, 100% defibrillation. I think that’s the first step.
 

Chain of survival

Harrington: Let’s really focus on the chain of survival. It is a chain: If any link is broken, your chance of survival really drops. We’ve had some well-known cases within our AHA community, including somebody who talks about it regularly: Kevin Volpp, from the University of Pennsylvania, a health economist. He had almost the perfect chain of survival. He had sudden cardiac death in a restaurant that was immediately observed, CPR started, EMTs called, and AED on the scene. Impressive.

Patel: That was in Cincinnati, where there are communities that have really worked on these things. I think you’re right. The chain of survival with rapid CPR to build a nation of survivors is key. The people at the AHA are helping us do this; there is a national call to make sure CPR is something that people feel comfortable doing. That they do it in men and women. They do it for anyone that goes down. And realize that it’s CPR that is hands-only. I think that’s an important lesson from Damar’s work, Nancy Brown’s, and AHA’s. Actually, schools in many countries require that to get through primary school.

Harrington: CPR training is a requirement to graduate from high school in some states.

Patel: My son just graduated from high school, and we spent time at his school making sure that everybody had access to CPR training. I think the way to do this is to start with that. Now, getting more specific about teams and athletes, I think most have emergency action plans, but it’s having action plans that work because of where you are and where the AED locations might be, or what the sport is. Having a plan on how you’re going to get that athlete to a place where you can help them recover is an important piece.

From there, I think the conversation for us is about what can we do as a society and as a country to answer some critical questions, including some real-world questions that people are asking: We had COVID-19 and we’re hearing these cases. Is this going up or down, and are these related?

Soon, hopefully the same group I talked about and others will have a publication, working with the NCAA to look at all of the deaths that they observed in NCAA Division I athletes over 20 years, including the sudden cardiac deaths. I won’t share the results because the publication isn’t out, but I think that’s the kind of important information that will help us understand if these rates are going up or down.

Harrington: What’s associated with that risk? Then we can start getting at whether it is something that, when we’re doing assessment for suitability for sports, has risk factors that should warrant more investigation.

Patel: Much like the field of cardiology, we haven’t enough of an evidence base, the right technologies, or the studies to determine how we should do screening, or not screening, across the board. Again, there is variation. There are some countries where anyone participating is going to get an ECG and an echocardiogram. There are other countries, like the United States, where it’s going to be a bit dependent on athlete risk.

Harrington: And where you live.

Patel: And where you live. Unfortunately, again, that brings in the idea that it might not be equitable in how we’re evaluating these individuals. I do think the opportunity to start to standardize that evaluation exists, and it likely comes from the ability to look back and say, “Here are some higher-risk individuals or some higher-risk scenarios.”

Harrington: Isn’t this what we do all the time in clinical medicine?

Patel: It’s going to be applied to a population that maybe is not as studied. I said this to you before we came on. The other thing is to make sure that the shared decision-making allows athletes who feel like they have a chance or want to play. During COVID, we had many college athletes, high school athletes, and kids not able to participate in sports. There was significant depression, feeling of loneliness, and even physical loss. People were actually getting less conditioned quickly. There’s a great benefit to sports participation.

Harrington: We were extrapolating from older data. If I’ve just had this new infection, COVID, and I’ve maybe got some signs of it in my heart, why can’t I exercise? That’s extrapolating from old myocarditis data.

Patel: We’re having to learn and follow it. I think there’s value in following that and getting those data. The second thing I think is really valuable is that we’ve shown that these individuals, if you do have these conversations and follow them, can participate and can be part of understanding the risk just like anything else.

Harrington: Is it sport specific? Are there some sports where maybe the conversation should be a little more intense than in other sports?

Patel: I think what we’ll see is that the conversations may be sport specific, and some may concern the number of athletes tested. At times, it’s pretty complicated. It does look like there are, as you know, different weight-bearing performance athletes, endurance athletes, or what I’ll call burst sports. There will probably be data that will identify certain sports where we may need to pay a bit more attention.

Harrington: What about the contact issues? Damar had a very specific thing, we think, happen to him. Football is a violent, contact-oriented sport, but fortunately we don’t regularly see what happened to Damar.

Patel: We’re talking about sudden cardiac death, but obviously, contact issues and neurologic evaluation is a whole other topic. That’s another big issue that I know many are following, and the NCAA is carefully, too. For Damar, I think we know that it was commotio cordis. At least when that happens, when there’s a ball or a trauma to the chest, those things have to be timed just so to actually lead to this event. Thankfully, it’s not very frequent, but it can happen.

Harrington: Hockey pucks, baseballs, soccer balls, a helmet to the chest ...

Patel: You have to be in a specific cycle of the squeeze. We don’t see that very frequently. I do think the evaluation and treatment, hopefully, makes a difference. One thing that we’re evolving in the screening world is our imaging; it’s getting better. We are not just doing echocardiograms; we are able to do other studies. There’s a mix of imaging and other technologies.

Is screening the answer?

Harrington: Let’s talk about that because screening is the area, I would say, with the most controversy – and a large amount of emotional controversy. Some argue that the data are not good enough to screen, or doctors are saying, “Wait a minute, why are we screening all these kids?” You said you were at your son’s high school doing CPR training. How many athletes are at his high school? There are many, and that’s a pretty small high school. Big communities, big universities, and the professional sports can afford it. Should we be doing this at the community level?

Patel: There have been some data. The Italians have done standard screening for some time, and it’s shown us that if you did echocardiograms in many individuals, you do find some cases that are hypertrophic cardiomyopathy in pathology. The issue is just how much you have to do and the resource utilization. I think as we get to a world where screening studies can happen with smaller technology and AI, that can be democratizing in how we get to athletes.

Harrington: Give an example of that. We were talking outside, you and I, about some of the new stethoscope technology.

Patel: Yes, stethoscopes are going to be one of the examples. We have stethoscopes that have the ability to get sounds and ECG signals, or at least some lead signals.

Harrington: Yes.

Patel: Potentially you can imagine that sound and ECG tracing in an AI environment, at least getting you from “everyone gets a listen with one stethoscope in their gym from their coach,” and it goes to the cloud. When there are enough questions, these are the ones that have to go further. Now, that’s a big study that has to be carried out; I’m not in any way saying we should do that.

Harrington: The technology is coming.

Patel: We start to see that our ability to rapidly do something to meet our athletes or our patients where they are will happen soon. Remember that the performance curve can vary, but once you have a sound where you can start to say that this is a regular flow murmur vs. “I’m worried about this,” especially as you mark it with ECG – that’s one example.

Smaller imaging is another example. For many years, ECGs have been talked about. There are entire courses that we run looking at ECGs in athletes. Remembering that Aaron Baggish and others are publishing that these individuals are large. When we look at their hearts, we see that they’re large, but when you adjust for size, often you can identify that many of them are within what we think are normal. Structurally, there are still many cases where you look at hearts and you’re asking, “Is this a thick heart? Is this noncompaction? Is this some pathology?”

That’s where you need imaging expertise. I think you have to have those individuals. I’m not advocating screening. I’m advocating studying it and that we should be thinking about the population. I don’t see a world where we don’t eventually start to really look to prevent those.

Harrington: Right. Whether it’s understanding that there are certain risk factors associated with this and we have to dedicate screening resources to those individuals, or if we want to do it more broadly on the population level to understand this with deeper dives into certain individuals, we’ve got to study it.

Patel: Some of the experts in sports medicine and sports cardiology have been collecting these data for a while. It’s time that we are there, because with these events we have the opportunity to share more of these data and maybe raise awareness – not in the teachable moment only – to get others to contribute.

I do believe that long term there’s an opportunity. We’ve seen that. We see that the rates, unfortunately, for marathon runners, where people unfortunately have events, seem to be higher. And we’ve seen the studies on troponin leaks in these individuals or evidence that there’s some effect on the heart from these events. We want people to be able to be long-term healthy.
 

Early defibrillation

Harrington: A large amount of work needs to be done. We talked with regard to screening, we’ve talked about CPR. We really need to have a nation of people who can do hands-only CPR. Let’s talk about AEDs, another key part of the chain of survival.

Patel: We have another important study going on, but an important message first: AEDs are critical to survival. We know that CPR is critical, but so is getting people to a defibrillator.

Harrington: Early defibrillation.

Patel: Early defibrillation. Early CPR is one of the biggest markers of making sure we perfuse people to get to early defibrillation, but then you have to get early defibrillation. There’s been a huge push in many communities, again, along with AHA and others, to make sure that AEDs are available not only in the U.S. but around the world. We’re at ESC and we see the push around the world to get AEDs available. They’ve come down in size and come down in cost, and that’s made it much more accessible. That’s really good. They’re still not always there.

We’ve seen really interesting randomized studies with people in some European countries where they have certain areas, just because of the locations, where bystanders will help get an AED  vs. randomizing to the EMS truck. They seem better in some of those variations. Chris Granger, at our institution, with Monique Starks, Dan Mark, and others, is doing a study in North Carolina where we’re testing different ways to potentially get AEDs in communities. We’re randomizing counties to one or two ways of getting AEDs to those individuals.

Harrington: Can you have an app where you just click “Find me an AED”?

Patel: Is there a world where the AED is found or is something bringing you the AED? Are there drones? Are there people driving? Are there ways that an AED is brought to the scene? All of those are going to be critical. It starts with continuing to figure out ways to support the costs of getting AEDs in places. The technology is continuing to evolve.

Harrington: It really is the premedical system stuff that makes the difference. Once EMS arrives with trained individuals who can defibrillate, they can transport you to a medical facility where trained physicians are at. It’s that pre-EMS thing that is so critical.

Patel: We talk often about athletes, but cardiac arrest care in general, and the chain of survival with CPR and AEDs, is critical. I still see patients in the CICU at Duke where, unfortunately, the biggest driver, as you just highlighted in that chain of survival, is how rapid we were in that golden hour. In the first 15 minutes, are you getting CPR, are you getting AED? Are you getting to a system?

Harrington: Are you getting a rapid transport?

Patel: Are you getting a neurologic assessment? Are you getting cooled or not? Those are important things.

Harrington: All right. Let’s try to wrap this up. Teachable moments, we talked about. One of the things about cases in prominent athletes is that it makes it to the newspaper and then it raises awareness. There is a drawing inference from a small group of cases to the broader societal issues. That’s an important topic.

We’ve talked about possible screening options, identifying at-risk individuals and high-risk individuals. A large amount of data has already been accumulated, but there is more work to be done. We focused on how to use those teachable moments to really influence the chain of survival, not just for athletes but for society at large.

I love your point about the Bethesda Conference on shared decision-making. Like with everything else, we have to have that two-way conversation: What are the athlete’s goals, hopes, and aspirations?

Patel: That group of experts, in addition to shared decision-making, gave us a whole list of conditions that we should be aware of and the cutpoints of where we think normal and not normal live for athletes. I think that’s used by many.

Can we build our systems to make research happen faster for the individuals? These athletes are at colleges that are obviously doing so much to make sure they’re okay. The people who are helping with this registry, and others, are going to continue to work to ask whether we can engage them as citizen participants and scientists. I think athletes are going to become some of our best advocates for why you’d want to know about yourself and how to perform CPR.

Harrington: I love the concept of citizen scientists, that we all have an obligation to contribute to the evidence base because we all want to use that evidence.

This has been a terrific conversation. I’ve been joined by my good friend, Dr. Manesh Patel from Duke University. I hope you’ve enjoyed our discussion here at the ESC. We have been taking a little break from the science going on around us to talk about sudden cardiac death in athletes. It really does have implications for broader societal concepts.

Dr. Harrington is the Stephen and Suzanne Weiss Dean of Weill Cornell Medicine and provost for medical affairs of Cornell University, New York, as well as a former president of the American Heart Association. He has disclosed the following relevant financial relationships: Research relationships with Baim Institute (DSMB); CSL (RCT executive committee); Janssen (RCT chair); National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (RCT executive committee, DSMB chair); Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (RCT co-chair); Duke Clinical Research Institute. Consulting relationships with Atropos Health; Bitterroot Bio; Bristol Myers Squibb; BridgeBio; Element Science; Edwards Lifesciences; Foresite Labs; Medscape/WebMD Board of Directors for: American Heart Association; College of the Holy Cross; Cytokinetics. Dr. Patel is professor of medicine, Duke University; chief, division of cardiology; director, Duke Heart Center, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, N.C. He has disclosed the following relevant financial relationships: Serve(d) as a director, officer, partner, employee, adviser, consultant, or trustee for Bayer; Janssen; Novartis (consultant). Received research grant from Bayer; Janssen.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Recorded Aug. 26, 2023. This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Robert A. Harrington, MD: I’m here with my good friend, Manesh Patel, from Duke University. We’re at the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) congress in Amsterdam, and I pulled Manesh into the studio for a conversation about something that’s really topical right now: sudden cardiac death in athletes.

What I hope to do [in this interview] is really pick Manesh’s brain on how we are thinking about this. Are we going to think about treatment issues? Are we going to think about prevention issues? Are we thinking about screening? We’ll try to make it practical.

Dr. Manesh Patel is chief of cardiovascular medicine at Duke University and also the director of the Duke Heart Center. Manesh, thanks for joining me here.
 

Bronny James and Damar Hamlin

Manesh R. Patel, MD: Excited to be here, Bob. Always.

Harrington: [Recently,] a news article comes out about the cause of Bronny James’ sudden cardiac death. Let me put this into a bigger societal context.

Last winter, Damar Hamlin, from the Buffalo Bills, suffered a traumatic injury on the field, and with that, had cardiac arrest. He’s back playing football – great to see. You and I are involved with the American Heart Association. He’s been very supportive of our efforts around things like CPR. He’s been terrific. It’s great to see him playing.

We know a little less about Bronny James. The news articles say the cause is both functional and anatomical, and it seems to be congenital, but we don’t have any details beyond this. Let’s not focus on the people; let’s focus on the topic.

Patel: I’m excited that we’re having the conversation. First and foremost, we’re excited that, with what we’ve seen on a national stage, these two individuals are doing well. They survived sudden cardiac death, which is a testament to all the things that we’ll talk about.

There are many important questions, like, is this increasing? Is this something we can prevent? And what are those things that might be happening to athletes?

Harrington: Can we predict it?

Patel: Right. I think the idea of sudden cardiac death in athletes is really a critical one for us to think about because it does concern participation and what we think about that. There are many experts who’ve been studying this for years that I now get to work with.

Harrington: Tell us a little bit about the kind of things you’ve been doing in this area.

Patel: Even before these events in the COVID era, we were wondering about athletes getting myocarditis, just in general, what do we know about that? People like Aaron Baggish, Kim Harmon, Jonathan Drezner, and others have been studying this.

Harrington: You and I did a show on athletes and COVID-19.

Patel: With the American Heart Association (AHA), the Cornell Foundation, and others, we started the Outcomes Registry for Cardiac Conditions in Athletes (ORCCA). This registry is across the United States, and athletes can sign up.

Harrington: Is it voluntary? Do the schools sign them up?

Patel: The athletes sign up. Team trainers and doctors talk to the athletes. We don’t really know the risks of some of these conditions. There’s a lot of gray area – people with certain conditions that were really interesting; aortas that are dilated in tall people.

Harrington: Long QT.

Patel: Long QT. There are certainly things that we know we should be intervening on and others where participation is a question. All of these we are trying to longitudinally put into the registry and follow them over time.

The second thing is understanding from the last Bethesda Conference that we want shared decision-making. There are going to be conditions where you say, “Look, I think your risk is high. You’ve a family history of sudden cardiac death. You have arrhythmias while you’re exercising.”

Harrington: You have a big, thick heart.

Patel: If you have hypertrophic cardiomyopathy, whether you’re an athlete or a 40-year-old adult, we’re going to have the same conversation. I think that holds. There’s a variety or a spectrum where we don’t know. I think the registry is one big step.

Thinking back to when somebody has an event, I would say take the teachable moment with the AHA and others to make sure your communities and your areas have automated external defibrillators (AEDs) and CPR training, and that we get to 100%: 100% response, 100% CPR, 100% defibrillation. I think that’s the first step.
 

Chain of survival

Harrington: Let’s really focus on the chain of survival. It is a chain: If any link is broken, your chance of survival really drops. We’ve had some well-known cases within our AHA community, including somebody who talks about it regularly: Kevin Volpp, from the University of Pennsylvania, a health economist. He had almost the perfect chain of survival. He had sudden cardiac death in a restaurant that was immediately observed, CPR started, EMTs called, and AED on the scene. Impressive.

Patel: That was in Cincinnati, where there are communities that have really worked on these things. I think you’re right. The chain of survival with rapid CPR to build a nation of survivors is key. The people at the AHA are helping us do this; there is a national call to make sure CPR is something that people feel comfortable doing. That they do it in men and women. They do it for anyone that goes down. And realize that it’s CPR that is hands-only. I think that’s an important lesson from Damar’s work, Nancy Brown’s, and AHA’s. Actually, schools in many countries require that to get through primary school.

Harrington: CPR training is a requirement to graduate from high school in some states.

Patel: My son just graduated from high school, and we spent time at his school making sure that everybody had access to CPR training. I think the way to do this is to start with that. Now, getting more specific about teams and athletes, I think most have emergency action plans, but it’s having action plans that work because of where you are and where the AED locations might be, or what the sport is. Having a plan on how you’re going to get that athlete to a place where you can help them recover is an important piece.

From there, I think the conversation for us is about what can we do as a society and as a country to answer some critical questions, including some real-world questions that people are asking: We had COVID-19 and we’re hearing these cases. Is this going up or down, and are these related?

Soon, hopefully the same group I talked about and others will have a publication, working with the NCAA to look at all of the deaths that they observed in NCAA Division I athletes over 20 years, including the sudden cardiac deaths. I won’t share the results because the publication isn’t out, but I think that’s the kind of important information that will help us understand if these rates are going up or down.

Harrington: What’s associated with that risk? Then we can start getting at whether it is something that, when we’re doing assessment for suitability for sports, has risk factors that should warrant more investigation.

Patel: Much like the field of cardiology, we haven’t enough of an evidence base, the right technologies, or the studies to determine how we should do screening, or not screening, across the board. Again, there is variation. There are some countries where anyone participating is going to get an ECG and an echocardiogram. There are other countries, like the United States, where it’s going to be a bit dependent on athlete risk.

Harrington: And where you live.

Patel: And where you live. Unfortunately, again, that brings in the idea that it might not be equitable in how we’re evaluating these individuals. I do think the opportunity to start to standardize that evaluation exists, and it likely comes from the ability to look back and say, “Here are some higher-risk individuals or some higher-risk scenarios.”

Harrington: Isn’t this what we do all the time in clinical medicine?

Patel: It’s going to be applied to a population that maybe is not as studied. I said this to you before we came on. The other thing is to make sure that the shared decision-making allows athletes who feel like they have a chance or want to play. During COVID, we had many college athletes, high school athletes, and kids not able to participate in sports. There was significant depression, feeling of loneliness, and even physical loss. People were actually getting less conditioned quickly. There’s a great benefit to sports participation.

Harrington: We were extrapolating from older data. If I’ve just had this new infection, COVID, and I’ve maybe got some signs of it in my heart, why can’t I exercise? That’s extrapolating from old myocarditis data.

Patel: We’re having to learn and follow it. I think there’s value in following that and getting those data. The second thing I think is really valuable is that we’ve shown that these individuals, if you do have these conversations and follow them, can participate and can be part of understanding the risk just like anything else.

Harrington: Is it sport specific? Are there some sports where maybe the conversation should be a little more intense than in other sports?

Patel: I think what we’ll see is that the conversations may be sport specific, and some may concern the number of athletes tested. At times, it’s pretty complicated. It does look like there are, as you know, different weight-bearing performance athletes, endurance athletes, or what I’ll call burst sports. There will probably be data that will identify certain sports where we may need to pay a bit more attention.

Harrington: What about the contact issues? Damar had a very specific thing, we think, happen to him. Football is a violent, contact-oriented sport, but fortunately we don’t regularly see what happened to Damar.

Patel: We’re talking about sudden cardiac death, but obviously, contact issues and neurologic evaluation is a whole other topic. That’s another big issue that I know many are following, and the NCAA is carefully, too. For Damar, I think we know that it was commotio cordis. At least when that happens, when there’s a ball or a trauma to the chest, those things have to be timed just so to actually lead to this event. Thankfully, it’s not very frequent, but it can happen.

Harrington: Hockey pucks, baseballs, soccer balls, a helmet to the chest ...

Patel: You have to be in a specific cycle of the squeeze. We don’t see that very frequently. I do think the evaluation and treatment, hopefully, makes a difference. One thing that we’re evolving in the screening world is our imaging; it’s getting better. We are not just doing echocardiograms; we are able to do other studies. There’s a mix of imaging and other technologies.

Is screening the answer?

Harrington: Let’s talk about that because screening is the area, I would say, with the most controversy – and a large amount of emotional controversy. Some argue that the data are not good enough to screen, or doctors are saying, “Wait a minute, why are we screening all these kids?” You said you were at your son’s high school doing CPR training. How many athletes are at his high school? There are many, and that’s a pretty small high school. Big communities, big universities, and the professional sports can afford it. Should we be doing this at the community level?

Patel: There have been some data. The Italians have done standard screening for some time, and it’s shown us that if you did echocardiograms in many individuals, you do find some cases that are hypertrophic cardiomyopathy in pathology. The issue is just how much you have to do and the resource utilization. I think as we get to a world where screening studies can happen with smaller technology and AI, that can be democratizing in how we get to athletes.

Harrington: Give an example of that. We were talking outside, you and I, about some of the new stethoscope technology.

Patel: Yes, stethoscopes are going to be one of the examples. We have stethoscopes that have the ability to get sounds and ECG signals, or at least some lead signals.

Harrington: Yes.

Patel: Potentially you can imagine that sound and ECG tracing in an AI environment, at least getting you from “everyone gets a listen with one stethoscope in their gym from their coach,” and it goes to the cloud. When there are enough questions, these are the ones that have to go further. Now, that’s a big study that has to be carried out; I’m not in any way saying we should do that.

Harrington: The technology is coming.

Patel: We start to see that our ability to rapidly do something to meet our athletes or our patients where they are will happen soon. Remember that the performance curve can vary, but once you have a sound where you can start to say that this is a regular flow murmur vs. “I’m worried about this,” especially as you mark it with ECG – that’s one example.

Smaller imaging is another example. For many years, ECGs have been talked about. There are entire courses that we run looking at ECGs in athletes. Remembering that Aaron Baggish and others are publishing that these individuals are large. When we look at their hearts, we see that they’re large, but when you adjust for size, often you can identify that many of them are within what we think are normal. Structurally, there are still many cases where you look at hearts and you’re asking, “Is this a thick heart? Is this noncompaction? Is this some pathology?”

That’s where you need imaging expertise. I think you have to have those individuals. I’m not advocating screening. I’m advocating studying it and that we should be thinking about the population. I don’t see a world where we don’t eventually start to really look to prevent those.

Harrington: Right. Whether it’s understanding that there are certain risk factors associated with this and we have to dedicate screening resources to those individuals, or if we want to do it more broadly on the population level to understand this with deeper dives into certain individuals, we’ve got to study it.

Patel: Some of the experts in sports medicine and sports cardiology have been collecting these data for a while. It’s time that we are there, because with these events we have the opportunity to share more of these data and maybe raise awareness – not in the teachable moment only – to get others to contribute.

I do believe that long term there’s an opportunity. We’ve seen that. We see that the rates, unfortunately, for marathon runners, where people unfortunately have events, seem to be higher. And we’ve seen the studies on troponin leaks in these individuals or evidence that there’s some effect on the heart from these events. We want people to be able to be long-term healthy.
 

Early defibrillation

Harrington: A large amount of work needs to be done. We talked with regard to screening, we’ve talked about CPR. We really need to have a nation of people who can do hands-only CPR. Let’s talk about AEDs, another key part of the chain of survival.

Patel: We have another important study going on, but an important message first: AEDs are critical to survival. We know that CPR is critical, but so is getting people to a defibrillator.

Harrington: Early defibrillation.

Patel: Early defibrillation. Early CPR is one of the biggest markers of making sure we perfuse people to get to early defibrillation, but then you have to get early defibrillation. There’s been a huge push in many communities, again, along with AHA and others, to make sure that AEDs are available not only in the U.S. but around the world. We’re at ESC and we see the push around the world to get AEDs available. They’ve come down in size and come down in cost, and that’s made it much more accessible. That’s really good. They’re still not always there.

We’ve seen really interesting randomized studies with people in some European countries where they have certain areas, just because of the locations, where bystanders will help get an AED  vs. randomizing to the EMS truck. They seem better in some of those variations. Chris Granger, at our institution, with Monique Starks, Dan Mark, and others, is doing a study in North Carolina where we’re testing different ways to potentially get AEDs in communities. We’re randomizing counties to one or two ways of getting AEDs to those individuals.

Harrington: Can you have an app where you just click “Find me an AED”?

Patel: Is there a world where the AED is found or is something bringing you the AED? Are there drones? Are there people driving? Are there ways that an AED is brought to the scene? All of those are going to be critical. It starts with continuing to figure out ways to support the costs of getting AEDs in places. The technology is continuing to evolve.

Harrington: It really is the premedical system stuff that makes the difference. Once EMS arrives with trained individuals who can defibrillate, they can transport you to a medical facility where trained physicians are at. It’s that pre-EMS thing that is so critical.

Patel: We talk often about athletes, but cardiac arrest care in general, and the chain of survival with CPR and AEDs, is critical. I still see patients in the CICU at Duke where, unfortunately, the biggest driver, as you just highlighted in that chain of survival, is how rapid we were in that golden hour. In the first 15 minutes, are you getting CPR, are you getting AED? Are you getting to a system?

Harrington: Are you getting a rapid transport?

Patel: Are you getting a neurologic assessment? Are you getting cooled or not? Those are important things.

Harrington: All right. Let’s try to wrap this up. Teachable moments, we talked about. One of the things about cases in prominent athletes is that it makes it to the newspaper and then it raises awareness. There is a drawing inference from a small group of cases to the broader societal issues. That’s an important topic.

We’ve talked about possible screening options, identifying at-risk individuals and high-risk individuals. A large amount of data has already been accumulated, but there is more work to be done. We focused on how to use those teachable moments to really influence the chain of survival, not just for athletes but for society at large.

I love your point about the Bethesda Conference on shared decision-making. Like with everything else, we have to have that two-way conversation: What are the athlete’s goals, hopes, and aspirations?

Patel: That group of experts, in addition to shared decision-making, gave us a whole list of conditions that we should be aware of and the cutpoints of where we think normal and not normal live for athletes. I think that’s used by many.

Can we build our systems to make research happen faster for the individuals? These athletes are at colleges that are obviously doing so much to make sure they’re okay. The people who are helping with this registry, and others, are going to continue to work to ask whether we can engage them as citizen participants and scientists. I think athletes are going to become some of our best advocates for why you’d want to know about yourself and how to perform CPR.

Harrington: I love the concept of citizen scientists, that we all have an obligation to contribute to the evidence base because we all want to use that evidence.

This has been a terrific conversation. I’ve been joined by my good friend, Dr. Manesh Patel from Duke University. I hope you’ve enjoyed our discussion here at the ESC. We have been taking a little break from the science going on around us to talk about sudden cardiac death in athletes. It really does have implications for broader societal concepts.

Dr. Harrington is the Stephen and Suzanne Weiss Dean of Weill Cornell Medicine and provost for medical affairs of Cornell University, New York, as well as a former president of the American Heart Association. He has disclosed the following relevant financial relationships: Research relationships with Baim Institute (DSMB); CSL (RCT executive committee); Janssen (RCT chair); National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (RCT executive committee, DSMB chair); Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (RCT co-chair); Duke Clinical Research Institute. Consulting relationships with Atropos Health; Bitterroot Bio; Bristol Myers Squibb; BridgeBio; Element Science; Edwards Lifesciences; Foresite Labs; Medscape/WebMD Board of Directors for: American Heart Association; College of the Holy Cross; Cytokinetics. Dr. Patel is professor of medicine, Duke University; chief, division of cardiology; director, Duke Heart Center, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, N.C. He has disclosed the following relevant financial relationships: Serve(d) as a director, officer, partner, employee, adviser, consultant, or trustee for Bayer; Janssen; Novartis (consultant). Received research grant from Bayer; Janssen.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

A newly published scientific statement from the American Heart Association focuses on the impact of aggressive low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) lowering on the risk for dementia and hemorrhagic stroke.

“The brain is the body’s most cholesterol-rich organ, and some have questioned whether aggressive LDL-C lowering induces abnormal structural and functional changes,” the writing group, led by Larry Goldstein, MD, chair, department of neurology, University of Kentucky, Lexington, points out.

The 39-page AHA scientific statement, titled “Aggressive LDL-C Lowering and the Brain: Impact on Risk for Dementia and Hemorrhagic Stroke,” was published online in the journal Arteriosclerosis, Thrombosis, and Vascular Biology.

The objective was to evaluate contemporary evidence that either supports or refutes the conclusion that aggressive LDL-C lowering or lipid lowering exerts toxic effects on the brain, leading to cognitive impairment or dementia or hemorrhagic stroke.

The eight-member writing group used literature reviews, references to published clinical and epidemiology studies, clinical and public health guidelines, authoritative statements, and expert opinion to summarize the latest evidence and identify gaps in current knowledge.

They reached four main conclusions:

• First, the available data “consistently” show that LDL-C lowering reduces the risk of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease-related events in high-risk groups.
• Second, although some older retrospective, case-control, and prospective longitudinal studies suggest that statins and LDL-C lowering are associated with cognitive impairment or dementia, the “preponderance” of observational studies and data from randomized trials do not support this conclusion, at least among trials with median follow-up of up to 6 years. The group says additional studies are needed to ensure cognitive safety over longer periods of time. For now, contemporary guidelines recommending the risk-stratified attainment of lipid-lowering goals are “reasonable,” they conclude.
• Third, the risk for hemorrhagic stroke associated with statin therapy in patients without a history of cerebrovascular disease is “small and consistently nonsignificant.” They found no evidence that PCSK9 inhibitors or ezetimibe (Zetia) increases bleeding risk. Further, there is “no indication” that patients or populations with lifelong low LDL-C have enhanced vulnerability to hemorrhagic stroke, and there is “little evidence” that achieving very low levels of LDL-C increases that risk. What is clear, the writing group says, is that lower LDL-C levels correlate with lower risk of overall stroke and stroke recurrence, mostly related to a reduction in ischemic stroke. “Concern about hemorrhagic stroke risk should not deter a clinician from treating LDL-C to guideline-recommended risk-stratified targets,” the writing group says.
• Fourth, the group notes that data reflecting the risk of hemorrhagic stroke with statin therapy among patients with a history of hemorrhagic stroke are not robust. PCSK9 inhibitors have not been adequately tested in patients with prior intracerebral hemorrhage. Lipid lowering in these populations requires more focused study.

The research had no commercial funding. A list of disclosures for the writing group is available with the original article.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

A newly published scientific statement from the American Heart Association focuses on the impact of aggressive low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) lowering on the risk for dementia and hemorrhagic stroke.

“The brain is the body’s most cholesterol-rich organ, and some have questioned whether aggressive LDL-C lowering induces abnormal structural and functional changes,” the writing group, led by Larry Goldstein, MD, chair, department of neurology, University of Kentucky, Lexington, points out.

The 39-page AHA scientific statement, titled “Aggressive LDL-C Lowering and the Brain: Impact on Risk for Dementia and Hemorrhagic Stroke,” was published online in the journal Arteriosclerosis, Thrombosis, and Vascular Biology.

The objective was to evaluate contemporary evidence that either supports or refutes the conclusion that aggressive LDL-C lowering or lipid lowering exerts toxic effects on the brain, leading to cognitive impairment or dementia or hemorrhagic stroke.

The eight-member writing group used literature reviews, references to published clinical and epidemiology studies, clinical and public health guidelines, authoritative statements, and expert opinion to summarize the latest evidence and identify gaps in current knowledge.

They reached four main conclusions:

• First, the available data “consistently” show that LDL-C lowering reduces the risk of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease-related events in high-risk groups.
• Second, although some older retrospective, case-control, and prospective longitudinal studies suggest that statins and LDL-C lowering are associated with cognitive impairment or dementia, the “preponderance” of observational studies and data from randomized trials do not support this conclusion, at least among trials with median follow-up of up to 6 years. The group says additional studies are needed to ensure cognitive safety over longer periods of time. For now, contemporary guidelines recommending the risk-stratified attainment of lipid-lowering goals are “reasonable,” they conclude.
• Third, the risk for hemorrhagic stroke associated with statin therapy in patients without a history of cerebrovascular disease is “small and consistently nonsignificant.” They found no evidence that PCSK9 inhibitors or ezetimibe (Zetia) increases bleeding risk. Further, there is “no indication” that patients or populations with lifelong low LDL-C have enhanced vulnerability to hemorrhagic stroke, and there is “little evidence” that achieving very low levels of LDL-C increases that risk. What is clear, the writing group says, is that lower LDL-C levels correlate with lower risk of overall stroke and stroke recurrence, mostly related to a reduction in ischemic stroke. “Concern about hemorrhagic stroke risk should not deter a clinician from treating LDL-C to guideline-recommended risk-stratified targets,” the writing group says.
• Fourth, the group notes that data reflecting the risk of hemorrhagic stroke with statin therapy among patients with a history of hemorrhagic stroke are not robust. PCSK9 inhibitors have not been adequately tested in patients with prior intracerebral hemorrhage. Lipid lowering in these populations requires more focused study.

The research had no commercial funding. A list of disclosures for the writing group is available with the original article.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

A newly published scientific statement from the American Heart Association focuses on the impact of aggressive low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) lowering on the risk for dementia and hemorrhagic stroke.

“The brain is the body’s most cholesterol-rich organ, and some have questioned whether aggressive LDL-C lowering induces abnormal structural and functional changes,” the writing group, led by Larry Goldstein, MD, chair, department of neurology, University of Kentucky, Lexington, points out.

The 39-page AHA scientific statement, titled “Aggressive LDL-C Lowering and the Brain: Impact on Risk for Dementia and Hemorrhagic Stroke,” was published online in the journal Arteriosclerosis, Thrombosis, and Vascular Biology.

The objective was to evaluate contemporary evidence that either supports or refutes the conclusion that aggressive LDL-C lowering or lipid lowering exerts toxic effects on the brain, leading to cognitive impairment or dementia or hemorrhagic stroke.

The eight-member writing group used literature reviews, references to published clinical and epidemiology studies, clinical and public health guidelines, authoritative statements, and expert opinion to summarize the latest evidence and identify gaps in current knowledge.

They reached four main conclusions:

• First, the available data “consistently” show that LDL-C lowering reduces the risk of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease-related events in high-risk groups.
• Second, although some older retrospective, case-control, and prospective longitudinal studies suggest that statins and LDL-C lowering are associated with cognitive impairment or dementia, the “preponderance” of observational studies and data from randomized trials do not support this conclusion, at least among trials with median follow-up of up to 6 years. The group says additional studies are needed to ensure cognitive safety over longer periods of time. For now, contemporary guidelines recommending the risk-stratified attainment of lipid-lowering goals are “reasonable,” they conclude.
• Third, the risk for hemorrhagic stroke associated with statin therapy in patients without a history of cerebrovascular disease is “small and consistently nonsignificant.” They found no evidence that PCSK9 inhibitors or ezetimibe (Zetia) increases bleeding risk. Further, there is “no indication” that patients or populations with lifelong low LDL-C have enhanced vulnerability to hemorrhagic stroke, and there is “little evidence” that achieving very low levels of LDL-C increases that risk. What is clear, the writing group says, is that lower LDL-C levels correlate with lower risk of overall stroke and stroke recurrence, mostly related to a reduction in ischemic stroke. “Concern about hemorrhagic stroke risk should not deter a clinician from treating LDL-C to guideline-recommended risk-stratified targets,” the writing group says.
• Fourth, the group notes that data reflecting the risk of hemorrhagic stroke with statin therapy among patients with a history of hemorrhagic stroke are not robust. PCSK9 inhibitors have not been adequately tested in patients with prior intracerebral hemorrhage. Lipid lowering in these populations requires more focused study.

The research had no commercial funding. A list of disclosures for the writing group is available with the original article.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Many labels on fish oil supplements make unsubstantiated health claims, and products contain variable daily doses of EPA plus DHA, a cross-sectional study suggests.

Overall, about 74% of more than 2,800 supplements that were examined had labels that made at least one health claim, and only 19% included a U.S. Food and Drug Administration–reviewed qualified health claim (QHC).

©Clayton Hansen/iStockphoto

‘Vague statements’

To evaluate health claims made on fish oil supplement labels in the United States and to examine doses of eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA) and docosahexaenoic acid (DHA) in commonly available formulations, the investigators analyzed labels on supplements obtained from the National Institutes of Health Dietary Supplement Label Database.

The main outcomes were the frequency and types of health claims made on the labels, including use of an FDA-reviewed QHC versus a structure/function claim and the organ system referenced, as well as the total daily doses in combined EPA and DHA supplements from leading manufacturers and retailers.

QHCs are statements regarding a supplement’s or food’s potential to treatment or prevent disease. Such claims undergo evidence review by the FDA and include qualifying language that reflects lack of scientific consensus or uncertainty.

An example: “Consuming EPA and DHA combined may reduce the risk of CHD [coronary heart disease] by lowering blood pressure. However, FDA has concluded that the evidence is inconsistent and inconclusive. One serving of [name of the food or dietary supplement] provides [ ] gram(s) of EPA and DHA.”

By contrast, structure/function claims “describe the role of a nutrient or dietary ingredient intended to affect the structure or function in humans” but do not state that the supplement prevents, treats, or cures any disease. Such a claim “does not require any mitigating language regarding potential scientific uncertainty of the statement.”

Structure/function claims commonly state that the supplement “maintains,” “supports,” or “promotes” the function of certain organs. Examples are “promotes heart health” and “supports heart, mind and mood.”

Among 2,819 fish oil supplements, 2,082 (73.9%) made at least one health claim. Of these, only 399 (19.2%) used a QHC; the rest made only structure/function claims. In addition to heart-health claims, many fish oil supplements also have labels that make claims implying benefit to other organ systems, such as brain/mental health, joint health, and eye health – despite a lack of data from randomized clinical trials that support benefit.

The dose analysis of 255 fish oil supplements across 16 major brands found “substantial variability” in the daily dose of EPA (median interquartile range, 340 [135-647] mg/d), DHA (median IQR, 270 [140-500] mg/d), and total EPA+DHA (median IQR, 600 [300-1,100] mg/d).

Twenty-four (9.4%) of the supplements contained a daily dose of 2 g or more EPA+DHA.

“Significant heterogeneity exists in the daily dose of EPA+DHA in available supplements, leading to potential variability in safety and efficacy between supplements,” the authors conclude. “Increasing regulation of dietary supplement labeling may be needed to prevent consumer misinformation.”

Dr. Navar added, “We now need to understand what consumers are taking away from vague statements like ‘promotes brain health’ or ‘supports joint function’ – and test what language we can use to accurately describe the state of the science around fish oil and heart health.”
 

Enthusiasm vs. evidence

“I agree with these concerns and think that the enthusiasm for these supplements outpaces the evidence from rigorous randomized clinical trials,” JoAnn E. Manson, MD, MPH, DrPH, chief of the Division of Preventive Medicine at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, said in an interview. “Results of the observational studies have tended to be much more favorable than the randomized clinical trials.

“The labels can be very misleading to the general public,” she noted. “People are confronted with a dizzying array of dietary supplements, many of which include structure/function claims that require minimal, if any, evidence of efficacy. Clinicians should emphasize with patients that a dietary supplement will never be a substitute for a heart-healthy diet and that many supplements are not helpful for people who already follow a healthy diet,” she said.

The VITAL trial, for which Dr. Manson was principal investigator, showed that supplementation with n-3 fatty acids did not lead to a lower incidence of major cardiovascular events or cancer, compared with placebo.

A subgroup analysis showed that 1 g/d conferred a 20% reduction in major events only for participants who ate less than 1.5 servings of fish per week, Dr. Manson said.

Regarding supplement labels, clinicians should recommend that patients look for a U.S. Pharmacopoeia seal or a seal from the National Science Foundation or ConsumerLab, she advised. These seals ensure that the product has been audited for purity and consistency of content and that the dose in the capsule is consistent with what is on the label.

Dr. Manson also would like to see labels explain that most of the products have not been reviewed by the FDA. “Many members of the general public are misled by these labels into thinking that they’re going to receive health benefits. They’re spending a lot of money on supplements that likely provide no benefit and may even be associated with increased risks.”

No funding for the study was reported. Dr. Navar has received grants from BMS, Esperion, Amgen, and Janssen and personal fees from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bayer, BMS, Esperion, Janssen, Eli Lilly, Merck, Silence Therapeutics, Novo Nordisk, Novartis, New Amsterdam, and Pfizer outside the submitted work and serves as deputy editor for equity, diversity, and inclusion at JAMA Cardiology.

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

Many labels on fish oil supplements make unsubstantiated health claims, and products contain variable daily doses of EPA plus DHA, a cross-sectional study suggests.

Overall, about 74% of more than 2,800 supplements that were examined had labels that made at least one health claim, and only 19% included a U.S. Food and Drug Administration–reviewed qualified health claim (QHC).

©Clayton Hansen/iStockphoto

‘Vague statements’

To evaluate health claims made on fish oil supplement labels in the United States and to examine doses of eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA) and docosahexaenoic acid (DHA) in commonly available formulations, the investigators analyzed labels on supplements obtained from the National Institutes of Health Dietary Supplement Label Database.

The main outcomes were the frequency and types of health claims made on the labels, including use of an FDA-reviewed QHC versus a structure/function claim and the organ system referenced, as well as the total daily doses in combined EPA and DHA supplements from leading manufacturers and retailers.

QHCs are statements regarding a supplement’s or food’s potential to treatment or prevent disease. Such claims undergo evidence review by the FDA and include qualifying language that reflects lack of scientific consensus or uncertainty.

An example: “Consuming EPA and DHA combined may reduce the risk of CHD [coronary heart disease] by lowering blood pressure. However, FDA has concluded that the evidence is inconsistent and inconclusive. One serving of [name of the food or dietary supplement] provides [ ] gram(s) of EPA and DHA.”

By contrast, structure/function claims “describe the role of a nutrient or dietary ingredient intended to affect the structure or function in humans” but do not state that the supplement prevents, treats, or cures any disease. Such a claim “does not require any mitigating language regarding potential scientific uncertainty of the statement.”

Structure/function claims commonly state that the supplement “maintains,” “supports,” or “promotes” the function of certain organs. Examples are “promotes heart health” and “supports heart, mind and mood.”

Among 2,819 fish oil supplements, 2,082 (73.9%) made at least one health claim. Of these, only 399 (19.2%) used a QHC; the rest made only structure/function claims. In addition to heart-health claims, many fish oil supplements also have labels that make claims implying benefit to other organ systems, such as brain/mental health, joint health, and eye health – despite a lack of data from randomized clinical trials that support benefit.

The dose analysis of 255 fish oil supplements across 16 major brands found “substantial variability” in the daily dose of EPA (median interquartile range, 340 [135-647] mg/d), DHA (median IQR, 270 [140-500] mg/d), and total EPA+DHA (median IQR, 600 [300-1,100] mg/d).

Twenty-four (9.4%) of the supplements contained a daily dose of 2 g or more EPA+DHA.

“Significant heterogeneity exists in the daily dose of EPA+DHA in available supplements, leading to potential variability in safety and efficacy between supplements,” the authors conclude. “Increasing regulation of dietary supplement labeling may be needed to prevent consumer misinformation.”

Dr. Navar added, “We now need to understand what consumers are taking away from vague statements like ‘promotes brain health’ or ‘supports joint function’ – and test what language we can use to accurately describe the state of the science around fish oil and heart health.”
 

Enthusiasm vs. evidence

“I agree with these concerns and think that the enthusiasm for these supplements outpaces the evidence from rigorous randomized clinical trials,” JoAnn E. Manson, MD, MPH, DrPH, chief of the Division of Preventive Medicine at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, said in an interview. “Results of the observational studies have tended to be much more favorable than the randomized clinical trials.

“The labels can be very misleading to the general public,” she noted. “People are confronted with a dizzying array of dietary supplements, many of which include structure/function claims that require minimal, if any, evidence of efficacy. Clinicians should emphasize with patients that a dietary supplement will never be a substitute for a heart-healthy diet and that many supplements are not helpful for people who already follow a healthy diet,” she said.

The VITAL trial, for which Dr. Manson was principal investigator, showed that supplementation with n-3 fatty acids did not lead to a lower incidence of major cardiovascular events or cancer, compared with placebo.

A subgroup analysis showed that 1 g/d conferred a 20% reduction in major events only for participants who ate less than 1.5 servings of fish per week, Dr. Manson said.

Regarding supplement labels, clinicians should recommend that patients look for a U.S. Pharmacopoeia seal or a seal from the National Science Foundation or ConsumerLab, she advised. These seals ensure that the product has been audited for purity and consistency of content and that the dose in the capsule is consistent with what is on the label.

Dr. Manson also would like to see labels explain that most of the products have not been reviewed by the FDA. “Many members of the general public are misled by these labels into thinking that they’re going to receive health benefits. They’re spending a lot of money on supplements that likely provide no benefit and may even be associated with increased risks.”

No funding for the study was reported. Dr. Navar has received grants from BMS, Esperion, Amgen, and Janssen and personal fees from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bayer, BMS, Esperion, Janssen, Eli Lilly, Merck, Silence Therapeutics, Novo Nordisk, Novartis, New Amsterdam, and Pfizer outside the submitted work and serves as deputy editor for equity, diversity, and inclusion at JAMA Cardiology.

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

Many labels on fish oil supplements make unsubstantiated health claims, and products contain variable daily doses of EPA plus DHA, a cross-sectional study suggests.

Overall, about 74% of more than 2,800 supplements that were examined had labels that made at least one health claim, and only 19% included a U.S. Food and Drug Administration–reviewed qualified health claim (QHC).

©Clayton Hansen/iStockphoto

‘Vague statements’

To evaluate health claims made on fish oil supplement labels in the United States and to examine doses of eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA) and docosahexaenoic acid (DHA) in commonly available formulations, the investigators analyzed labels on supplements obtained from the National Institutes of Health Dietary Supplement Label Database.

The main outcomes were the frequency and types of health claims made on the labels, including use of an FDA-reviewed QHC versus a structure/function claim and the organ system referenced, as well as the total daily doses in combined EPA and DHA supplements from leading manufacturers and retailers.

QHCs are statements regarding a supplement’s or food’s potential to treatment or prevent disease. Such claims undergo evidence review by the FDA and include qualifying language that reflects lack of scientific consensus or uncertainty.

An example: “Consuming EPA and DHA combined may reduce the risk of CHD [coronary heart disease] by lowering blood pressure. However, FDA has concluded that the evidence is inconsistent and inconclusive. One serving of [name of the food or dietary supplement] provides [ ] gram(s) of EPA and DHA.”

By contrast, structure/function claims “describe the role of a nutrient or dietary ingredient intended to affect the structure or function in humans” but do not state that the supplement prevents, treats, or cures any disease. Such a claim “does not require any mitigating language regarding potential scientific uncertainty of the statement.”

Structure/function claims commonly state that the supplement “maintains,” “supports,” or “promotes” the function of certain organs. Examples are “promotes heart health” and “supports heart, mind and mood.”

Among 2,819 fish oil supplements, 2,082 (73.9%) made at least one health claim. Of these, only 399 (19.2%) used a QHC; the rest made only structure/function claims. In addition to heart-health claims, many fish oil supplements also have labels that make claims implying benefit to other organ systems, such as brain/mental health, joint health, and eye health – despite a lack of data from randomized clinical trials that support benefit.

The dose analysis of 255 fish oil supplements across 16 major brands found “substantial variability” in the daily dose of EPA (median interquartile range, 340 [135-647] mg/d), DHA (median IQR, 270 [140-500] mg/d), and total EPA+DHA (median IQR, 600 [300-1,100] mg/d).

Twenty-four (9.4%) of the supplements contained a daily dose of 2 g or more EPA+DHA.

“Significant heterogeneity exists in the daily dose of EPA+DHA in available supplements, leading to potential variability in safety and efficacy between supplements,” the authors conclude. “Increasing regulation of dietary supplement labeling may be needed to prevent consumer misinformation.”

Dr. Navar added, “We now need to understand what consumers are taking away from vague statements like ‘promotes brain health’ or ‘supports joint function’ – and test what language we can use to accurately describe the state of the science around fish oil and heart health.”
 

Enthusiasm vs. evidence

“I agree with these concerns and think that the enthusiasm for these supplements outpaces the evidence from rigorous randomized clinical trials,” JoAnn E. Manson, MD, MPH, DrPH, chief of the Division of Preventive Medicine at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, said in an interview. “Results of the observational studies have tended to be much more favorable than the randomized clinical trials.

“The labels can be very misleading to the general public,” she noted. “People are confronted with a dizzying array of dietary supplements, many of which include structure/function claims that require minimal, if any, evidence of efficacy. Clinicians should emphasize with patients that a dietary supplement will never be a substitute for a heart-healthy diet and that many supplements are not helpful for people who already follow a healthy diet,” she said.

The VITAL trial, for which Dr. Manson was principal investigator, showed that supplementation with n-3 fatty acids did not lead to a lower incidence of major cardiovascular events or cancer, compared with placebo.

A subgroup analysis showed that 1 g/d conferred a 20% reduction in major events only for participants who ate less than 1.5 servings of fish per week, Dr. Manson said.

Regarding supplement labels, clinicians should recommend that patients look for a U.S. Pharmacopoeia seal or a seal from the National Science Foundation or ConsumerLab, she advised. These seals ensure that the product has been audited for purity and consistency of content and that the dose in the capsule is consistent with what is on the label.

Dr. Manson also would like to see labels explain that most of the products have not been reviewed by the FDA. “Many members of the general public are misled by these labels into thinking that they’re going to receive health benefits. They’re spending a lot of money on supplements that likely provide no benefit and may even be associated with increased risks.”

No funding for the study was reported. Dr. Navar has received grants from BMS, Esperion, Amgen, and Janssen and personal fees from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bayer, BMS, Esperion, Janssen, Eli Lilly, Merck, Silence Therapeutics, Novo Nordisk, Novartis, New Amsterdam, and Pfizer outside the submitted work and serves as deputy editor for equity, diversity, and inclusion at JAMA Cardiology.

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

Taking a patient’s blood pressure while the patient is lying down may yield more information about their cardiovascular risk than taking the reading while the patient is sitting upright, new preliminary research suggests.

An analysis of data from a long-running Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities (ARIC) study of more than 11,000 adults showed that those who had hypertension while supine were at elevated risk for cardiovascular disease (CVD) independently of their having hypertension while seated.

“If blood pressure is only measured while people are seated upright, cardiovascular disease risk may be missed if not measured also while they are lying supine on their backs,” lead investigator Duc M. Giao, a researcher and a fourth-year medical student at Harvard Medical School, Boston, said in a news release.

Mr. Giao presented the findings at the Hypertension Scientific Sessions.
 

Take seated and supine BP in clinic?

Hypertension while asleep is strongly associated with CVD and death, but whether hypertension detected in clinic while the patient is lying flat is a risk factor for CVD independently of the patient’s BP while seated remains unclear.

To investigate, Mr. Giao and colleagues reviewed health data for 11,369 adults (mean age, 54 years; 56% women; 25% Black persons) from the longitudinal ARIC study. None had a history of coronary heart disease (CHD), heart failure (HF), or stroke at baseline.

As part of the study, data on supine and seated BP were obtained during the enrollment period at ARIC visit 1, which took place between 1987 and 1989. Both seated and supine hypertension were defined as systolic BP ≥ 130 mm Hg or diastolic BP ≥ 80 mm Hg.

The data revealed that 16% of those without seated hypertension had supine hypertension, while 74% of those with seated hypertension had supine hypertension.

Despite adjusting for seated hypertension, during a median follow-up of 25-28 years, supine hypertension was associated with an increased risk for incident CHD (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.60; 95% confidence interval, 1.45-1.76), HF (aHR, 1.83; 95% CI, 1.68-2.01), stroke (aHR, 1.86; 95% CI, 1.63-2.13), fatal CHD (aHR, 2.18; 95% CI, 1.84-2.59), and all-cause mortality (aHR, 1.43; 95% CI, 1.35-1.52).

The results did not differ by antihypertensive medication use (P > .05).

For patients who had hypertension while supine but not while seated, elevations in risk were similar to those of peers who had hypertension while both seated and supine.

“Our findings suggest people with known risk factors for heart disease and stroke may benefit from having their blood pressure checked while lying flat on their backs,” Mr. Giao said in the conference news release.

“Efforts to manage blood pressure during daily life may help lower blood pressure while sleeping. Future research should compare supine blood pressure measurements in the clinic with overnight measurements,” Mr. Giao added.
 

Busy clinical practice

In a comment, Wanpen Vongpatanasin, MD, clinical chair for the conference, sponsored by the American Heart Association, said, “This finding highlights the importance of sustained control of BP in all body positions.”

She noted that many population-based studies have shown that nighttime BP independently predicts CV outcomes. “It’s unclear whether the timing of BP measurement (night vs. day) or the position (as most people sleep in supine position at night) explains this phenomenon.”

The study by Mr. Giao and colleagues suggests that “supine BP may be one explanation, as it has as much impact on long-term CV outcome as seated BP,” said Dr. Vongpatanasin, professor of internal medicine and director of the hypertension section, cardiology division, UT Southwestern Medical Center in Dallas.

However, “in busy clinical practice, it is impossible to do both seated and supine, as well as standing BP,” said Dr. Vongpatanasin.

“Additional studies are needed to determine what is considered to be the cutoff for normal supine BP and how to incorporate it in management of hypertension,” she added.

The study had no commercial funding. Mr. Giao and Dr. Vongpatanasin have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Taking a patient’s blood pressure while the patient is lying down may yield more information about their cardiovascular risk than taking the reading while the patient is sitting upright, new preliminary research suggests.

An analysis of data from a long-running Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities (ARIC) study of more than 11,000 adults showed that those who had hypertension while supine were at elevated risk for cardiovascular disease (CVD) independently of their having hypertension while seated.

“If blood pressure is only measured while people are seated upright, cardiovascular disease risk may be missed if not measured also while they are lying supine on their backs,” lead investigator Duc M. Giao, a researcher and a fourth-year medical student at Harvard Medical School, Boston, said in a news release.

Mr. Giao presented the findings at the Hypertension Scientific Sessions.
 

Take seated and supine BP in clinic?

Hypertension while asleep is strongly associated with CVD and death, but whether hypertension detected in clinic while the patient is lying flat is a risk factor for CVD independently of the patient’s BP while seated remains unclear.

To investigate, Mr. Giao and colleagues reviewed health data for 11,369 adults (mean age, 54 years; 56% women; 25% Black persons) from the longitudinal ARIC study. None had a history of coronary heart disease (CHD), heart failure (HF), or stroke at baseline.

As part of the study, data on supine and seated BP were obtained during the enrollment period at ARIC visit 1, which took place between 1987 and 1989. Both seated and supine hypertension were defined as systolic BP ≥ 130 mm Hg or diastolic BP ≥ 80 mm Hg.

The data revealed that 16% of those without seated hypertension had supine hypertension, while 74% of those with seated hypertension had supine hypertension.

Despite adjusting for seated hypertension, during a median follow-up of 25-28 years, supine hypertension was associated with an increased risk for incident CHD (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.60; 95% confidence interval, 1.45-1.76), HF (aHR, 1.83; 95% CI, 1.68-2.01), stroke (aHR, 1.86; 95% CI, 1.63-2.13), fatal CHD (aHR, 2.18; 95% CI, 1.84-2.59), and all-cause mortality (aHR, 1.43; 95% CI, 1.35-1.52).

The results did not differ by antihypertensive medication use (P > .05).

For patients who had hypertension while supine but not while seated, elevations in risk were similar to those of peers who had hypertension while both seated and supine.

“Our findings suggest people with known risk factors for heart disease and stroke may benefit from having their blood pressure checked while lying flat on their backs,” Mr. Giao said in the conference news release.

“Efforts to manage blood pressure during daily life may help lower blood pressure while sleeping. Future research should compare supine blood pressure measurements in the clinic with overnight measurements,” Mr. Giao added.
 

Busy clinical practice

In a comment, Wanpen Vongpatanasin, MD, clinical chair for the conference, sponsored by the American Heart Association, said, “This finding highlights the importance of sustained control of BP in all body positions.”

She noted that many population-based studies have shown that nighttime BP independently predicts CV outcomes. “It’s unclear whether the timing of BP measurement (night vs. day) or the position (as most people sleep in supine position at night) explains this phenomenon.”

The study by Mr. Giao and colleagues suggests that “supine BP may be one explanation, as it has as much impact on long-term CV outcome as seated BP,” said Dr. Vongpatanasin, professor of internal medicine and director of the hypertension section, cardiology division, UT Southwestern Medical Center in Dallas.

However, “in busy clinical practice, it is impossible to do both seated and supine, as well as standing BP,” said Dr. Vongpatanasin.

“Additional studies are needed to determine what is considered to be the cutoff for normal supine BP and how to incorporate it in management of hypertension,” she added.

The study had no commercial funding. Mr. Giao and Dr. Vongpatanasin have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Taking a patient’s blood pressure while the patient is lying down may yield more information about their cardiovascular risk than taking the reading while the patient is sitting upright, new preliminary research suggests.

An analysis of data from a long-running Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities (ARIC) study of more than 11,000 adults showed that those who had hypertension while supine were at elevated risk for cardiovascular disease (CVD) independently of their having hypertension while seated.

“If blood pressure is only measured while people are seated upright, cardiovascular disease risk may be missed if not measured also while they are lying supine on their backs,” lead investigator Duc M. Giao, a researcher and a fourth-year medical student at Harvard Medical School, Boston, said in a news release.

Mr. Giao presented the findings at the Hypertension Scientific Sessions.
 

Take seated and supine BP in clinic?

Hypertension while asleep is strongly associated with CVD and death, but whether hypertension detected in clinic while the patient is lying flat is a risk factor for CVD independently of the patient’s BP while seated remains unclear.

To investigate, Mr. Giao and colleagues reviewed health data for 11,369 adults (mean age, 54 years; 56% women; 25% Black persons) from the longitudinal ARIC study. None had a history of coronary heart disease (CHD), heart failure (HF), or stroke at baseline.

As part of the study, data on supine and seated BP were obtained during the enrollment period at ARIC visit 1, which took place between 1987 and 1989. Both seated and supine hypertension were defined as systolic BP ≥ 130 mm Hg or diastolic BP ≥ 80 mm Hg.

The data revealed that 16% of those without seated hypertension had supine hypertension, while 74% of those with seated hypertension had supine hypertension.

Despite adjusting for seated hypertension, during a median follow-up of 25-28 years, supine hypertension was associated with an increased risk for incident CHD (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.60; 95% confidence interval, 1.45-1.76), HF (aHR, 1.83; 95% CI, 1.68-2.01), stroke (aHR, 1.86; 95% CI, 1.63-2.13), fatal CHD (aHR, 2.18; 95% CI, 1.84-2.59), and all-cause mortality (aHR, 1.43; 95% CI, 1.35-1.52).

The results did not differ by antihypertensive medication use (P > .05).

For patients who had hypertension while supine but not while seated, elevations in risk were similar to those of peers who had hypertension while both seated and supine.

“Our findings suggest people with known risk factors for heart disease and stroke may benefit from having their blood pressure checked while lying flat on their backs,” Mr. Giao said in the conference news release.

“Efforts to manage blood pressure during daily life may help lower blood pressure while sleeping. Future research should compare supine blood pressure measurements in the clinic with overnight measurements,” Mr. Giao added.
 

Busy clinical practice

In a comment, Wanpen Vongpatanasin, MD, clinical chair for the conference, sponsored by the American Heart Association, said, “This finding highlights the importance of sustained control of BP in all body positions.”

She noted that many population-based studies have shown that nighttime BP independently predicts CV outcomes. “It’s unclear whether the timing of BP measurement (night vs. day) or the position (as most people sleep in supine position at night) explains this phenomenon.”

The study by Mr. Giao and colleagues suggests that “supine BP may be one explanation, as it has as much impact on long-term CV outcome as seated BP,” said Dr. Vongpatanasin, professor of internal medicine and director of the hypertension section, cardiology division, UT Southwestern Medical Center in Dallas.

However, “in busy clinical practice, it is impossible to do both seated and supine, as well as standing BP,” said Dr. Vongpatanasin.

“Additional studies are needed to determine what is considered to be the cutoff for normal supine BP and how to incorporate it in management of hypertension,” she added.

The study had no commercial funding. Mr. Giao and Dr. Vongpatanasin have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

MILAN – Sotatercept, a first-in-class activin signaling inhibitor, is currently under scrutiny as a potential game-changer in the treatment of pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH). Data unveiled at the annual congress of the European Respiratory Society, held in Milan, suggest that sotatercept treatment has the capacity to deliver significant clinical benefits and could reshape the trajectory of this challenging disease. Experts are cautiously optimistic that this drug may soon find a place within the PAH treatment algorithm.

The STELLAR trial: A milestone in PAH research

PAH is intricately linked to the dysregulation of members within the TGF-beta superfamily, including activin receptor type IIA (ActRIIA) and its ligands activin A and activin B. This signaling pathway is believed to be a driving force behind the pulmonary vascular remodeling observed in PAH patients. Sotatercept, a fusion protein acting as a ligand trap for selected TGF-beta superfamily members, has been proposed to recalibrate pulmonary vascular homeostasis by promoting growth-inhibiting and pro-apoptotic signaling.

Sotatercept was tested first in a phase 2 trial (PULSAR) and later in a phase 3 trial (STELLAR). The STELLAR clinical trial, funded by Acceleron Pharma (now a subsidiary of Merck), was the subject of two presentations given by Marius M. Hoeper, MD, director of the department of respiratory medicine at Hannover Medical School, Hannover, Germany.  

Dr. Hoeper commented on results published in the New England Journal of Medicine during a session titled, “Disease modification in pulmonary arterial hypertension.” Later, during the “From the Editor’s Desk” session, he presented new results recently published in the European Respiratory Journal about the effects of sotatercept on hemodynamics and right heart function.
 

Disease modification in PAH

In his initial address, Dr. Hoeper expounded on the concept of reverse remodeling as a therapeutic avenue for PAH. “PAH is not a disease of pulmonary vasoconstriction,” he clarified, “but a disease of proliferation. Endothelial cells and pulmonary vascular muscle cells proliferate and obliterate the lumen. It has been hypothesized that when we target this system successfully, we may not only stop disease progression, but we may have a chance to have at least some reverse remodeling, because, if these cells go into apoptosis, there may be a partial reopening of the vessels.”

“Sotatercept is probably going to be a game changer in our field,” Dr. Hoeper continued. “Is sotatercept a disease-modifying agent? It certainly induces disease improvement; in a few patients, although not in the majority, we see a normalization of hemodynamics. We target the underlying pathophysiology; this is clearly distinct from symptomatic treatment.” Dr. Hoeper went through the list of characteristics that a disease-modifying agent should have.

“To be able to say that a drug endures sustained clinical benefit, according to the FDA, you need to withdraw the drug, and this is something we do not know. We know that we can interrupt the treatment once or twice, but long-term I do not believe that,” he said, while acknowledging the need for more extended-term safety and efficacy data.
 

Unmasking hemodynamic impact

Dr. Hoeper’s second presentation focused on a post hoc analysis of the STELLAR trial never presented before. He analyzed right heart catheterization (RHC) and echocardiography (ECHO) data. With sotatercept treatment at week 24, the researchers observed:

• A small increase in systemic blood pressure and systemic vascular resistance.
• No changes in systolic and diastolic volumes of the left ventricle (lv).
• A small but significant reduction in lv ejection fraction.
• A great reduction in the mean pulmonary artery pressure (mPAP).
• No change in cardiac output.
• An improvement in pulmonary artery compliance.
• A reduction in the right ventricle work and in right atrial pressure.
• An improvement of echocardiographic parameters, including a significant decrease in tricuspid regurgitation.

“A drop of roughly 14 mm Hg in mPAP is something that we have never seen in PAH with any other add-on medication. This was entirely driven by improvement in the sotatercept group, not by deterioration in the placebo group,” Dr. Hoeper pointed out. Of note, change in mPAP correlated with changes in NT-proNBP and with changes in 6-minute walk distance (6MWD), the primary endpoint of the STELLAR trial. “We effectively unload the right ventricle by lowing the artery pressure. What we observe is exactly what we want to achieve in patients with PAH, because the heart is what really matters,” he concluded.
 

A new course in PAH treatment?

Olivier Sitbon, MD, PhD, professor of respiratory medicine at Université Paris-Saclay and consultant at the French Referral Center for Pulmonary Hypertension, echoed Dr. Hoeper’s enthusiasm. “What is important about sotatercept studies is that for the first time it has been demonstrated that to add a fourth drug improves hemodynamics in PAH patients on background triple-combination therapy. Today, triple therapy is the maximum treatment before lung transplantation,” he told this news organization.

Dr. Sitbon highlighted ongoing studies with sotatercept, including the ZENITH trial, focused on high-risk PAH patients, and the HYPERION trial, aimed at patients diagnosed within the first year of their PAH journey. He acknowledged that experts currently lack consensus on the ideal position for sotatercept within the PAH treatment algorithm. However, he anticipates a lively debate and expects sotatercept to find its place as a second-line treatment for intermediate low-risk or intermediate high-risk patients, with potential consideration for high-risk patients.

“There are two more studies ongoing with sotatercept: the ZENITH trial, dedicated to PAH patients at high risk, whose primary endpoint is mortality/need for lung transplant, and the HYPERION trial, dedicated to patients diagnosed less than 1 year (not really newly diagnosed but quite incident, while patients included in previous trial were very prevalent), whose primary endpoint is time to clinical worsening,” Dr. Sitbon noted, pointing out that there is currently no consensus among the experts about where to place sotatercept in the PAH treatment algorithm.
 

Further insights into sotatercept

The ERS Congress also unveiled two additional studies that provided fresh perspectives on sotatercept’s potential. Ioana R. Preston, MD, from Tufts Medical Center in Boston, presented the first interim analysis of SOTERIA, a long-term follow-up study involving 409 patients with a median exposure duration of 462 days to sotatercept. Treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were reported by 80% of patients, with 20% reporting a serious TEAE. Overall, four serious TEAEs (1% of patients) led to death, but only five patients (1.2%) discontinued sotatercept because of TEAE.

Notably, improvements in clinical efficacy measures persisted after 1 year. During SOTERIA, roughly 3% of patients on any prostacyclin discontinued it. “Results of SOTERIA support the long-term durable clinical benefit and safety of sotatercept for the treatment of PAH. Of note, patients were offered home self-administration therapy, so they do not need to come back to the office,” Dr. Preston said.

A second late-breaking abstract presented by Vallerie McLaughlin, MD, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, described the possible long-term impact of sotatercept on morbidity and mortality. STELLAR trial data were analyzed to see how the risk profile of patients changed in the 24 weeks of study. Real-world registry data from the COMPERA registry were then used to extrapolate mortality and transplant need over 30 years based on risk transition. According to the simulation model, adding sotatercept to background therapy is expected to increase life expectancy by threefold, while avoiding nearly 700 hospitalizations and four lung/heart-lung transplantations per 1,000 patients. “Real-world data are needed to confirm these findings,” cautioned Dr. McLaughlin.

Dr. Hoeper disclosed speaking and consulting fees from Acceleron, Actelion, Altavant, AOP Health, Bayer, Ferrer, Janssen, Keros, and MSD. Dr. Sitbon disclosed speaking and consulting fees from Acceleron Pharmaceuticals, Altavant Sciences, AOP Orphan, Bayer, Ferrer, Gossamer Bio, Janssen, MSD, and United Therapeutics, and grant/research support from Acceleron Pharmaceuticals, AOP Orphan, Bayer, Janssen, and MSD. Dr. Preston disclosed speaking and consulting fees from Janssen and United Therapeutics, and grant/research support from Janssen and Respira Therapeutics. She has participated in scientific advisory boards for Aereovate, Altavant, and Gossamer Bio, and was in the Steering Committee of Acceleron, Liquidia, and United Therapeutics. Dr. McLaughlin has received speaking and consulting fees from Aerami, Aereovate, Caremark, Corvista, Enzyvant, Gossamer Bio, Janssen, Merck, United Therapeutics, and Vertex, and grant/research support from Aerovate, Enzyvant, Gossamer Bio, Janssen, Merck, and Sonovia. She is a member of the Board of Directors of Clene.

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

MILAN – Sotatercept, a first-in-class activin signaling inhibitor, is currently under scrutiny as a potential game-changer in the treatment of pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH). Data unveiled at the annual congress of the European Respiratory Society, held in Milan, suggest that sotatercept treatment has the capacity to deliver significant clinical benefits and could reshape the trajectory of this challenging disease. Experts are cautiously optimistic that this drug may soon find a place within the PAH treatment algorithm.

The STELLAR trial: A milestone in PAH research

PAH is intricately linked to the dysregulation of members within the TGF-beta superfamily, including activin receptor type IIA (ActRIIA) and its ligands activin A and activin B. This signaling pathway is believed to be a driving force behind the pulmonary vascular remodeling observed in PAH patients. Sotatercept, a fusion protein acting as a ligand trap for selected TGF-beta superfamily members, has been proposed to recalibrate pulmonary vascular homeostasis by promoting growth-inhibiting and pro-apoptotic signaling.

Sotatercept was tested first in a phase 2 trial (PULSAR) and later in a phase 3 trial (STELLAR). The STELLAR clinical trial, funded by Acceleron Pharma (now a subsidiary of Merck), was the subject of two presentations given by Marius M. Hoeper, MD, director of the department of respiratory medicine at Hannover Medical School, Hannover, Germany.  

Dr. Hoeper commented on results published in the New England Journal of Medicine during a session titled, “Disease modification in pulmonary arterial hypertension.” Later, during the “From the Editor’s Desk” session, he presented new results recently published in the European Respiratory Journal about the effects of sotatercept on hemodynamics and right heart function.
 

Disease modification in PAH

In his initial address, Dr. Hoeper expounded on the concept of reverse remodeling as a therapeutic avenue for PAH. “PAH is not a disease of pulmonary vasoconstriction,” he clarified, “but a disease of proliferation. Endothelial cells and pulmonary vascular muscle cells proliferate and obliterate the lumen. It has been hypothesized that when we target this system successfully, we may not only stop disease progression, but we may have a chance to have at least some reverse remodeling, because, if these cells go into apoptosis, there may be a partial reopening of the vessels.”

“Sotatercept is probably going to be a game changer in our field,” Dr. Hoeper continued. “Is sotatercept a disease-modifying agent? It certainly induces disease improvement; in a few patients, although not in the majority, we see a normalization of hemodynamics. We target the underlying pathophysiology; this is clearly distinct from symptomatic treatment.” Dr. Hoeper went through the list of characteristics that a disease-modifying agent should have.

“To be able to say that a drug endures sustained clinical benefit, according to the FDA, you need to withdraw the drug, and this is something we do not know. We know that we can interrupt the treatment once or twice, but long-term I do not believe that,” he said, while acknowledging the need for more extended-term safety and efficacy data.
 

Unmasking hemodynamic impact

Dr. Hoeper’s second presentation focused on a post hoc analysis of the STELLAR trial never presented before. He analyzed right heart catheterization (RHC) and echocardiography (ECHO) data. With sotatercept treatment at week 24, the researchers observed:

• A small increase in systemic blood pressure and systemic vascular resistance.
• No changes in systolic and diastolic volumes of the left ventricle (lv).
• A small but significant reduction in lv ejection fraction.
• A great reduction in the mean pulmonary artery pressure (mPAP).
• No change in cardiac output.
• An improvement in pulmonary artery compliance.
• A reduction in the right ventricle work and in right atrial pressure.
• An improvement of echocardiographic parameters, including a significant decrease in tricuspid regurgitation.

“A drop of roughly 14 mm Hg in mPAP is something that we have never seen in PAH with any other add-on medication. This was entirely driven by improvement in the sotatercept group, not by deterioration in the placebo group,” Dr. Hoeper pointed out. Of note, change in mPAP correlated with changes in NT-proNBP and with changes in 6-minute walk distance (6MWD), the primary endpoint of the STELLAR trial. “We effectively unload the right ventricle by lowing the artery pressure. What we observe is exactly what we want to achieve in patients with PAH, because the heart is what really matters,” he concluded.
 

A new course in PAH treatment?

Olivier Sitbon, MD, PhD, professor of respiratory medicine at Université Paris-Saclay and consultant at the French Referral Center for Pulmonary Hypertension, echoed Dr. Hoeper’s enthusiasm. “What is important about sotatercept studies is that for the first time it has been demonstrated that to add a fourth drug improves hemodynamics in PAH patients on background triple-combination therapy. Today, triple therapy is the maximum treatment before lung transplantation,” he told this news organization.

Dr. Sitbon highlighted ongoing studies with sotatercept, including the ZENITH trial, focused on high-risk PAH patients, and the HYPERION trial, aimed at patients diagnosed within the first year of their PAH journey. He acknowledged that experts currently lack consensus on the ideal position for sotatercept within the PAH treatment algorithm. However, he anticipates a lively debate and expects sotatercept to find its place as a second-line treatment for intermediate low-risk or intermediate high-risk patients, with potential consideration for high-risk patients.

“There are two more studies ongoing with sotatercept: the ZENITH trial, dedicated to PAH patients at high risk, whose primary endpoint is mortality/need for lung transplant, and the HYPERION trial, dedicated to patients diagnosed less than 1 year (not really newly diagnosed but quite incident, while patients included in previous trial were very prevalent), whose primary endpoint is time to clinical worsening,” Dr. Sitbon noted, pointing out that there is currently no consensus among the experts about where to place sotatercept in the PAH treatment algorithm.
 

Further insights into sotatercept

The ERS Congress also unveiled two additional studies that provided fresh perspectives on sotatercept’s potential. Ioana R. Preston, MD, from Tufts Medical Center in Boston, presented the first interim analysis of SOTERIA, a long-term follow-up study involving 409 patients with a median exposure duration of 462 days to sotatercept. Treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were reported by 80% of patients, with 20% reporting a serious TEAE. Overall, four serious TEAEs (1% of patients) led to death, but only five patients (1.2%) discontinued sotatercept because of TEAE.

Notably, improvements in clinical efficacy measures persisted after 1 year. During SOTERIA, roughly 3% of patients on any prostacyclin discontinued it. “Results of SOTERIA support the long-term durable clinical benefit and safety of sotatercept for the treatment of PAH. Of note, patients were offered home self-administration therapy, so they do not need to come back to the office,” Dr. Preston said.

A second late-breaking abstract presented by Vallerie McLaughlin, MD, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, described the possible long-term impact of sotatercept on morbidity and mortality. STELLAR trial data were analyzed to see how the risk profile of patients changed in the 24 weeks of study. Real-world registry data from the COMPERA registry were then used to extrapolate mortality and transplant need over 30 years based on risk transition. According to the simulation model, adding sotatercept to background therapy is expected to increase life expectancy by threefold, while avoiding nearly 700 hospitalizations and four lung/heart-lung transplantations per 1,000 patients. “Real-world data are needed to confirm these findings,” cautioned Dr. McLaughlin.

Dr. Hoeper disclosed speaking and consulting fees from Acceleron, Actelion, Altavant, AOP Health, Bayer, Ferrer, Janssen, Keros, and MSD. Dr. Sitbon disclosed speaking and consulting fees from Acceleron Pharmaceuticals, Altavant Sciences, AOP Orphan, Bayer, Ferrer, Gossamer Bio, Janssen, MSD, and United Therapeutics, and grant/research support from Acceleron Pharmaceuticals, AOP Orphan, Bayer, Janssen, and MSD. Dr. Preston disclosed speaking and consulting fees from Janssen and United Therapeutics, and grant/research support from Janssen and Respira Therapeutics. She has participated in scientific advisory boards for Aereovate, Altavant, and Gossamer Bio, and was in the Steering Committee of Acceleron, Liquidia, and United Therapeutics. Dr. McLaughlin has received speaking and consulting fees from Aerami, Aereovate, Caremark, Corvista, Enzyvant, Gossamer Bio, Janssen, Merck, United Therapeutics, and Vertex, and grant/research support from Aerovate, Enzyvant, Gossamer Bio, Janssen, Merck, and Sonovia. She is a member of the Board of Directors of Clene.

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

MILAN – Sotatercept, a first-in-class activin signaling inhibitor, is currently under scrutiny as a potential game-changer in the treatment of pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH). Data unveiled at the annual congress of the European Respiratory Society, held in Milan, suggest that sotatercept treatment has the capacity to deliver significant clinical benefits and could reshape the trajectory of this challenging disease. Experts are cautiously optimistic that this drug may soon find a place within the PAH treatment algorithm.

The STELLAR trial: A milestone in PAH research

PAH is intricately linked to the dysregulation of members within the TGF-beta superfamily, including activin receptor type IIA (ActRIIA) and its ligands activin A and activin B. This signaling pathway is believed to be a driving force behind the pulmonary vascular remodeling observed in PAH patients. Sotatercept, a fusion protein acting as a ligand trap for selected TGF-beta superfamily members, has been proposed to recalibrate pulmonary vascular homeostasis by promoting growth-inhibiting and pro-apoptotic signaling.

Sotatercept was tested first in a phase 2 trial (PULSAR) and later in a phase 3 trial (STELLAR). The STELLAR clinical trial, funded by Acceleron Pharma (now a subsidiary of Merck), was the subject of two presentations given by Marius M. Hoeper, MD, director of the department of respiratory medicine at Hannover Medical School, Hannover, Germany.  

Dr. Hoeper commented on results published in the New England Journal of Medicine during a session titled, “Disease modification in pulmonary arterial hypertension.” Later, during the “From the Editor’s Desk” session, he presented new results recently published in the European Respiratory Journal about the effects of sotatercept on hemodynamics and right heart function.
 

Disease modification in PAH

In his initial address, Dr. Hoeper expounded on the concept of reverse remodeling as a therapeutic avenue for PAH. “PAH is not a disease of pulmonary vasoconstriction,” he clarified, “but a disease of proliferation. Endothelial cells and pulmonary vascular muscle cells proliferate and obliterate the lumen. It has been hypothesized that when we target this system successfully, we may not only stop disease progression, but we may have a chance to have at least some reverse remodeling, because, if these cells go into apoptosis, there may be a partial reopening of the vessels.”

“Sotatercept is probably going to be a game changer in our field,” Dr. Hoeper continued. “Is sotatercept a disease-modifying agent? It certainly induces disease improvement; in a few patients, although not in the majority, we see a normalization of hemodynamics. We target the underlying pathophysiology; this is clearly distinct from symptomatic treatment.” Dr. Hoeper went through the list of characteristics that a disease-modifying agent should have.

“To be able to say that a drug endures sustained clinical benefit, according to the FDA, you need to withdraw the drug, and this is something we do not know. We know that we can interrupt the treatment once or twice, but long-term I do not believe that,” he said, while acknowledging the need for more extended-term safety and efficacy data.
 

Unmasking hemodynamic impact

Dr. Hoeper’s second presentation focused on a post hoc analysis of the STELLAR trial never presented before. He analyzed right heart catheterization (RHC) and echocardiography (ECHO) data. With sotatercept treatment at week 24, the researchers observed:

• A small increase in systemic blood pressure and systemic vascular resistance.
• No changes in systolic and diastolic volumes of the left ventricle (lv).
• A small but significant reduction in lv ejection fraction.
• A great reduction in the mean pulmonary artery pressure (mPAP).
• No change in cardiac output.
• An improvement in pulmonary artery compliance.
• A reduction in the right ventricle work and in right atrial pressure.
• An improvement of echocardiographic parameters, including a significant decrease in tricuspid regurgitation.

“A drop of roughly 14 mm Hg in mPAP is something that we have never seen in PAH with any other add-on medication. This was entirely driven by improvement in the sotatercept group, not by deterioration in the placebo group,” Dr. Hoeper pointed out. Of note, change in mPAP correlated with changes in NT-proNBP and with changes in 6-minute walk distance (6MWD), the primary endpoint of the STELLAR trial. “We effectively unload the right ventricle by lowing the artery pressure. What we observe is exactly what we want to achieve in patients with PAH, because the heart is what really matters,” he concluded.
 

A new course in PAH treatment?

Olivier Sitbon, MD, PhD, professor of respiratory medicine at Université Paris-Saclay and consultant at the French Referral Center for Pulmonary Hypertension, echoed Dr. Hoeper’s enthusiasm. “What is important about sotatercept studies is that for the first time it has been demonstrated that to add a fourth drug improves hemodynamics in PAH patients on background triple-combination therapy. Today, triple therapy is the maximum treatment before lung transplantation,” he told this news organization.

Dr. Sitbon highlighted ongoing studies with sotatercept, including the ZENITH trial, focused on high-risk PAH patients, and the HYPERION trial, aimed at patients diagnosed within the first year of their PAH journey. He acknowledged that experts currently lack consensus on the ideal position for sotatercept within the PAH treatment algorithm. However, he anticipates a lively debate and expects sotatercept to find its place as a second-line treatment for intermediate low-risk or intermediate high-risk patients, with potential consideration for high-risk patients.

“There are two more studies ongoing with sotatercept: the ZENITH trial, dedicated to PAH patients at high risk, whose primary endpoint is mortality/need for lung transplant, and the HYPERION trial, dedicated to patients diagnosed less than 1 year (not really newly diagnosed but quite incident, while patients included in previous trial were very prevalent), whose primary endpoint is time to clinical worsening,” Dr. Sitbon noted, pointing out that there is currently no consensus among the experts about where to place sotatercept in the PAH treatment algorithm.
 

Further insights into sotatercept

The ERS Congress also unveiled two additional studies that provided fresh perspectives on sotatercept’s potential. Ioana R. Preston, MD, from Tufts Medical Center in Boston, presented the first interim analysis of SOTERIA, a long-term follow-up study involving 409 patients with a median exposure duration of 462 days to sotatercept. Treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were reported by 80% of patients, with 20% reporting a serious TEAE. Overall, four serious TEAEs (1% of patients) led to death, but only five patients (1.2%) discontinued sotatercept because of TEAE.

Notably, improvements in clinical efficacy measures persisted after 1 year. During SOTERIA, roughly 3% of patients on any prostacyclin discontinued it. “Results of SOTERIA support the long-term durable clinical benefit and safety of sotatercept for the treatment of PAH. Of note, patients were offered home self-administration therapy, so they do not need to come back to the office,” Dr. Preston said.

A second late-breaking abstract presented by Vallerie McLaughlin, MD, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, described the possible long-term impact of sotatercept on morbidity and mortality. STELLAR trial data were analyzed to see how the risk profile of patients changed in the 24 weeks of study. Real-world registry data from the COMPERA registry were then used to extrapolate mortality and transplant need over 30 years based on risk transition. According to the simulation model, adding sotatercept to background therapy is expected to increase life expectancy by threefold, while avoiding nearly 700 hospitalizations and four lung/heart-lung transplantations per 1,000 patients. “Real-world data are needed to confirm these findings,” cautioned Dr. McLaughlin.

Dr. Hoeper disclosed speaking and consulting fees from Acceleron, Actelion, Altavant, AOP Health, Bayer, Ferrer, Janssen, Keros, and MSD. Dr. Sitbon disclosed speaking and consulting fees from Acceleron Pharmaceuticals, Altavant Sciences, AOP Orphan, Bayer, Ferrer, Gossamer Bio, Janssen, MSD, and United Therapeutics, and grant/research support from Acceleron Pharmaceuticals, AOP Orphan, Bayer, Janssen, and MSD. Dr. Preston disclosed speaking and consulting fees from Janssen and United Therapeutics, and grant/research support from Janssen and Respira Therapeutics. She has participated in scientific advisory boards for Aereovate, Altavant, and Gossamer Bio, and was in the Steering Committee of Acceleron, Liquidia, and United Therapeutics. Dr. McLaughlin has received speaking and consulting fees from Aerami, Aereovate, Caremark, Corvista, Enzyvant, Gossamer Bio, Janssen, Merck, United Therapeutics, and Vertex, and grant/research support from Aerovate, Enzyvant, Gossamer Bio, Janssen, Merck, and Sonovia. She is a member of the Board of Directors of Clene.

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

New research hints at the possibility that cerebral amyloid angiopathy (CAA), a cause of spontaneous brain hemorrhage, can be transmitted via blood transfusion, raising the risk for spontaneous intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH) in transfusion recipients.

In an exploratory analysis, patients receiving red blood cell transfusions from donors who later developed multiple spontaneous ICHs, and were assumed to have CAA, were at a significantly increased risk of developing spontaneous ICH themselves.

“This may suggest a transfusion-transmissible agent associated with some types of spontaneous ICH, although the findings may be susceptible to selection bias and residual confounding, and further research is needed to investigate if transfusion transmission of CAA might explain this association,” the investigators noted.

“We do not think that the findings motivate a change in practice, and we should not let these results discourage otherwise indicated blood transfusion,” said lead author Jingcheng Zhao, MD, PhD, with Karolinska University Hospital Solna, Stockholm.

The study was published online  in the Journal of the American Medical Association.
 

Novel finding

Recent evidence suggests that CAA exhibits “prion-like” transmissivity, with reports of transmission through cadaveric pituitary hormone contaminated with amyloid-beta and tau protein, dura mater grafts, and possibly neurosurgical instruments.

CAA, which is characterized by the deposition of amyloid protein in the brain, is the second most common cause of spontaneous ICH. 

The researchers hypothesized that transfusion transmission of CAA may manifest through an increased risk for spontaneous ICH among transfusion recipients given blood from a donor with spontaneous ICH. To explore this hypothesis, they analyzed national registry data from Sweden and Denmark for ICH in recipients of red blood cell transfusion from donors who themselves had ICH over the years after their blood donations, with the assumption that donors with two or more ICHs would likely have CAA.

The cohort included nearly 760,000 individuals in Sweden (median age, 65 years; 59% women) and 330,000 in Denmark (median age, 64 years; 58% women), with a median follow-up of 5.8 and 6.1 years, respectively.

Receiving red blood cell transfusions from donors who later developed multiple spontaneous ICHs was associated with a greater than twofold increased risk of developing spontaneous ICH, compared with receiving a transfusion from donors without subsequent ICH (hazard ratio, 2.73; P < .001 in the Swedish cohort and HR, 2.32; P = .04 in the Danish cohort).

“The observed increased risk of spontaneous ICH associated with receiving a red blood cell transfusion from a donor who later developed multiple spontaneous ICHs, corresponding to a 30-year cumulative incidence difference of 2.3%, is a novel finding,” the researchers wrote.

There was no increase in post-transfusion ICH risk among recipients whose donors had a single post–blood-donation ICH.

The findings were robust to several of the sensitivity analyses.

A “negative” control analysis of post-transfusion ischemic stroke (instead of ICH) found no increased risk among recipients of blood from donors who had single or multiple ICHs.

This study provides “exploratory evidence of possible transfusion-transmission of a factor that causes ICHs, but more research is needed to confirm and to understand the mechanism,” said Dr. Zhao.

The researchers noted that they did not directly assess CAA but expect it would be more common among donors who develop multiple spontaneous ICHs, “as CAA-related ICH has been reported to have a 7-fold increase for recurrent ICHs, compared with non–CAA-related ICH.”
 

Worrisome finding or false alarm?

In an accompanying editorial, Steven Greenberg, MD, PhD, with the department of neurology, Harvard Medical School, Boston, said there are “good reasons to treat the possibility of CAA transmission via blood transfusion seriously – and good reasons to remain skeptical, at least for the present.”

“Powerful” arguments in support of the findings include the robust study methodology and the “striking” similarity in results from the two registries, which argues against a chance finding. Another is the negative control with ischemic stroke as the outcome, which argues against unsuspected confounding-causing associations with all types of stroke, Dr. Greenberg noted.

Arguments for remaining “unconvinced” of the association center on the weakness of evidence for a plausible biological mechanism for the finding, he points out. Another is the short-time course of ICHs after blood transfusion, which is “quite challenging to explain,” Dr. Greenberg said. Nearly half of the ICHs among blood recipients occurred within 5 years of transfusion, which is “dramatically” faster than the 30- to 40-year interval reported between neurosurgical exposure to cadaveric tissue and first ICH, he added.

Another related “mechanistic reservation” is the plausibility that a transmissible species of amyloid-beta could travel from blood to brain in sufficient quantities to trigger advanced CAA or Alzheimer disease pathology, he wrote.

He added the current study leaves him “squarely at the corner of anxiety and skepticism.”

With more than 10 million units of blood transfused in the United States each year, even a modest increase in risk for future brain hemorrhages or dementia conferred by “an uncommon – but as of now undetectable – donor trait would represent a substantial public health concern,” Dr. Greenberg wrote.

“From the standpoint of scientific plausibility, however, even this well-conducted analysis is at risk of representing a false alarm,” he cautioned.

Looking ahead, Dr. Greenberg said one clear direction is independent replication, ideally with datasets in which donor and recipient dementia can be reliably ascertained to assess the possibility of Alzheimer’s disease as well as CAA transmissibility.

“The other challenge is for experimental biologists to consider the alternative possibility of transfusion-related acceleration of downstream steps in the CAA-ICH pathway, such as the vessel remodeling by which amyloid beta–laden vessels proceed to rupture and bleed.”

“The current study is not yet a reason for alarm, certainly not a reason to avoid otherwise indicated blood transfusion, but it is a strong call for more scientific digging,” Dr. Greenberg concluded.

The study was funded by grants from the Karolinska Institute, the Swedish Research Council, and Region Stockholm. Dr. Zhao and Dr. Greenberg report no relevant financial relationships.

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

New research hints at the possibility that cerebral amyloid angiopathy (CAA), a cause of spontaneous brain hemorrhage, can be transmitted via blood transfusion, raising the risk for spontaneous intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH) in transfusion recipients.

In an exploratory analysis, patients receiving red blood cell transfusions from donors who later developed multiple spontaneous ICHs, and were assumed to have CAA, were at a significantly increased risk of developing spontaneous ICH themselves.

“This may suggest a transfusion-transmissible agent associated with some types of spontaneous ICH, although the findings may be susceptible to selection bias and residual confounding, and further research is needed to investigate if transfusion transmission of CAA might explain this association,” the investigators noted.

“We do not think that the findings motivate a change in practice, and we should not let these results discourage otherwise indicated blood transfusion,” said lead author Jingcheng Zhao, MD, PhD, with Karolinska University Hospital Solna, Stockholm.

The study was published online  in the Journal of the American Medical Association.
 

Novel finding

Recent evidence suggests that CAA exhibits “prion-like” transmissivity, with reports of transmission through cadaveric pituitary hormone contaminated with amyloid-beta and tau protein, dura mater grafts, and possibly neurosurgical instruments.

CAA, which is characterized by the deposition of amyloid protein in the brain, is the second most common cause of spontaneous ICH. 

The researchers hypothesized that transfusion transmission of CAA may manifest through an increased risk for spontaneous ICH among transfusion recipients given blood from a donor with spontaneous ICH. To explore this hypothesis, they analyzed national registry data from Sweden and Denmark for ICH in recipients of red blood cell transfusion from donors who themselves had ICH over the years after their blood donations, with the assumption that donors with two or more ICHs would likely have CAA.

The cohort included nearly 760,000 individuals in Sweden (median age, 65 years; 59% women) and 330,000 in Denmark (median age, 64 years; 58% women), with a median follow-up of 5.8 and 6.1 years, respectively.

Receiving red blood cell transfusions from donors who later developed multiple spontaneous ICHs was associated with a greater than twofold increased risk of developing spontaneous ICH, compared with receiving a transfusion from donors without subsequent ICH (hazard ratio, 2.73; P < .001 in the Swedish cohort and HR, 2.32; P = .04 in the Danish cohort).

“The observed increased risk of spontaneous ICH associated with receiving a red blood cell transfusion from a donor who later developed multiple spontaneous ICHs, corresponding to a 30-year cumulative incidence difference of 2.3%, is a novel finding,” the researchers wrote.

There was no increase in post-transfusion ICH risk among recipients whose donors had a single post–blood-donation ICH.

The findings were robust to several of the sensitivity analyses.

A “negative” control analysis of post-transfusion ischemic stroke (instead of ICH) found no increased risk among recipients of blood from donors who had single or multiple ICHs.

This study provides “exploratory evidence of possible transfusion-transmission of a factor that causes ICHs, but more research is needed to confirm and to understand the mechanism,” said Dr. Zhao.

The researchers noted that they did not directly assess CAA but expect it would be more common among donors who develop multiple spontaneous ICHs, “as CAA-related ICH has been reported to have a 7-fold increase for recurrent ICHs, compared with non–CAA-related ICH.”
 

Worrisome finding or false alarm?

In an accompanying editorial, Steven Greenberg, MD, PhD, with the department of neurology, Harvard Medical School, Boston, said there are “good reasons to treat the possibility of CAA transmission via blood transfusion seriously – and good reasons to remain skeptical, at least for the present.”

“Powerful” arguments in support of the findings include the robust study methodology and the “striking” similarity in results from the two registries, which argues against a chance finding. Another is the negative control with ischemic stroke as the outcome, which argues against unsuspected confounding-causing associations with all types of stroke, Dr. Greenberg noted.

Arguments for remaining “unconvinced” of the association center on the weakness of evidence for a plausible biological mechanism for the finding, he points out. Another is the short-time course of ICHs after blood transfusion, which is “quite challenging to explain,” Dr. Greenberg said. Nearly half of the ICHs among blood recipients occurred within 5 years of transfusion, which is “dramatically” faster than the 30- to 40-year interval reported between neurosurgical exposure to cadaveric tissue and first ICH, he added.

Another related “mechanistic reservation” is the plausibility that a transmissible species of amyloid-beta could travel from blood to brain in sufficient quantities to trigger advanced CAA or Alzheimer disease pathology, he wrote.

He added the current study leaves him “squarely at the corner of anxiety and skepticism.”

With more than 10 million units of blood transfused in the United States each year, even a modest increase in risk for future brain hemorrhages or dementia conferred by “an uncommon – but as of now undetectable – donor trait would represent a substantial public health concern,” Dr. Greenberg wrote.

“From the standpoint of scientific plausibility, however, even this well-conducted analysis is at risk of representing a false alarm,” he cautioned.

Looking ahead, Dr. Greenberg said one clear direction is independent replication, ideally with datasets in which donor and recipient dementia can be reliably ascertained to assess the possibility of Alzheimer’s disease as well as CAA transmissibility.

“The other challenge is for experimental biologists to consider the alternative possibility of transfusion-related acceleration of downstream steps in the CAA-ICH pathway, such as the vessel remodeling by which amyloid beta–laden vessels proceed to rupture and bleed.”

“The current study is not yet a reason for alarm, certainly not a reason to avoid otherwise indicated blood transfusion, but it is a strong call for more scientific digging,” Dr. Greenberg concluded.

The study was funded by grants from the Karolinska Institute, the Swedish Research Council, and Region Stockholm. Dr. Zhao and Dr. Greenberg report no relevant financial relationships.

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

New research hints at the possibility that cerebral amyloid angiopathy (CAA), a cause of spontaneous brain hemorrhage, can be transmitted via blood transfusion, raising the risk for spontaneous intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH) in transfusion recipients.

In an exploratory analysis, patients receiving red blood cell transfusions from donors who later developed multiple spontaneous ICHs, and were assumed to have CAA, were at a significantly increased risk of developing spontaneous ICH themselves.

“This may suggest a transfusion-transmissible agent associated with some types of spontaneous ICH, although the findings may be susceptible to selection bias and residual confounding, and further research is needed to investigate if transfusion transmission of CAA might explain this association,” the investigators noted.

“We do not think that the findings motivate a change in practice, and we should not let these results discourage otherwise indicated blood transfusion,” said lead author Jingcheng Zhao, MD, PhD, with Karolinska University Hospital Solna, Stockholm.

The study was published online  in the Journal of the American Medical Association.
 

Novel finding

Recent evidence suggests that CAA exhibits “prion-like” transmissivity, with reports of transmission through cadaveric pituitary hormone contaminated with amyloid-beta and tau protein, dura mater grafts, and possibly neurosurgical instruments.

CAA, which is characterized by the deposition of amyloid protein in the brain, is the second most common cause of spontaneous ICH. 

The researchers hypothesized that transfusion transmission of CAA may manifest through an increased risk for spontaneous ICH among transfusion recipients given blood from a donor with spontaneous ICH. To explore this hypothesis, they analyzed national registry data from Sweden and Denmark for ICH in recipients of red blood cell transfusion from donors who themselves had ICH over the years after their blood donations, with the assumption that donors with two or more ICHs would likely have CAA.

The cohort included nearly 760,000 individuals in Sweden (median age, 65 years; 59% women) and 330,000 in Denmark (median age, 64 years; 58% women), with a median follow-up of 5.8 and 6.1 years, respectively.

Receiving red blood cell transfusions from donors who later developed multiple spontaneous ICHs was associated with a greater than twofold increased risk of developing spontaneous ICH, compared with receiving a transfusion from donors without subsequent ICH (hazard ratio, 2.73; P < .001 in the Swedish cohort and HR, 2.32; P = .04 in the Danish cohort).

“The observed increased risk of spontaneous ICH associated with receiving a red blood cell transfusion from a donor who later developed multiple spontaneous ICHs, corresponding to a 30-year cumulative incidence difference of 2.3%, is a novel finding,” the researchers wrote.

There was no increase in post-transfusion ICH risk among recipients whose donors had a single post–blood-donation ICH.

The findings were robust to several of the sensitivity analyses.

A “negative” control analysis of post-transfusion ischemic stroke (instead of ICH) found no increased risk among recipients of blood from donors who had single or multiple ICHs.

This study provides “exploratory evidence of possible transfusion-transmission of a factor that causes ICHs, but more research is needed to confirm and to understand the mechanism,” said Dr. Zhao.

The researchers noted that they did not directly assess CAA but expect it would be more common among donors who develop multiple spontaneous ICHs, “as CAA-related ICH has been reported to have a 7-fold increase for recurrent ICHs, compared with non–CAA-related ICH.”
 

Worrisome finding or false alarm?

In an accompanying editorial, Steven Greenberg, MD, PhD, with the department of neurology, Harvard Medical School, Boston, said there are “good reasons to treat the possibility of CAA transmission via blood transfusion seriously – and good reasons to remain skeptical, at least for the present.”

“Powerful” arguments in support of the findings include the robust study methodology and the “striking” similarity in results from the two registries, which argues against a chance finding. Another is the negative control with ischemic stroke as the outcome, which argues against unsuspected confounding-causing associations with all types of stroke, Dr. Greenberg noted.

Arguments for remaining “unconvinced” of the association center on the weakness of evidence for a plausible biological mechanism for the finding, he points out. Another is the short-time course of ICHs after blood transfusion, which is “quite challenging to explain,” Dr. Greenberg said. Nearly half of the ICHs among blood recipients occurred within 5 years of transfusion, which is “dramatically” faster than the 30- to 40-year interval reported between neurosurgical exposure to cadaveric tissue and first ICH, he added.

Another related “mechanistic reservation” is the plausibility that a transmissible species of amyloid-beta could travel from blood to brain in sufficient quantities to trigger advanced CAA or Alzheimer disease pathology, he wrote.

He added the current study leaves him “squarely at the corner of anxiety and skepticism.”

With more than 10 million units of blood transfused in the United States each year, even a modest increase in risk for future brain hemorrhages or dementia conferred by “an uncommon – but as of now undetectable – donor trait would represent a substantial public health concern,” Dr. Greenberg wrote.

“From the standpoint of scientific plausibility, however, even this well-conducted analysis is at risk of representing a false alarm,” he cautioned.

Looking ahead, Dr. Greenberg said one clear direction is independent replication, ideally with datasets in which donor and recipient dementia can be reliably ascertained to assess the possibility of Alzheimer’s disease as well as CAA transmissibility.

“The other challenge is for experimental biologists to consider the alternative possibility of transfusion-related acceleration of downstream steps in the CAA-ICH pathway, such as the vessel remodeling by which amyloid beta–laden vessels proceed to rupture and bleed.”

“The current study is not yet a reason for alarm, certainly not a reason to avoid otherwise indicated blood transfusion, but it is a strong call for more scientific digging,” Dr. Greenberg concluded.

The study was funded by grants from the Karolinska Institute, the Swedish Research Council, and Region Stockholm. Dr. Zhao and Dr. Greenberg report no relevant financial relationships.

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.

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.

Adults with hypertension may have a harder time keeping their blood pressure in check during the winter months, a new study suggests.

A review of electronic health records of more than 60,000 U.S. adults being treated for hypertension found that on average, systolic BP rose by up to 1.7 mm Hg in the cold winter months, compared with the hot summer months.

On a population level, BP control rates decreased by up to 5% during the cold winter months, compared with control rates in the warm summer months.

“Some patients may benefit from increased pharmacological intervention to keep blood pressure controlled during the winter,” Robert Barrett, with the American Medical Association, Greenville, S.C., told this news organization.

“Individuals with hypertension or values near the range of hypertension may benefit from periodic blood pressure monitoring and improvements in physical activity and nutritional patterns during winter months to offset adverse effects from seasonal blood pressure changes,” Mr. Barrett added in a news release.

Mr. Barrett presented the study findings at the American Heart Association Hypertension Scientific Sessions 2023 in Boston.
 

Supportive data

Mr. Barrett explained that seasonal variation in BP has been previously documented, and as part of the evaluation for the AMA MAP Hypertension program, he and colleagues were interested in the effect of this variation on population control rates under standard metrics (visits with BP < 140/90 mm Hg).

They analyzed data from 60,676 men and women (mean age, 62 years) with hypertension from six health care organizations in the southeastern and midwestern United States that were participating in the quality improvement program.

During the roughly 5-year assessment period, none of the patients had changes in their antihypertensive medication, and all had at least one visit in each temperate season. The researchers estimated the seasonal effect on average systolic BP and BP control (defined as < 140/90 mm Hg).

Across a total of 453,787 visits, systolic BP during the winter averaged 0.47 mm Hg higher (95% confidence interval, 0.364-0.573) than the yearly average, with a significantly lower odds ratio for BP control (OR, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.91-0.94), the researchers report.

In contrast, average systolic BP was 0.92 mm Hg lower during the summer, with a higher likelihood of BP control (OR ,1.10; 95% CI, 1.07-1.12).

“Seasonal variation in blood pressure has a substantial effect on hypertension control, often defined as blood pressure < 140/90,” Barrett told this news organization.

“Patients with hypertension are less likely to have their blood pressure controlled during winter than summer months. If the blood pressure is very well controlled, for example to < 130/80, then seasonal variation will have little effect on control to < 140/90,” Mr. Barrett noted.

“However, if blood pressure is not well controlled, then patients near the 140/90 level could benefit from monitoring their blood pressure regularly, closer medical follow-up, and avoiding decreased physical activity and increased weight toward year end,” he added.

Wanpen Vongpatanasin, MD, clinical chair for the conference, said that it’s “well known that BP tends to lower during summer months and patients may be susceptible to dehydration and acute kidney injury when BP is too low, particularly when treated with certain medication such as diuretics.”

On the flip side, “cold weather predisposes to vasoconstriction as our blood vessel constrict to maintain core temperature and it could be challenging to manage BP. That’s why it is important for high BP patients to monitor home BP regularly,” said Dr. Vongpatanasin, professor of internal medicine and director of the hypertension section, cardiology division, UT Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas.

The study had no commercial funding. Mr. Barrett and Dr. Vongpatanasin have no relevant disclosures.

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

Adults with hypertension may have a harder time keeping their blood pressure in check during the winter months, a new study suggests.

A review of electronic health records of more than 60,000 U.S. adults being treated for hypertension found that on average, systolic BP rose by up to 1.7 mm Hg in the cold winter months, compared with the hot summer months.

On a population level, BP control rates decreased by up to 5% during the cold winter months, compared with control rates in the warm summer months.

“Some patients may benefit from increased pharmacological intervention to keep blood pressure controlled during the winter,” Robert Barrett, with the American Medical Association, Greenville, S.C., told this news organization.

“Individuals with hypertension or values near the range of hypertension may benefit from periodic blood pressure monitoring and improvements in physical activity and nutritional patterns during winter months to offset adverse effects from seasonal blood pressure changes,” Mr. Barrett added in a news release.

Mr. Barrett presented the study findings at the American Heart Association Hypertension Scientific Sessions 2023 in Boston.
 

Supportive data

Mr. Barrett explained that seasonal variation in BP has been previously documented, and as part of the evaluation for the AMA MAP Hypertension program, he and colleagues were interested in the effect of this variation on population control rates under standard metrics (visits with BP < 140/90 mm Hg).

They analyzed data from 60,676 men and women (mean age, 62 years) with hypertension from six health care organizations in the southeastern and midwestern United States that were participating in the quality improvement program.

During the roughly 5-year assessment period, none of the patients had changes in their antihypertensive medication, and all had at least one visit in each temperate season. The researchers estimated the seasonal effect on average systolic BP and BP control (defined as < 140/90 mm Hg).

Across a total of 453,787 visits, systolic BP during the winter averaged 0.47 mm Hg higher (95% confidence interval, 0.364-0.573) than the yearly average, with a significantly lower odds ratio for BP control (OR, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.91-0.94), the researchers report.

In contrast, average systolic BP was 0.92 mm Hg lower during the summer, with a higher likelihood of BP control (OR ,1.10; 95% CI, 1.07-1.12).

“Seasonal variation in blood pressure has a substantial effect on hypertension control, often defined as blood pressure < 140/90,” Barrett told this news organization.

“Patients with hypertension are less likely to have their blood pressure controlled during winter than summer months. If the blood pressure is very well controlled, for example to < 130/80, then seasonal variation will have little effect on control to < 140/90,” Mr. Barrett noted.

“However, if blood pressure is not well controlled, then patients near the 140/90 level could benefit from monitoring their blood pressure regularly, closer medical follow-up, and avoiding decreased physical activity and increased weight toward year end,” he added.

Wanpen Vongpatanasin, MD, clinical chair for the conference, said that it’s “well known that BP tends to lower during summer months and patients may be susceptible to dehydration and acute kidney injury when BP is too low, particularly when treated with certain medication such as diuretics.”

On the flip side, “cold weather predisposes to vasoconstriction as our blood vessel constrict to maintain core temperature and it could be challenging to manage BP. That’s why it is important for high BP patients to monitor home BP regularly,” said Dr. Vongpatanasin, professor of internal medicine and director of the hypertension section, cardiology division, UT Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas.

The study had no commercial funding. Mr. Barrett and Dr. Vongpatanasin have no relevant disclosures.

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

Adults with hypertension may have a harder time keeping their blood pressure in check during the winter months, a new study suggests.

A review of electronic health records of more than 60,000 U.S. adults being treated for hypertension found that on average, systolic BP rose by up to 1.7 mm Hg in the cold winter months, compared with the hot summer months.

On a population level, BP control rates decreased by up to 5% during the cold winter months, compared with control rates in the warm summer months.

“Some patients may benefit from increased pharmacological intervention to keep blood pressure controlled during the winter,” Robert Barrett, with the American Medical Association, Greenville, S.C., told this news organization.

“Individuals with hypertension or values near the range of hypertension may benefit from periodic blood pressure monitoring and improvements in physical activity and nutritional patterns during winter months to offset adverse effects from seasonal blood pressure changes,” Mr. Barrett added in a news release.

Mr. Barrett presented the study findings at the American Heart Association Hypertension Scientific Sessions 2023 in Boston.
 

Supportive data

Mr. Barrett explained that seasonal variation in BP has been previously documented, and as part of the evaluation for the AMA MAP Hypertension program, he and colleagues were interested in the effect of this variation on population control rates under standard metrics (visits with BP < 140/90 mm Hg).

They analyzed data from 60,676 men and women (mean age, 62 years) with hypertension from six health care organizations in the southeastern and midwestern United States that were participating in the quality improvement program.

During the roughly 5-year assessment period, none of the patients had changes in their antihypertensive medication, and all had at least one visit in each temperate season. The researchers estimated the seasonal effect on average systolic BP and BP control (defined as < 140/90 mm Hg).

Across a total of 453,787 visits, systolic BP during the winter averaged 0.47 mm Hg higher (95% confidence interval, 0.364-0.573) than the yearly average, with a significantly lower odds ratio for BP control (OR, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.91-0.94), the researchers report.

In contrast, average systolic BP was 0.92 mm Hg lower during the summer, with a higher likelihood of BP control (OR ,1.10; 95% CI, 1.07-1.12).

“Seasonal variation in blood pressure has a substantial effect on hypertension control, often defined as blood pressure < 140/90,” Barrett told this news organization.

“Patients with hypertension are less likely to have their blood pressure controlled during winter than summer months. If the blood pressure is very well controlled, for example to < 130/80, then seasonal variation will have little effect on control to < 140/90,” Mr. Barrett noted.

“However, if blood pressure is not well controlled, then patients near the 140/90 level could benefit from monitoring their blood pressure regularly, closer medical follow-up, and avoiding decreased physical activity and increased weight toward year end,” he added.

Wanpen Vongpatanasin, MD, clinical chair for the conference, said that it’s “well known that BP tends to lower during summer months and patients may be susceptible to dehydration and acute kidney injury when BP is too low, particularly when treated with certain medication such as diuretics.”

On the flip side, “cold weather predisposes to vasoconstriction as our blood vessel constrict to maintain core temperature and it could be challenging to manage BP. That’s why it is important for high BP patients to monitor home BP regularly,” said Dr. Vongpatanasin, professor of internal medicine and director of the hypertension section, cardiology division, UT Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas.

The study had no commercial funding. Mr. Barrett and Dr. Vongpatanasin have no relevant disclosures.

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

Switching frail patients with atrial fibrillation (AFib) from anticoagulation therapy with vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) to a novel oral anticoagulant (NOAC) resulted in more bleeding without any reduction in thromboembolic complications or all-cause mortality, randomized trial results show.

The study, FRAIL-AF, is the first randomized NOAC trial to exclusively include frail older patients, said lead author Linda P.T. Joosten, MD, Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care in Utrecht, the Netherlands, and these unexpected findings provide evidence that goes beyond what is currently available.

“Data from the FRAIL-AF trial showed that switching from a VKA to a NOAC should not be considered without a clear indication in frail older patients with AF[ib], as switching to a NOAC leads to 69% more bleeding,” she concluded, without any benefit on secondary clinical endpoints, including thromboembolic events and all-cause mortality.

“The results turned out different than we expected,” Dr. Joosten said. “The hypothesis of this superiority trial was that switching from VKA therapy to a NOAC would result in less bleeding. However, we observed the opposite. After the interim analysis, the data and safety monitoring board advised to stop inclusion because switching from a VKA to a NOAC was clearly contraindicated with a hazard ratio of 1.69 and a highly significant P value of .001.”

Results of FRAIL-AF were presented at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology and published online in the journal Circulation.

Session moderator Renate B. Schnabel, MD, interventional cardiologist with University Heart & Vascular Center Hamburg (Germany), congratulated the researchers on these “astonishing” data.

“The thing I want to emphasize here is that, in the absence of randomized controlled trial data, we should be very cautious in extrapolating data from the landmark trials to populations not enrolled in those, and to rely on observational data only,” Dr. Schnabel told Dr. Joosten. “We need randomized controlled trials that sometimes give astonishing results.”
 

Frailty a clinical syndrome

Frailty is “a lot more than just aging, multiple comorbidities and polypharmacy,” Dr. Joosten explained. “It’s really a clinical syndrome, with people with a high biological vulnerability, dependency on significant others, and a reduced capacity to resist stressors, all leading to a reduced homeostatic reserve.”

Frailty is common in the community, with a prevalence of about 12%, she noted, “and even more important, AF[ib] in frail older people is very common, with a prevalence of 18%. And “without any doubt, we have to adequately anticoagulate frail AF[ib] patients, as they have a high stroke risk, with an incidence of 12.4% per year,” Dr. Joosten noted, compared with 3.9% per year among nonfrail AFib patients.

NOACs are preferred over VKAs in nonfrail AFib patients, after four major trials, RE-LY with dabigatran, ROCKET-AF with rivaroxaban, ARISTOTLE with apixaban, and ENGAGE-AF with edoxaban, showed that NOAC treatment resulted in less major bleeding while stroke risk was comparable with treatment with warfarin, she noted.

The 2023 European Heart Rhythm Association consensus document on management of arrhythmias in frailty syndrome concludes that the advantages of NOACs relative to VKAs are “likely consistent” in frail and nonfrail AFib patients, but the level of evidence is low.  

So it’s unknown if NOACs are preferred over VKAs in frail AFib patients, “and it’s even more questionable whether patients on VKAs should switch to NOAC therapy,” Dr. Joosten said.

This new trial aimed to answer the question of whether switching frail AFib patients currently managed on a VKA to a NOAC would reduce bleeding. FRAIL-AF was a pragmatic, multicenter, open-label, randomized, controlled superiority trial.

Older AFib patients were deemed frail if they were aged 75 years or older and had a score of 3 or more on the validated Groningen Frailty Indicator (GFI). Patients with a glomerular filtration rate of less than 30 mL/min per 1.73 m² or with valvular AFib were excluded.

Eligible patients were then assigned randomly to switch from their international normalized ratio (INR)–guided VKA treatment with either 1 mg acenocoumarol or 3 mg phenprocoumon, to a NOAC, or to continue VKA treatment. They were followed for 12 months for the primary outcome – major bleeding or clinically relevant nonmajor bleeding complication, whichever came first – accounting for death as a competing risk.

A total of 1,330 patients were randomly assigned between January 2018 and June 2022. Their mean age was 83 years, and they had a median GFI of 4. After randomization, 6 patients in the switch-to-NOAC arm, and 1 in the continue-VKA arm were found to have exclusion criteria, so in the end, 662 patients were switched from a VKA to NOAC, while 661 continued on VKA therapy. The choice of NOAC was made by the treating physician.

Major bleeding was defined as a fatal bleeding; bleeding in a critical area or organ; bleeding leading to transfusion; and/or bleeding leading to a fall in hemoglobin level of 2 g/dL (1.24 mmol/L) or more. Nonmajor bleeding was bleeding not considered major but requiring face-to-face consultation, hospitalization or increased level of care, or medical intervention.

After a prespecified futility analysis planned after 163 primary outcome events, the trial was halted when it was seen that there were 101 primary outcome events in the switch arm compared to 62 in the continue arm, Dr. Joosten said. The difference appeared to be driven by clinically relevant nonmajor bleeding.

Completely different patients

Discussant at the meeting for the presentation was Isabelle C. Van Gelder, MD, University Medical Centre Groningen (the Netherlands). She said the results are important and relevant because it “provides data on an important gap of knowledge in our AF[ib] guidelines, and a note for all the cardiologists – this study was not done in the hospital. This trial was done in general practitioner practices, so that’s important to consider.”

Comparing FRAIL-AF patients with those of the four previous NOAC trials, “you see that enormous difference in age,” with an average age of 83 years versus 70-73 years in those trials. “These are completely different patients than have been included previously,” she said.

That GFI score of 4 or more includes patients on four or more different types of medication, as well as memory complaints, an inability to walk around the house, and problems with vision or hearing.

The finding of a 69% increase in bleeding with NOACs in FRAIL-AF was “completely unexpected, and I think that we as cardiologists and as NOAC believers did not expect it at all, but it is as clear as it is.” The curves don’t diverge immediately, but rather after 3 months or thereafter, “so it has nothing to do with the switching process. So why did it occur?”

The Netherlands has dedicated thrombosis services that might improve time in therapeutic range for VKA patients, but there is no real difference in TTRs in FRAIL-AF versus the other NOAC trials, Dr. Van Gelder noted.

The most likely suspect in her view is frailty itself, in particular the tendency for patients to be on a high number of medications. A previous study showed, for example, that polypharmacy could be used as a proxy for the effect of frailty on bleeding risk; patients on 10 or more medications had a higher risk for bleeding on treatment with rivaroxaban versus those on 4 or fewer medications.

“Therefore, in my view, why was there such a high risk of bleeding? It’s because these are other patients than we are normally used to treat, we as cardiologists,” although general practitioners see these patients all the time. “It’s all about frailty.”

NOACs are still relatively new drugs, with possible unknown interactions, she added. Because of their frailty and polypharmacy, these patients may benefit from INR control, Dr. Van Gelder speculated. “Therefore, I agree with them that we should be careful; if such old, frail patients survive on VKA, do not change medications and do not switch!”

The study was supported by the Dutch government with additional and unrestricted educational grants from Boehringer Ingelheim, BMS-Pfizer, Bayer, and Daiichi Sankyo. Dr. Joosten reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Van Gelder reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Switching frail patients with atrial fibrillation (AFib) from anticoagulation therapy with vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) to a novel oral anticoagulant (NOAC) resulted in more bleeding without any reduction in thromboembolic complications or all-cause mortality, randomized trial results show.

The study, FRAIL-AF, is the first randomized NOAC trial to exclusively include frail older patients, said lead author Linda P.T. Joosten, MD, Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care in Utrecht, the Netherlands, and these unexpected findings provide evidence that goes beyond what is currently available.

“Data from the FRAIL-AF trial showed that switching from a VKA to a NOAC should not be considered without a clear indication in frail older patients with AF[ib], as switching to a NOAC leads to 69% more bleeding,” she concluded, without any benefit on secondary clinical endpoints, including thromboembolic events and all-cause mortality.

“The results turned out different than we expected,” Dr. Joosten said. “The hypothesis of this superiority trial was that switching from VKA therapy to a NOAC would result in less bleeding. However, we observed the opposite. After the interim analysis, the data and safety monitoring board advised to stop inclusion because switching from a VKA to a NOAC was clearly contraindicated with a hazard ratio of 1.69 and a highly significant P value of .001.”

Results of FRAIL-AF were presented at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology and published online in the journal Circulation.

Session moderator Renate B. Schnabel, MD, interventional cardiologist with University Heart & Vascular Center Hamburg (Germany), congratulated the researchers on these “astonishing” data.

“The thing I want to emphasize here is that, in the absence of randomized controlled trial data, we should be very cautious in extrapolating data from the landmark trials to populations not enrolled in those, and to rely on observational data only,” Dr. Schnabel told Dr. Joosten. “We need randomized controlled trials that sometimes give astonishing results.”
 

Frailty a clinical syndrome

Frailty is “a lot more than just aging, multiple comorbidities and polypharmacy,” Dr. Joosten explained. “It’s really a clinical syndrome, with people with a high biological vulnerability, dependency on significant others, and a reduced capacity to resist stressors, all leading to a reduced homeostatic reserve.”

Frailty is common in the community, with a prevalence of about 12%, she noted, “and even more important, AF[ib] in frail older people is very common, with a prevalence of 18%. And “without any doubt, we have to adequately anticoagulate frail AF[ib] patients, as they have a high stroke risk, with an incidence of 12.4% per year,” Dr. Joosten noted, compared with 3.9% per year among nonfrail AFib patients.

NOACs are preferred over VKAs in nonfrail AFib patients, after four major trials, RE-LY with dabigatran, ROCKET-AF with rivaroxaban, ARISTOTLE with apixaban, and ENGAGE-AF with edoxaban, showed that NOAC treatment resulted in less major bleeding while stroke risk was comparable with treatment with warfarin, she noted.

The 2023 European Heart Rhythm Association consensus document on management of arrhythmias in frailty syndrome concludes that the advantages of NOACs relative to VKAs are “likely consistent” in frail and nonfrail AFib patients, but the level of evidence is low.  

So it’s unknown if NOACs are preferred over VKAs in frail AFib patients, “and it’s even more questionable whether patients on VKAs should switch to NOAC therapy,” Dr. Joosten said.

This new trial aimed to answer the question of whether switching frail AFib patients currently managed on a VKA to a NOAC would reduce bleeding. FRAIL-AF was a pragmatic, multicenter, open-label, randomized, controlled superiority trial.

Older AFib patients were deemed frail if they were aged 75 years or older and had a score of 3 or more on the validated Groningen Frailty Indicator (GFI). Patients with a glomerular filtration rate of less than 30 mL/min per 1.73 m² or with valvular AFib were excluded.

Eligible patients were then assigned randomly to switch from their international normalized ratio (INR)–guided VKA treatment with either 1 mg acenocoumarol or 3 mg phenprocoumon, to a NOAC, or to continue VKA treatment. They were followed for 12 months for the primary outcome – major bleeding or clinically relevant nonmajor bleeding complication, whichever came first – accounting for death as a competing risk.

A total of 1,330 patients were randomly assigned between January 2018 and June 2022. Their mean age was 83 years, and they had a median GFI of 4. After randomization, 6 patients in the switch-to-NOAC arm, and 1 in the continue-VKA arm were found to have exclusion criteria, so in the end, 662 patients were switched from a VKA to NOAC, while 661 continued on VKA therapy. The choice of NOAC was made by the treating physician.

Major bleeding was defined as a fatal bleeding; bleeding in a critical area or organ; bleeding leading to transfusion; and/or bleeding leading to a fall in hemoglobin level of 2 g/dL (1.24 mmol/L) or more. Nonmajor bleeding was bleeding not considered major but requiring face-to-face consultation, hospitalization or increased level of care, or medical intervention.

After a prespecified futility analysis planned after 163 primary outcome events, the trial was halted when it was seen that there were 101 primary outcome events in the switch arm compared to 62 in the continue arm, Dr. Joosten said. The difference appeared to be driven by clinically relevant nonmajor bleeding.

Completely different patients

Discussant at the meeting for the presentation was Isabelle C. Van Gelder, MD, University Medical Centre Groningen (the Netherlands). She said the results are important and relevant because it “provides data on an important gap of knowledge in our AF[ib] guidelines, and a note for all the cardiologists – this study was not done in the hospital. This trial was done in general practitioner practices, so that’s important to consider.”

Comparing FRAIL-AF patients with those of the four previous NOAC trials, “you see that enormous difference in age,” with an average age of 83 years versus 70-73 years in those trials. “These are completely different patients than have been included previously,” she said.

That GFI score of 4 or more includes patients on four or more different types of medication, as well as memory complaints, an inability to walk around the house, and problems with vision or hearing.

The finding of a 69% increase in bleeding with NOACs in FRAIL-AF was “completely unexpected, and I think that we as cardiologists and as NOAC believers did not expect it at all, but it is as clear as it is.” The curves don’t diverge immediately, but rather after 3 months or thereafter, “so it has nothing to do with the switching process. So why did it occur?”

The Netherlands has dedicated thrombosis services that might improve time in therapeutic range for VKA patients, but there is no real difference in TTRs in FRAIL-AF versus the other NOAC trials, Dr. Van Gelder noted.

The most likely suspect in her view is frailty itself, in particular the tendency for patients to be on a high number of medications. A previous study showed, for example, that polypharmacy could be used as a proxy for the effect of frailty on bleeding risk; patients on 10 or more medications had a higher risk for bleeding on treatment with rivaroxaban versus those on 4 or fewer medications.

“Therefore, in my view, why was there such a high risk of bleeding? It’s because these are other patients than we are normally used to treat, we as cardiologists,” although general practitioners see these patients all the time. “It’s all about frailty.”

NOACs are still relatively new drugs, with possible unknown interactions, she added. Because of their frailty and polypharmacy, these patients may benefit from INR control, Dr. Van Gelder speculated. “Therefore, I agree with them that we should be careful; if such old, frail patients survive on VKA, do not change medications and do not switch!”

The study was supported by the Dutch government with additional and unrestricted educational grants from Boehringer Ingelheim, BMS-Pfizer, Bayer, and Daiichi Sankyo. Dr. Joosten reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Van Gelder reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Switching frail patients with atrial fibrillation (AFib) from anticoagulation therapy with vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) to a novel oral anticoagulant (NOAC) resulted in more bleeding without any reduction in thromboembolic complications or all-cause mortality, randomized trial results show.

The study, FRAIL-AF, is the first randomized NOAC trial to exclusively include frail older patients, said lead author Linda P.T. Joosten, MD, Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care in Utrecht, the Netherlands, and these unexpected findings provide evidence that goes beyond what is currently available.

“Data from the FRAIL-AF trial showed that switching from a VKA to a NOAC should not be considered without a clear indication in frail older patients with AF[ib], as switching to a NOAC leads to 69% more bleeding,” she concluded, without any benefit on secondary clinical endpoints, including thromboembolic events and all-cause mortality.

“The results turned out different than we expected,” Dr. Joosten said. “The hypothesis of this superiority trial was that switching from VKA therapy to a NOAC would result in less bleeding. However, we observed the opposite. After the interim analysis, the data and safety monitoring board advised to stop inclusion because switching from a VKA to a NOAC was clearly contraindicated with a hazard ratio of 1.69 and a highly significant P value of .001.”

Results of FRAIL-AF were presented at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology and published online in the journal Circulation.

Session moderator Renate B. Schnabel, MD, interventional cardiologist with University Heart & Vascular Center Hamburg (Germany), congratulated the researchers on these “astonishing” data.

“The thing I want to emphasize here is that, in the absence of randomized controlled trial data, we should be very cautious in extrapolating data from the landmark trials to populations not enrolled in those, and to rely on observational data only,” Dr. Schnabel told Dr. Joosten. “We need randomized controlled trials that sometimes give astonishing results.”
 

Frailty a clinical syndrome

Frailty is “a lot more than just aging, multiple comorbidities and polypharmacy,” Dr. Joosten explained. “It’s really a clinical syndrome, with people with a high biological vulnerability, dependency on significant others, and a reduced capacity to resist stressors, all leading to a reduced homeostatic reserve.”

Frailty is common in the community, with a prevalence of about 12%, she noted, “and even more important, AF[ib] in frail older people is very common, with a prevalence of 18%. And “without any doubt, we have to adequately anticoagulate frail AF[ib] patients, as they have a high stroke risk, with an incidence of 12.4% per year,” Dr. Joosten noted, compared with 3.9% per year among nonfrail AFib patients.

NOACs are preferred over VKAs in nonfrail AFib patients, after four major trials, RE-LY with dabigatran, ROCKET-AF with rivaroxaban, ARISTOTLE with apixaban, and ENGAGE-AF with edoxaban, showed that NOAC treatment resulted in less major bleeding while stroke risk was comparable with treatment with warfarin, she noted.

The 2023 European Heart Rhythm Association consensus document on management of arrhythmias in frailty syndrome concludes that the advantages of NOACs relative to VKAs are “likely consistent” in frail and nonfrail AFib patients, but the level of evidence is low.  

So it’s unknown if NOACs are preferred over VKAs in frail AFib patients, “and it’s even more questionable whether patients on VKAs should switch to NOAC therapy,” Dr. Joosten said.

This new trial aimed to answer the question of whether switching frail AFib patients currently managed on a VKA to a NOAC would reduce bleeding. FRAIL-AF was a pragmatic, multicenter, open-label, randomized, controlled superiority trial.

Older AFib patients were deemed frail if they were aged 75 years or older and had a score of 3 or more on the validated Groningen Frailty Indicator (GFI). Patients with a glomerular filtration rate of less than 30 mL/min per 1.73 m² or with valvular AFib were excluded.

Eligible patients were then assigned randomly to switch from their international normalized ratio (INR)–guided VKA treatment with either 1 mg acenocoumarol or 3 mg phenprocoumon, to a NOAC, or to continue VKA treatment. They were followed for 12 months for the primary outcome – major bleeding or clinically relevant nonmajor bleeding complication, whichever came first – accounting for death as a competing risk.

A total of 1,330 patients were randomly assigned between January 2018 and June 2022. Their mean age was 83 years, and they had a median GFI of 4. After randomization, 6 patients in the switch-to-NOAC arm, and 1 in the continue-VKA arm were found to have exclusion criteria, so in the end, 662 patients were switched from a VKA to NOAC, while 661 continued on VKA therapy. The choice of NOAC was made by the treating physician.

Major bleeding was defined as a fatal bleeding; bleeding in a critical area or organ; bleeding leading to transfusion; and/or bleeding leading to a fall in hemoglobin level of 2 g/dL (1.24 mmol/L) or more. Nonmajor bleeding was bleeding not considered major but requiring face-to-face consultation, hospitalization or increased level of care, or medical intervention.

After a prespecified futility analysis planned after 163 primary outcome events, the trial was halted when it was seen that there were 101 primary outcome events in the switch arm compared to 62 in the continue arm, Dr. Joosten said. The difference appeared to be driven by clinically relevant nonmajor bleeding.

Completely different patients

Discussant at the meeting for the presentation was Isabelle C. Van Gelder, MD, University Medical Centre Groningen (the Netherlands). She said the results are important and relevant because it “provides data on an important gap of knowledge in our AF[ib] guidelines, and a note for all the cardiologists – this study was not done in the hospital. This trial was done in general practitioner practices, so that’s important to consider.”

Comparing FRAIL-AF patients with those of the four previous NOAC trials, “you see that enormous difference in age,” with an average age of 83 years versus 70-73 years in those trials. “These are completely different patients than have been included previously,” she said.

That GFI score of 4 or more includes patients on four or more different types of medication, as well as memory complaints, an inability to walk around the house, and problems with vision or hearing.

The finding of a 69% increase in bleeding with NOACs in FRAIL-AF was “completely unexpected, and I think that we as cardiologists and as NOAC believers did not expect it at all, but it is as clear as it is.” The curves don’t diverge immediately, but rather after 3 months or thereafter, “so it has nothing to do with the switching process. So why did it occur?”

The Netherlands has dedicated thrombosis services that might improve time in therapeutic range for VKA patients, but there is no real difference in TTRs in FRAIL-AF versus the other NOAC trials, Dr. Van Gelder noted.

The most likely suspect in her view is frailty itself, in particular the tendency for patients to be on a high number of medications. A previous study showed, for example, that polypharmacy could be used as a proxy for the effect of frailty on bleeding risk; patients on 10 or more medications had a higher risk for bleeding on treatment with rivaroxaban versus those on 4 or fewer medications.

“Therefore, in my view, why was there such a high risk of bleeding? It’s because these are other patients than we are normally used to treat, we as cardiologists,” although general practitioners see these patients all the time. “It’s all about frailty.”

NOACs are still relatively new drugs, with possible unknown interactions, she added. Because of their frailty and polypharmacy, these patients may benefit from INR control, Dr. Van Gelder speculated. “Therefore, I agree with them that we should be careful; if such old, frail patients survive on VKA, do not change medications and do not switch!”

The study was supported by the Dutch government with additional and unrestricted educational grants from Boehringer Ingelheim, BMS-Pfizer, Bayer, and Daiichi Sankyo. Dr. Joosten reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Van Gelder reported no relevant financial relationships.

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