Cardiology

Lung cancer screening with low-dose CT can detect extensive coronary artery calcium (CAC), an independent predictor of all-cause death and cardiovascular events, new research suggested.

“The high prevalence of asymptomatic coronary artery disease (83%) was surprising, as was the prevalence of extensive CAC (30%),” principal investigator Gary Small, MBChB, PhD, a cardiologist at the University of Ottawa Heart Institute in Ontario, Canada, said in an interview.

“The size of effect was also surprising, as was the persistence of the effect even in the presence of elevated mortality risk from other causes,” he said. “Extensive coronary disease was associated with a twofold increase in risk for death or cardiovascular events over 4 years of follow-up,” even after adjustment for risk for death from cancer and other comorbidities such as chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.

“CAC as reported on chest CT exams is often ignored and not factored into clinical practice,” he noted. “The presence of CAC, however, provides a very real and very personal perspective on an individual’s cardiovascular risk. It is a true example of personalized medicine.”

The study was published online in The Canadian Medical Association Journal.

 

Potential Risk Reduction 

In March 2017, Ontario Health launched a pilot low-dose CT lung cancer screening program for high-risk individuals between the ages of 55 and 74 years, Small explained. As CAC, a marker of coronary artery disease, is seen easily during such a scan, the researchers analyzed the lung CTs to determine the prevalence of coronary artery disease and whether CAC was associated with increased risk.

The team quantified CAC using an estimated Agatston score and identified the composite primary outcome of all-cause death and cardiovascular events using linked electronic medical record data from Ottawa Hospital up to December 2023. Among the 1486 people who underwent screening (mean age, 66 years; 52% men; 68% current smokers), CAC was detected in 1232 (82.9%). CAC was mild to moderate in 793 participants (53.4%) and extensive in 439 (29.5%). No CAC was detected in 254 (17.1%) participants.

At follow-up, 78 participants (5.2%) experienced the primary composite outcome, including 39 (8.9%) with extensive CAC, 32 (4.0%) with mild to moderate CAC, and 7 (2.8%) with no CAC.

A total of 49 deaths occurred, including 16 cardiovascular deaths and 19 cancer deaths, of which 10 were from lung cancer. Cardiovascular events included sudden cardiac death (eight participants), fatal stroke (six participants), and one each from heart failure and peripheral vascular disease.

On multivariable analysis, extensive CAC was associated with the composite primary outcome (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 2.13), all-cause mortality (aHR, 2.39), and cardiovascular events (aHR, 2.06).

Extensive CAC remained predictive of cardiovascular events even after adjustment for noncardiovascular death as a competing risk (HR, 2.05).

“Our data highlight to lung cancer screening professionals the prevalence of this silent risk factor and re-emphasize the importance of this finding [ie, CAC] as an opportunity for risk reduction,” Small said.

“In terms of next steps, the journey toward cardiovascular risk reduction begins with a clear report of CAC on the lung cancer screening record,” he noted. “Following this step, professionals involved in the lung cancer screening program might consider a local management pathway to ensure that this opportunity for health improvement is not lost or ignored. Preventive medicine of this type would typically involve primary care.”

 

Managing Other Findings

Commenting on the study, Anna Bader, MD, assistant professor of radiology and biomedical imaging at the Yale School of Medicine in New Haven, Connecticut, said that “low-dose CT for lung cancer screening offers valuable insights beyond nodule detection, with CAC being among the most significant incidental findings.”

However, she added, a “robust mechanism” to effectively manage other findings — such as thoracic aortic disease, low bone density, and abnormalities in the thyroid or upper abdominal organs — without overdiagnosis, is needed. A mechanism also is needed to notify cardiologists or primary care providers about severe CAC findings.

Challenges that need to be overcome before such mechanisms can be put in place, she said, “include ensuring standardized CAC reporting, avoiding overburdening healthcare providers, mitigating the risk of excessive downstream testing, and ensuring equitable access to follow-up care for underserved and rural communities.”

Providers involved in lung cancer screening “must be trained to recognize the importance of CAC findings and act upon them,” she added. “Awareness campaigns or continuing medical education modules could address this.”

Multidisciplinary lung cancer screening programs can help with patient education, she noted. “Clear communication about potential findings, including the significance of incidental CAC, should be prioritized and addressed proactively, ideally before the exam, to enhance patient understanding and engagement.”

Matthew Tomey, MD, assistant professor of medicine at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York City, said that, “as a practicing cardiologist, I find it very helpful to look at my patients’ recent or past CT scans to look for vascular calcification. Whether or not a scan is specifically protocoled as a cardiac study, we can often appreciate vascular calcification when it is present. I would encourage every physician involved in helping their patients to prevent heart disease to take advantage of looking at any prior CT scans for evidence of vascular calcification.

“Systems of care to facilitate recognition of patients with incidentally discovered vascular calcification would be welcome and, on a large scale, could help prevent cardiovascular events,” he noted. “Such a system might involve facilitating referral to a prevention specialist. It could involve evidence-based guidance for referring physicians who ordered scans.”

Like Bader, he noted the importance of patient education, adding that it could be quite powerful. “We should be doing more to empower our patients to understand the findings of their imaging and to give them actionable, evidence-based guidance on how they can promote their own cardiovascular health,” he concluded.

No funding for the study was reported. Small reported receiving a research grant for amyloid research from Pfizer and honoraria from Pfizer and Alnylam (all paid to the institution, outside the submitted work). Bader and Tomey declared no relevant conflicts.

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

Lung cancer screening with low-dose CT can detect extensive coronary artery calcium (CAC), an independent predictor of all-cause death and cardiovascular events, new research suggested.

“The high prevalence of asymptomatic coronary artery disease (83%) was surprising, as was the prevalence of extensive CAC (30%),” principal investigator Gary Small, MBChB, PhD, a cardiologist at the University of Ottawa Heart Institute in Ontario, Canada, said in an interview.

“The size of effect was also surprising, as was the persistence of the effect even in the presence of elevated mortality risk from other causes,” he said. “Extensive coronary disease was associated with a twofold increase in risk for death or cardiovascular events over 4 years of follow-up,” even after adjustment for risk for death from cancer and other comorbidities such as chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.

“CAC as reported on chest CT exams is often ignored and not factored into clinical practice,” he noted. “The presence of CAC, however, provides a very real and very personal perspective on an individual’s cardiovascular risk. It is a true example of personalized medicine.”

The study was published online in The Canadian Medical Association Journal.

 

Potential Risk Reduction 

In March 2017, Ontario Health launched a pilot low-dose CT lung cancer screening program for high-risk individuals between the ages of 55 and 74 years, Small explained. As CAC, a marker of coronary artery disease, is seen easily during such a scan, the researchers analyzed the lung CTs to determine the prevalence of coronary artery disease and whether CAC was associated with increased risk.

The team quantified CAC using an estimated Agatston score and identified the composite primary outcome of all-cause death and cardiovascular events using linked electronic medical record data from Ottawa Hospital up to December 2023. Among the 1486 people who underwent screening (mean age, 66 years; 52% men; 68% current smokers), CAC was detected in 1232 (82.9%). CAC was mild to moderate in 793 participants (53.4%) and extensive in 439 (29.5%). No CAC was detected in 254 (17.1%) participants.

At follow-up, 78 participants (5.2%) experienced the primary composite outcome, including 39 (8.9%) with extensive CAC, 32 (4.0%) with mild to moderate CAC, and 7 (2.8%) with no CAC.

A total of 49 deaths occurred, including 16 cardiovascular deaths and 19 cancer deaths, of which 10 were from lung cancer. Cardiovascular events included sudden cardiac death (eight participants), fatal stroke (six participants), and one each from heart failure and peripheral vascular disease.

On multivariable analysis, extensive CAC was associated with the composite primary outcome (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 2.13), all-cause mortality (aHR, 2.39), and cardiovascular events (aHR, 2.06).

Extensive CAC remained predictive of cardiovascular events even after adjustment for noncardiovascular death as a competing risk (HR, 2.05).

“Our data highlight to lung cancer screening professionals the prevalence of this silent risk factor and re-emphasize the importance of this finding [ie, CAC] as an opportunity for risk reduction,” Small said.

“In terms of next steps, the journey toward cardiovascular risk reduction begins with a clear report of CAC on the lung cancer screening record,” he noted. “Following this step, professionals involved in the lung cancer screening program might consider a local management pathway to ensure that this opportunity for health improvement is not lost or ignored. Preventive medicine of this type would typically involve primary care.”

 

Managing Other Findings

Commenting on the study, Anna Bader, MD, assistant professor of radiology and biomedical imaging at the Yale School of Medicine in New Haven, Connecticut, said that “low-dose CT for lung cancer screening offers valuable insights beyond nodule detection, with CAC being among the most significant incidental findings.”

However, she added, a “robust mechanism” to effectively manage other findings — such as thoracic aortic disease, low bone density, and abnormalities in the thyroid or upper abdominal organs — without overdiagnosis, is needed. A mechanism also is needed to notify cardiologists or primary care providers about severe CAC findings.

Challenges that need to be overcome before such mechanisms can be put in place, she said, “include ensuring standardized CAC reporting, avoiding overburdening healthcare providers, mitigating the risk of excessive downstream testing, and ensuring equitable access to follow-up care for underserved and rural communities.”

Providers involved in lung cancer screening “must be trained to recognize the importance of CAC findings and act upon them,” she added. “Awareness campaigns or continuing medical education modules could address this.”

Multidisciplinary lung cancer screening programs can help with patient education, she noted. “Clear communication about potential findings, including the significance of incidental CAC, should be prioritized and addressed proactively, ideally before the exam, to enhance patient understanding and engagement.”

Matthew Tomey, MD, assistant professor of medicine at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York City, said that, “as a practicing cardiologist, I find it very helpful to look at my patients’ recent or past CT scans to look for vascular calcification. Whether or not a scan is specifically protocoled as a cardiac study, we can often appreciate vascular calcification when it is present. I would encourage every physician involved in helping their patients to prevent heart disease to take advantage of looking at any prior CT scans for evidence of vascular calcification.

“Systems of care to facilitate recognition of patients with incidentally discovered vascular calcification would be welcome and, on a large scale, could help prevent cardiovascular events,” he noted. “Such a system might involve facilitating referral to a prevention specialist. It could involve evidence-based guidance for referring physicians who ordered scans.”

Like Bader, he noted the importance of patient education, adding that it could be quite powerful. “We should be doing more to empower our patients to understand the findings of their imaging and to give them actionable, evidence-based guidance on how they can promote their own cardiovascular health,” he concluded.

No funding for the study was reported. Small reported receiving a research grant for amyloid research from Pfizer and honoraria from Pfizer and Alnylam (all paid to the institution, outside the submitted work). Bader and Tomey declared no relevant conflicts.

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

Lung cancer screening with low-dose CT can detect extensive coronary artery calcium (CAC), an independent predictor of all-cause death and cardiovascular events, new research suggested.

“The high prevalence of asymptomatic coronary artery disease (83%) was surprising, as was the prevalence of extensive CAC (30%),” principal investigator Gary Small, MBChB, PhD, a cardiologist at the University of Ottawa Heart Institute in Ontario, Canada, said in an interview.

“The size of effect was also surprising, as was the persistence of the effect even in the presence of elevated mortality risk from other causes,” he said. “Extensive coronary disease was associated with a twofold increase in risk for death or cardiovascular events over 4 years of follow-up,” even after adjustment for risk for death from cancer and other comorbidities such as chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.

“CAC as reported on chest CT exams is often ignored and not factored into clinical practice,” he noted. “The presence of CAC, however, provides a very real and very personal perspective on an individual’s cardiovascular risk. It is a true example of personalized medicine.”

The study was published online in The Canadian Medical Association Journal.

 

Potential Risk Reduction 

In March 2017, Ontario Health launched a pilot low-dose CT lung cancer screening program for high-risk individuals between the ages of 55 and 74 years, Small explained. As CAC, a marker of coronary artery disease, is seen easily during such a scan, the researchers analyzed the lung CTs to determine the prevalence of coronary artery disease and whether CAC was associated with increased risk.

The team quantified CAC using an estimated Agatston score and identified the composite primary outcome of all-cause death and cardiovascular events using linked electronic medical record data from Ottawa Hospital up to December 2023. Among the 1486 people who underwent screening (mean age, 66 years; 52% men; 68% current smokers), CAC was detected in 1232 (82.9%). CAC was mild to moderate in 793 participants (53.4%) and extensive in 439 (29.5%). No CAC was detected in 254 (17.1%) participants.

At follow-up, 78 participants (5.2%) experienced the primary composite outcome, including 39 (8.9%) with extensive CAC, 32 (4.0%) with mild to moderate CAC, and 7 (2.8%) with no CAC.

A total of 49 deaths occurred, including 16 cardiovascular deaths and 19 cancer deaths, of which 10 were from lung cancer. Cardiovascular events included sudden cardiac death (eight participants), fatal stroke (six participants), and one each from heart failure and peripheral vascular disease.

On multivariable analysis, extensive CAC was associated with the composite primary outcome (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 2.13), all-cause mortality (aHR, 2.39), and cardiovascular events (aHR, 2.06).

Extensive CAC remained predictive of cardiovascular events even after adjustment for noncardiovascular death as a competing risk (HR, 2.05).

“Our data highlight to lung cancer screening professionals the prevalence of this silent risk factor and re-emphasize the importance of this finding [ie, CAC] as an opportunity for risk reduction,” Small said.

“In terms of next steps, the journey toward cardiovascular risk reduction begins with a clear report of CAC on the lung cancer screening record,” he noted. “Following this step, professionals involved in the lung cancer screening program might consider a local management pathway to ensure that this opportunity for health improvement is not lost or ignored. Preventive medicine of this type would typically involve primary care.”

 

Managing Other Findings

Commenting on the study, Anna Bader, MD, assistant professor of radiology and biomedical imaging at the Yale School of Medicine in New Haven, Connecticut, said that “low-dose CT for lung cancer screening offers valuable insights beyond nodule detection, with CAC being among the most significant incidental findings.”

However, she added, a “robust mechanism” to effectively manage other findings — such as thoracic aortic disease, low bone density, and abnormalities in the thyroid or upper abdominal organs — without overdiagnosis, is needed. A mechanism also is needed to notify cardiologists or primary care providers about severe CAC findings.

Challenges that need to be overcome before such mechanisms can be put in place, she said, “include ensuring standardized CAC reporting, avoiding overburdening healthcare providers, mitigating the risk of excessive downstream testing, and ensuring equitable access to follow-up care for underserved and rural communities.”

Providers involved in lung cancer screening “must be trained to recognize the importance of CAC findings and act upon them,” she added. “Awareness campaigns or continuing medical education modules could address this.”

Multidisciplinary lung cancer screening programs can help with patient education, she noted. “Clear communication about potential findings, including the significance of incidental CAC, should be prioritized and addressed proactively, ideally before the exam, to enhance patient understanding and engagement.”

Matthew Tomey, MD, assistant professor of medicine at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York City, said that, “as a practicing cardiologist, I find it very helpful to look at my patients’ recent or past CT scans to look for vascular calcification. Whether or not a scan is specifically protocoled as a cardiac study, we can often appreciate vascular calcification when it is present. I would encourage every physician involved in helping their patients to prevent heart disease to take advantage of looking at any prior CT scans for evidence of vascular calcification.

“Systems of care to facilitate recognition of patients with incidentally discovered vascular calcification would be welcome and, on a large scale, could help prevent cardiovascular events,” he noted. “Such a system might involve facilitating referral to a prevention specialist. It could involve evidence-based guidance for referring physicians who ordered scans.”

Like Bader, he noted the importance of patient education, adding that it could be quite powerful. “We should be doing more to empower our patients to understand the findings of their imaging and to give them actionable, evidence-based guidance on how they can promote their own cardiovascular health,” he concluded.

No funding for the study was reported. Small reported receiving a research grant for amyloid research from Pfizer and honoraria from Pfizer and Alnylam (all paid to the institution, outside the submitted work). Bader and Tomey declared no relevant conflicts.

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

The results of the SUMMIT trial of the long-acting agonist of glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide (GIP) and GLP-1 receptors, tirzepatide, in patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) and obesity are positive. But the trial design leaves clinicians and regulators with big doses of uncertainty.

Known Facts About HFpEF

HFpEF has exceeded heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) as the most common form of heart failure. HFpEF differs from HFrEF in that patients with preserved ejection fraction often present later in life with more comorbidities.

Some of these comorbidities are on the causal pathway of heart failure. Obesity, for instance, both associates with HFpEF and surely causes the diastolic dysfunction central to the condition. This may be a direct effect via high excess adipose tissue or an indirect effect via pro-inflammatory pathways.

GLP-1 agonists and the dual-acting GIP/GLP1 agonist tirzepatide have proven efficacy for weight loss. Semaglutide has previously been shown to improve quality of life and physical functioning in two small trials of patients with HFpEF and obesity. Semaglutide also reduced hard clinical outcomes in patients with obesity and these other conditions: chronic kidney disease, diabetes, and established atherosclerotic vascular disease.

This class of drugs is costly. The combination of both high drug costs and highly prevalent conditions such as obesity and HFpEF forces clinicians to make both value and clinical judgments when translating evidence.

 

The SUMMIT Trial

The SUMMIT trial aimed to evaluate tirzepatide’s effect on typical heart failure events, health status and functional capacity in patients with obesity and HFpEF. A total of 731 patients were randomly assigned to receive to tirzepatide or placebo.

Investigators chose two co-primary endpoints. The first was a composite of cardiovascular (CV) death and worsening heart failure events—the latter could be a hospitalization for heart failure, a visit for intravenous diuretics, or intensification of oral diuretics. The idea behind this rather unique composite was to capture all heart failure events. The second co-primary endpoint was a change in baseline Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire clinical summary score (KCCQ-CSS) at 1 year.

Characteristics of the patients included an average age of 65 years, 55% were female, the average body mass index was 38, and the mean left ventricular ejection fraction was 61% (the minimum for trial entry was 50%). Just under half had been hospitalized for heart failure in the year before trial entry.

 

Tirzepatide Results

The primary outcome of CV death and first heart failure event occurred in 36 patients (9.9%) in the tirzepatide group and 56 patients (15.3%) in the placebo group, for a hazard ratio of 0.62 (95% CI, 0.41-0.95; P =.026).

The 5.4% absolute risk reduction in the primary endpoint was completely driven by lower rates of heart failure events (8% vs 14.2%). CV death was actually higher in the tirzepatide arm, but the number of deaths was low in both arms (8 vs 5).

The rate of hospitalizations due to heart failure was lower with tirzepatide (3.3% vs 7.1%), as was intensification of oral diuretics (4.7% vs 5.7%).

The second co-primary endpoint of change from baseline in KCCQ-CSS favored tirzepatide.

Other secondary endpoints also favored tirzepatide: longer 6-minute walk distance, greater change in body weight (-11.6%), and lower high-sensitivity C-reactive protein levels and systolic blood pressure (-4.7 mm Hg).

 

Authors’ Conclusions and Expert Comments

At the American Heart Association Scientific Sessions, the primary investigator Milton Packer, MD, said SUMMIT was the first trial of patients with obesity and HFpEF that had major heart failure outcomes as the primary endpoint. And that tirzepatide changed the clinical trajectory of the disease.

Jennifer Ho, MD, associate professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, said, “This really is a practice-changing trial and cements this type of therapy as one of the cornerstones of obesity and HFpEF treatment.”

Other experts cited a recently published pooled analysis of semaglutide trials looking specifically at patients with HFpEF and found lower rates of HF events with the GLP-1 agonist.

The SUMMIT trial results were covered in 53 news outlets— nearly all with glowing headlines.

 

My Six Concerns With SUMMIT

The trial delivered statistically positive findings. What’s more, patients lost weight, and a greater than 11% weight loss difference is meaningful. Patients with a baseline weight of more than 100 kg who lose this much weight are bound to feel and function better.

The first problem comes when we ask whether the results are disease-modifying. There was no difference in CV death. And the number of hospitalizations for heart failure — the more standard endpoint — was low, at only 12 and 26, respectively. Contrast this with the DELIVER trial of the sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitor dapagliflozin in HFpEF where there were nearly 750 hospitalizations for heart failure and PARAGON-HF of sacubitril-valsartan vs valsartan in HFpEF, where there were nearly 1500. SUMMIT simply had too few events to make conclusions — a point Packer has made regarding AF ablation trials in patients with heart failure.

I have previously called GLP-1 drugs disease-modifying in patients with obesity and atherosclerotic disease. This is because the SELECT trial of semaglutide randomized more than 17,000 patients and recorded a 20% reduction in hard outcomes. And there were more than 1200 primary outcome events. SUMMIT does not come close to this measure.

The second issue is short follow-up. These were 65-year-old patients and with only 2 years of follow-up, it is hard to make conclusions regarding whether or not these drugs can provide long-term benefit.

The third issue is that SUMMIT authors don’t tell us the number of all-cause hospitalizations. I was part of a recently published meta-analysis of more than 100 heart failure trials that raised questions regarding the value of hospitalizations for heart failure as a surrogate for heart failure outcomes.

For instance, we found that in large trials there was great variability in the ability of a reduction in HF hospitalizations to predict a reduction in all-cause hospitalization. In small trials, such as SUMMIT, it would likely be impossible to predict how the reduction in HF hospitalization would predict all-cause hospitalization. I believe all-cause hospitalization is a more inclusive endpoint because it is bias free; it captures benefits and potential harms of the therapy; and it is patient-centered, because patients probably do not care what type of hospitalization they avoid.

The fourth issue with SUMMIT is the difficulty in maintaining blinding, which reduces confidence in outcomes that require clinical decisions or patient judgments. Owing to gastrointestinal symptoms, decreased appetite, and weight loss, patients on this class of drugs are very likely to know their treatment assignment. This is a criticism of not only SUMMIT but all GLP-1 agonist trials. The fact that blinding is difficult to maintain argues for choosing endpoints less susceptible to bias, such as CV death or all-cause hospitalization.

Proponents of tirzepatide for this indication might argue that unblinding is less of an issue because of objective endpoints such as biomarkers. And they have a point, but nearly all other endpoints, especially the co-primary endpoint of KCCQ-CSS, are largely susceptible to bias.

The fifth and main problem comes in translating this evidence in the clinic. Should doctors give up on nondrug means of weight loss? All of the positive outcome trials in this class of drugs have also shown weight loss. I believe we should take these data and use them to re-invigorate our advocacy for weight loss without medication. I know the standard answer to this proposal is nihilism: It just will not work. And I cannot deny that we have failed previously in our efforts to help patients lose weight. But perhaps now, with the vast amount of data, we can be more persuasive. Imagine a world where key opinion leaders made weight loss the message rather than prescription of a drug.

Finally, if you approach SUMMIT from the view of a regulator, with its small numbers of outcome events and bias-susceptible endpoints, you cannot allow a disease-modifying claim. For that we would need a properly powered trial that shows that the drug reduces both CV death and all-cause hospitalization.

In the end, SUMMIT is not close to changing treatment norms in patients with HFpEF. As evidence-based clinicians, we should demand more from our partners in industry and academia.

Dr. Mandrola practices cardiac electrophysiology in Baptist Medical Associates, Louisville, Kentucky, and is a writer and podcaster for Medscape. He espouses a conservative approach to medical practice. He participates in clinical research and writes often about the state of medical evidence. He has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

 

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

The results of the SUMMIT trial of the long-acting agonist of glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide (GIP) and GLP-1 receptors, tirzepatide, in patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) and obesity are positive. But the trial design leaves clinicians and regulators with big doses of uncertainty.

Known Facts About HFpEF

HFpEF has exceeded heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) as the most common form of heart failure. HFpEF differs from HFrEF in that patients with preserved ejection fraction often present later in life with more comorbidities.

Some of these comorbidities are on the causal pathway of heart failure. Obesity, for instance, both associates with HFpEF and surely causes the diastolic dysfunction central to the condition. This may be a direct effect via high excess adipose tissue or an indirect effect via pro-inflammatory pathways.

GLP-1 agonists and the dual-acting GIP/GLP1 agonist tirzepatide have proven efficacy for weight loss. Semaglutide has previously been shown to improve quality of life and physical functioning in two small trials of patients with HFpEF and obesity. Semaglutide also reduced hard clinical outcomes in patients with obesity and these other conditions: chronic kidney disease, diabetes, and established atherosclerotic vascular disease.

This class of drugs is costly. The combination of both high drug costs and highly prevalent conditions such as obesity and HFpEF forces clinicians to make both value and clinical judgments when translating evidence.

 

The SUMMIT Trial

The SUMMIT trial aimed to evaluate tirzepatide’s effect on typical heart failure events, health status and functional capacity in patients with obesity and HFpEF. A total of 731 patients were randomly assigned to receive to tirzepatide or placebo.

Investigators chose two co-primary endpoints. The first was a composite of cardiovascular (CV) death and worsening heart failure events—the latter could be a hospitalization for heart failure, a visit for intravenous diuretics, or intensification of oral diuretics. The idea behind this rather unique composite was to capture all heart failure events. The second co-primary endpoint was a change in baseline Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire clinical summary score (KCCQ-CSS) at 1 year.

Characteristics of the patients included an average age of 65 years, 55% were female, the average body mass index was 38, and the mean left ventricular ejection fraction was 61% (the minimum for trial entry was 50%). Just under half had been hospitalized for heart failure in the year before trial entry.

 

Tirzepatide Results

The primary outcome of CV death and first heart failure event occurred in 36 patients (9.9%) in the tirzepatide group and 56 patients (15.3%) in the placebo group, for a hazard ratio of 0.62 (95% CI, 0.41-0.95; P =.026).

The 5.4% absolute risk reduction in the primary endpoint was completely driven by lower rates of heart failure events (8% vs 14.2%). CV death was actually higher in the tirzepatide arm, but the number of deaths was low in both arms (8 vs 5).

The rate of hospitalizations due to heart failure was lower with tirzepatide (3.3% vs 7.1%), as was intensification of oral diuretics (4.7% vs 5.7%).

The second co-primary endpoint of change from baseline in KCCQ-CSS favored tirzepatide.

Other secondary endpoints also favored tirzepatide: longer 6-minute walk distance, greater change in body weight (-11.6%), and lower high-sensitivity C-reactive protein levels and systolic blood pressure (-4.7 mm Hg).

 

Authors’ Conclusions and Expert Comments

At the American Heart Association Scientific Sessions, the primary investigator Milton Packer, MD, said SUMMIT was the first trial of patients with obesity and HFpEF that had major heart failure outcomes as the primary endpoint. And that tirzepatide changed the clinical trajectory of the disease.

Jennifer Ho, MD, associate professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, said, “This really is a practice-changing trial and cements this type of therapy as one of the cornerstones of obesity and HFpEF treatment.”

Other experts cited a recently published pooled analysis of semaglutide trials looking specifically at patients with HFpEF and found lower rates of HF events with the GLP-1 agonist.

The SUMMIT trial results were covered in 53 news outlets— nearly all with glowing headlines.

 

My Six Concerns With SUMMIT

The trial delivered statistically positive findings. What’s more, patients lost weight, and a greater than 11% weight loss difference is meaningful. Patients with a baseline weight of more than 100 kg who lose this much weight are bound to feel and function better.

The first problem comes when we ask whether the results are disease-modifying. There was no difference in CV death. And the number of hospitalizations for heart failure — the more standard endpoint — was low, at only 12 and 26, respectively. Contrast this with the DELIVER trial of the sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitor dapagliflozin in HFpEF where there were nearly 750 hospitalizations for heart failure and PARAGON-HF of sacubitril-valsartan vs valsartan in HFpEF, where there were nearly 1500. SUMMIT simply had too few events to make conclusions — a point Packer has made regarding AF ablation trials in patients with heart failure.

I have previously called GLP-1 drugs disease-modifying in patients with obesity and atherosclerotic disease. This is because the SELECT trial of semaglutide randomized more than 17,000 patients and recorded a 20% reduction in hard outcomes. And there were more than 1200 primary outcome events. SUMMIT does not come close to this measure.

The second issue is short follow-up. These were 65-year-old patients and with only 2 years of follow-up, it is hard to make conclusions regarding whether or not these drugs can provide long-term benefit.

The third issue is that SUMMIT authors don’t tell us the number of all-cause hospitalizations. I was part of a recently published meta-analysis of more than 100 heart failure trials that raised questions regarding the value of hospitalizations for heart failure as a surrogate for heart failure outcomes.

For instance, we found that in large trials there was great variability in the ability of a reduction in HF hospitalizations to predict a reduction in all-cause hospitalization. In small trials, such as SUMMIT, it would likely be impossible to predict how the reduction in HF hospitalization would predict all-cause hospitalization. I believe all-cause hospitalization is a more inclusive endpoint because it is bias free; it captures benefits and potential harms of the therapy; and it is patient-centered, because patients probably do not care what type of hospitalization they avoid.

The fourth issue with SUMMIT is the difficulty in maintaining blinding, which reduces confidence in outcomes that require clinical decisions or patient judgments. Owing to gastrointestinal symptoms, decreased appetite, and weight loss, patients on this class of drugs are very likely to know their treatment assignment. This is a criticism of not only SUMMIT but all GLP-1 agonist trials. The fact that blinding is difficult to maintain argues for choosing endpoints less susceptible to bias, such as CV death or all-cause hospitalization.

Proponents of tirzepatide for this indication might argue that unblinding is less of an issue because of objective endpoints such as biomarkers. And they have a point, but nearly all other endpoints, especially the co-primary endpoint of KCCQ-CSS, are largely susceptible to bias.

The fifth and main problem comes in translating this evidence in the clinic. Should doctors give up on nondrug means of weight loss? All of the positive outcome trials in this class of drugs have also shown weight loss. I believe we should take these data and use them to re-invigorate our advocacy for weight loss without medication. I know the standard answer to this proposal is nihilism: It just will not work. And I cannot deny that we have failed previously in our efforts to help patients lose weight. But perhaps now, with the vast amount of data, we can be more persuasive. Imagine a world where key opinion leaders made weight loss the message rather than prescription of a drug.

Finally, if you approach SUMMIT from the view of a regulator, with its small numbers of outcome events and bias-susceptible endpoints, you cannot allow a disease-modifying claim. For that we would need a properly powered trial that shows that the drug reduces both CV death and all-cause hospitalization.

In the end, SUMMIT is not close to changing treatment norms in patients with HFpEF. As evidence-based clinicians, we should demand more from our partners in industry and academia.

Dr. Mandrola practices cardiac electrophysiology in Baptist Medical Associates, Louisville, Kentucky, and is a writer and podcaster for Medscape. He espouses a conservative approach to medical practice. He participates in clinical research and writes often about the state of medical evidence. He has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

 

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

The results of the SUMMIT trial of the long-acting agonist of glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide (GIP) and GLP-1 receptors, tirzepatide, in patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) and obesity are positive. But the trial design leaves clinicians and regulators with big doses of uncertainty.

Known Facts About HFpEF

HFpEF has exceeded heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) as the most common form of heart failure. HFpEF differs from HFrEF in that patients with preserved ejection fraction often present later in life with more comorbidities.

Some of these comorbidities are on the causal pathway of heart failure. Obesity, for instance, both associates with HFpEF and surely causes the diastolic dysfunction central to the condition. This may be a direct effect via high excess adipose tissue or an indirect effect via pro-inflammatory pathways.

GLP-1 agonists and the dual-acting GIP/GLP1 agonist tirzepatide have proven efficacy for weight loss. Semaglutide has previously been shown to improve quality of life and physical functioning in two small trials of patients with HFpEF and obesity. Semaglutide also reduced hard clinical outcomes in patients with obesity and these other conditions: chronic kidney disease, diabetes, and established atherosclerotic vascular disease.

This class of drugs is costly. The combination of both high drug costs and highly prevalent conditions such as obesity and HFpEF forces clinicians to make both value and clinical judgments when translating evidence.

 

The SUMMIT Trial

The SUMMIT trial aimed to evaluate tirzepatide’s effect on typical heart failure events, health status and functional capacity in patients with obesity and HFpEF. A total of 731 patients were randomly assigned to receive to tirzepatide or placebo.

Investigators chose two co-primary endpoints. The first was a composite of cardiovascular (CV) death and worsening heart failure events—the latter could be a hospitalization for heart failure, a visit for intravenous diuretics, or intensification of oral diuretics. The idea behind this rather unique composite was to capture all heart failure events. The second co-primary endpoint was a change in baseline Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire clinical summary score (KCCQ-CSS) at 1 year.

Characteristics of the patients included an average age of 65 years, 55% were female, the average body mass index was 38, and the mean left ventricular ejection fraction was 61% (the minimum for trial entry was 50%). Just under half had been hospitalized for heart failure in the year before trial entry.

 

Tirzepatide Results

The primary outcome of CV death and first heart failure event occurred in 36 patients (9.9%) in the tirzepatide group and 56 patients (15.3%) in the placebo group, for a hazard ratio of 0.62 (95% CI, 0.41-0.95; P =.026).

The 5.4% absolute risk reduction in the primary endpoint was completely driven by lower rates of heart failure events (8% vs 14.2%). CV death was actually higher in the tirzepatide arm, but the number of deaths was low in both arms (8 vs 5).

The rate of hospitalizations due to heart failure was lower with tirzepatide (3.3% vs 7.1%), as was intensification of oral diuretics (4.7% vs 5.7%).

The second co-primary endpoint of change from baseline in KCCQ-CSS favored tirzepatide.

Other secondary endpoints also favored tirzepatide: longer 6-minute walk distance, greater change in body weight (-11.6%), and lower high-sensitivity C-reactive protein levels and systolic blood pressure (-4.7 mm Hg).

 

Authors’ Conclusions and Expert Comments

At the American Heart Association Scientific Sessions, the primary investigator Milton Packer, MD, said SUMMIT was the first trial of patients with obesity and HFpEF that had major heart failure outcomes as the primary endpoint. And that tirzepatide changed the clinical trajectory of the disease.

Jennifer Ho, MD, associate professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, said, “This really is a practice-changing trial and cements this type of therapy as one of the cornerstones of obesity and HFpEF treatment.”

Other experts cited a recently published pooled analysis of semaglutide trials looking specifically at patients with HFpEF and found lower rates of HF events with the GLP-1 agonist.

The SUMMIT trial results were covered in 53 news outlets— nearly all with glowing headlines.

 

My Six Concerns With SUMMIT

The trial delivered statistically positive findings. What’s more, patients lost weight, and a greater than 11% weight loss difference is meaningful. Patients with a baseline weight of more than 100 kg who lose this much weight are bound to feel and function better.

The first problem comes when we ask whether the results are disease-modifying. There was no difference in CV death. And the number of hospitalizations for heart failure — the more standard endpoint — was low, at only 12 and 26, respectively. Contrast this with the DELIVER trial of the sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitor dapagliflozin in HFpEF where there were nearly 750 hospitalizations for heart failure and PARAGON-HF of sacubitril-valsartan vs valsartan in HFpEF, where there were nearly 1500. SUMMIT simply had too few events to make conclusions — a point Packer has made regarding AF ablation trials in patients with heart failure.

I have previously called GLP-1 drugs disease-modifying in patients with obesity and atherosclerotic disease. This is because the SELECT trial of semaglutide randomized more than 17,000 patients and recorded a 20% reduction in hard outcomes. And there were more than 1200 primary outcome events. SUMMIT does not come close to this measure.

The second issue is short follow-up. These were 65-year-old patients and with only 2 years of follow-up, it is hard to make conclusions regarding whether or not these drugs can provide long-term benefit.

The third issue is that SUMMIT authors don’t tell us the number of all-cause hospitalizations. I was part of a recently published meta-analysis of more than 100 heart failure trials that raised questions regarding the value of hospitalizations for heart failure as a surrogate for heart failure outcomes.

For instance, we found that in large trials there was great variability in the ability of a reduction in HF hospitalizations to predict a reduction in all-cause hospitalization. In small trials, such as SUMMIT, it would likely be impossible to predict how the reduction in HF hospitalization would predict all-cause hospitalization. I believe all-cause hospitalization is a more inclusive endpoint because it is bias free; it captures benefits and potential harms of the therapy; and it is patient-centered, because patients probably do not care what type of hospitalization they avoid.

The fourth issue with SUMMIT is the difficulty in maintaining blinding, which reduces confidence in outcomes that require clinical decisions or patient judgments. Owing to gastrointestinal symptoms, decreased appetite, and weight loss, patients on this class of drugs are very likely to know their treatment assignment. This is a criticism of not only SUMMIT but all GLP-1 agonist trials. The fact that blinding is difficult to maintain argues for choosing endpoints less susceptible to bias, such as CV death or all-cause hospitalization.

Proponents of tirzepatide for this indication might argue that unblinding is less of an issue because of objective endpoints such as biomarkers. And they have a point, but nearly all other endpoints, especially the co-primary endpoint of KCCQ-CSS, are largely susceptible to bias.

The fifth and main problem comes in translating this evidence in the clinic. Should doctors give up on nondrug means of weight loss? All of the positive outcome trials in this class of drugs have also shown weight loss. I believe we should take these data and use them to re-invigorate our advocacy for weight loss without medication. I know the standard answer to this proposal is nihilism: It just will not work. And I cannot deny that we have failed previously in our efforts to help patients lose weight. But perhaps now, with the vast amount of data, we can be more persuasive. Imagine a world where key opinion leaders made weight loss the message rather than prescription of a drug.

Finally, if you approach SUMMIT from the view of a regulator, with its small numbers of outcome events and bias-susceptible endpoints, you cannot allow a disease-modifying claim. For that we would need a properly powered trial that shows that the drug reduces both CV death and all-cause hospitalization.

In the end, SUMMIT is not close to changing treatment norms in patients with HFpEF. As evidence-based clinicians, we should demand more from our partners in industry and academia.

Dr. Mandrola practices cardiac electrophysiology in Baptist Medical Associates, Louisville, Kentucky, and is a writer and podcaster for Medscape. He espouses a conservative approach to medical practice. He participates in clinical research and writes often about the state of medical evidence. He has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

 

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

This transcript has been edited for clarity. 

We have talked often in the past about potassium. Why is potassium so important in heart failure? It’s because many doctors are afraid to give some of the drugs that will raise the potassium, because then you need to deal with it —and everybody is afraid of hyperkalemia causing arrhythmias. 

Calm those nerves. Just remember that arrhythmias only occur when the potassium suddenly goes up. This chronic hyperkalemia, which occurs with many of our drugs, usually — I can’t say every time — does not result in arrhythmias.

 

Patiromer and Zirconium Cyclosilicate

Now, we’ve got potassium binders. You’ve heard me talk about the potassium binders in several of my other chats with you, and they work. We have primarily two of them. The first one that came out was patiromer, and now I’m going to talk to you a little bit about zirconium cyclosilicate, which uses sodium as its exchange ion. Whenever you take out one ion, you have to put another one in, and in this case it’s sodium. Maybe if you use it in the higher doses, you can give the patient more edema or you can make the patient congested with more fluid. 

Years ago we did the DIAMOND study; it was a patiromer study, but in essence we found that you could continue to give the drug, particularly the mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists (MRAs) such as spironolactone or eplerenone, as long as you have the patiromer as your safety net, and that the drugs were well tolerated and the adverse events were significantly less.

 

The REALIZE-K Trial

Now, let’s talk about the REALIZE-K trial. The researchers wanted to prove basically the same thing: that the patients could be started or kept on their spironolactone as long as you had that backup of the zirconium cyclosilicate binder.

They picked patients who had HFrEF — so, low ejection fractions, defined as less than 40% — and they were already on guideline-directed medical therapy, but not an MRA. They divided up the patients right from the beginning between those who were already hyperkalemic — in other words, they had potassiums of 5.1-5.9 mEq/L, which is when doctors start getting worried. GFRs had to be better than 30 mL/min per 1.73 m², and if the potassium was not yet okay, they were given the zirconium cyclosilicate to normalize the potassium and then they entered the study. 

The second group had some history of or were at risk for hyperkalemia. Maybe their GFRs were lower, but their potassiums were somewhere between 3.5 and 5 mEq/L.

They started with about 366 patients. These trials have not been huge, certainly not what we normally see in heart failure trials. About 95 patients had hyperkalemia initially and 271 patients were normokalemic. 

Then they were randomized; about 102 patients went on the potassium binder and the other group went on the placebo. They continued the study and they continued to check whether the patient had to come off the drug or had to reduce or remove the spironolactone. 

These were older patients, mostly in their early seventies. This was an international trial. There were not that many patients from North America, but they had quite a few patients from Europe and some patients from Latin America. There were many with diabetes, atrial fibrillation, and all the usual comorbidities that we typically see. 

The proportions of patients classified as New York Heart Association Class III and IV were about 16% to 17% and the rest were Class II, so this is really the ambulatory population. NT-proBNP levels were elevated, at approximately 1000-1200 pg/mL, and the GFRs were either in the high 40s or about 60 mL/min per 1.73 m². The patients were pretty well medicated, including with RAAS inhibition, beta-blockers, and even SGLT2 inhibitors. 

This is a very typical population and they wanted to see what happened. Did the patients remain on the binder and were they able to tolerate the spironolactone? In fact, that was the case.

At the end of the study, more patients had been able to stay on their spironolactone, which is that one drug that we’re not doing so well on when you look at large databases. If they were on the zirconium drug, they were more likely to stay on the spironolactone. They even did a sensitivity analysis, which really showed that it was consistent across the board. 

 

Edema and Hyperkalemia

Now we have two binders that have shown to us that patients can stay on their drugs. There were some interesting findings here, though.

There was more edema — again, everything is based on small numbers — and there seemed to be more heart failure events in the group that received the zirconium cyclosilicate. The first episode of hyperkalemia was delayed or didn’t happen at all. Again, the hyperkalemia was controlled. 

What does that tell you? Well, the exchange is sodium. There had been reports before that if you gave this binder at the higher doses, you would have more retention of sodium. I think we see that in this trial, even though the numbers are very small. 

According to the investigators, these were issues that could be resolved through an increase in diuretics or having the patient remember to be careful with their sodium intake so they don’t retain more fluid. 

My message to you is to use these binders, whichever one of the two you want or whichever your hospital has available for you on their formulary, because it may give you that sense of comfort and self-efficacy so that you can actually start your patients on an MRA and keep them on it.

The MRAs are lifesaving drugs and the patients with HFrEF need to be on them. This is a way to do it without having to sacrifice your true guideline-directed medical therapy.

Dr. Piña, Professor of Medicine/Cardiology/Heart Failure/Transplant; Quality Officer, Cardiovascular Line, Sidney Kimmel College of Medicine, Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; Clinical Professor of Medicine, Central Michigan University College of Medicine, Mount Pleasant, Michigan; Adjunct Professor of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Population & Quantitative Health Sciences, Case Western University, Cleveland, Ohio, disclosed ties with the Food and Drug Administration’s Center for Devices and Radiological Health.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com

This transcript has been edited for clarity. 

We have talked often in the past about potassium. Why is potassium so important in heart failure? It’s because many doctors are afraid to give some of the drugs that will raise the potassium, because then you need to deal with it —and everybody is afraid of hyperkalemia causing arrhythmias. 

Calm those nerves. Just remember that arrhythmias only occur when the potassium suddenly goes up. This chronic hyperkalemia, which occurs with many of our drugs, usually — I can’t say every time — does not result in arrhythmias.

 

Patiromer and Zirconium Cyclosilicate

Now, we’ve got potassium binders. You’ve heard me talk about the potassium binders in several of my other chats with you, and they work. We have primarily two of them. The first one that came out was patiromer, and now I’m going to talk to you a little bit about zirconium cyclosilicate, which uses sodium as its exchange ion. Whenever you take out one ion, you have to put another one in, and in this case it’s sodium. Maybe if you use it in the higher doses, you can give the patient more edema or you can make the patient congested with more fluid. 

Years ago we did the DIAMOND study; it was a patiromer study, but in essence we found that you could continue to give the drug, particularly the mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists (MRAs) such as spironolactone or eplerenone, as long as you have the patiromer as your safety net, and that the drugs were well tolerated and the adverse events were significantly less.

 

The REALIZE-K Trial

Now, let’s talk about the REALIZE-K trial. The researchers wanted to prove basically the same thing: that the patients could be started or kept on their spironolactone as long as you had that backup of the zirconium cyclosilicate binder.

They picked patients who had HFrEF — so, low ejection fractions, defined as less than 40% — and they were already on guideline-directed medical therapy, but not an MRA. They divided up the patients right from the beginning between those who were already hyperkalemic — in other words, they had potassiums of 5.1-5.9 mEq/L, which is when doctors start getting worried. GFRs had to be better than 30 mL/min per 1.73 m², and if the potassium was not yet okay, they were given the zirconium cyclosilicate to normalize the potassium and then they entered the study. 

The second group had some history of or were at risk for hyperkalemia. Maybe their GFRs were lower, but their potassiums were somewhere between 3.5 and 5 mEq/L.

They started with about 366 patients. These trials have not been huge, certainly not what we normally see in heart failure trials. About 95 patients had hyperkalemia initially and 271 patients were normokalemic. 

Then they were randomized; about 102 patients went on the potassium binder and the other group went on the placebo. They continued the study and they continued to check whether the patient had to come off the drug or had to reduce or remove the spironolactone. 

These were older patients, mostly in their early seventies. This was an international trial. There were not that many patients from North America, but they had quite a few patients from Europe and some patients from Latin America. There were many with diabetes, atrial fibrillation, and all the usual comorbidities that we typically see. 

The proportions of patients classified as New York Heart Association Class III and IV were about 16% to 17% and the rest were Class II, so this is really the ambulatory population. NT-proBNP levels were elevated, at approximately 1000-1200 pg/mL, and the GFRs were either in the high 40s or about 60 mL/min per 1.73 m². The patients were pretty well medicated, including with RAAS inhibition, beta-blockers, and even SGLT2 inhibitors. 

This is a very typical population and they wanted to see what happened. Did the patients remain on the binder and were they able to tolerate the spironolactone? In fact, that was the case.

At the end of the study, more patients had been able to stay on their spironolactone, which is that one drug that we’re not doing so well on when you look at large databases. If they were on the zirconium drug, they were more likely to stay on the spironolactone. They even did a sensitivity analysis, which really showed that it was consistent across the board. 

 

Edema and Hyperkalemia

Now we have two binders that have shown to us that patients can stay on their drugs. There were some interesting findings here, though.

There was more edema — again, everything is based on small numbers — and there seemed to be more heart failure events in the group that received the zirconium cyclosilicate. The first episode of hyperkalemia was delayed or didn’t happen at all. Again, the hyperkalemia was controlled. 

What does that tell you? Well, the exchange is sodium. There had been reports before that if you gave this binder at the higher doses, you would have more retention of sodium. I think we see that in this trial, even though the numbers are very small. 

According to the investigators, these were issues that could be resolved through an increase in diuretics or having the patient remember to be careful with their sodium intake so they don’t retain more fluid. 

My message to you is to use these binders, whichever one of the two you want or whichever your hospital has available for you on their formulary, because it may give you that sense of comfort and self-efficacy so that you can actually start your patients on an MRA and keep them on it.

The MRAs are lifesaving drugs and the patients with HFrEF need to be on them. This is a way to do it without having to sacrifice your true guideline-directed medical therapy.

Dr. Piña, Professor of Medicine/Cardiology/Heart Failure/Transplant; Quality Officer, Cardiovascular Line, Sidney Kimmel College of Medicine, Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; Clinical Professor of Medicine, Central Michigan University College of Medicine, Mount Pleasant, Michigan; Adjunct Professor of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Population & Quantitative Health Sciences, Case Western University, Cleveland, Ohio, disclosed ties with the Food and Drug Administration’s Center for Devices and Radiological Health.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com

This transcript has been edited for clarity. 

We have talked often in the past about potassium. Why is potassium so important in heart failure? It’s because many doctors are afraid to give some of the drugs that will raise the potassium, because then you need to deal with it —and everybody is afraid of hyperkalemia causing arrhythmias. 

Calm those nerves. Just remember that arrhythmias only occur when the potassium suddenly goes up. This chronic hyperkalemia, which occurs with many of our drugs, usually — I can’t say every time — does not result in arrhythmias.

 

Patiromer and Zirconium Cyclosilicate

Now, we’ve got potassium binders. You’ve heard me talk about the potassium binders in several of my other chats with you, and they work. We have primarily two of them. The first one that came out was patiromer, and now I’m going to talk to you a little bit about zirconium cyclosilicate, which uses sodium as its exchange ion. Whenever you take out one ion, you have to put another one in, and in this case it’s sodium. Maybe if you use it in the higher doses, you can give the patient more edema or you can make the patient congested with more fluid. 

Years ago we did the DIAMOND study; it was a patiromer study, but in essence we found that you could continue to give the drug, particularly the mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists (MRAs) such as spironolactone or eplerenone, as long as you have the patiromer as your safety net, and that the drugs were well tolerated and the adverse events were significantly less.

 

The REALIZE-K Trial

Now, let’s talk about the REALIZE-K trial. The researchers wanted to prove basically the same thing: that the patients could be started or kept on their spironolactone as long as you had that backup of the zirconium cyclosilicate binder.

They picked patients who had HFrEF — so, low ejection fractions, defined as less than 40% — and they were already on guideline-directed medical therapy, but not an MRA. They divided up the patients right from the beginning between those who were already hyperkalemic — in other words, they had potassiums of 5.1-5.9 mEq/L, which is when doctors start getting worried. GFRs had to be better than 30 mL/min per 1.73 m², and if the potassium was not yet okay, they were given the zirconium cyclosilicate to normalize the potassium and then they entered the study. 

The second group had some history of or were at risk for hyperkalemia. Maybe their GFRs were lower, but their potassiums were somewhere between 3.5 and 5 mEq/L.

They started with about 366 patients. These trials have not been huge, certainly not what we normally see in heart failure trials. About 95 patients had hyperkalemia initially and 271 patients were normokalemic. 

Then they were randomized; about 102 patients went on the potassium binder and the other group went on the placebo. They continued the study and they continued to check whether the patient had to come off the drug or had to reduce or remove the spironolactone. 

These were older patients, mostly in their early seventies. This was an international trial. There were not that many patients from North America, but they had quite a few patients from Europe and some patients from Latin America. There were many with diabetes, atrial fibrillation, and all the usual comorbidities that we typically see. 

The proportions of patients classified as New York Heart Association Class III and IV were about 16% to 17% and the rest were Class II, so this is really the ambulatory population. NT-proBNP levels were elevated, at approximately 1000-1200 pg/mL, and the GFRs were either in the high 40s or about 60 mL/min per 1.73 m². The patients were pretty well medicated, including with RAAS inhibition, beta-blockers, and even SGLT2 inhibitors. 

This is a very typical population and they wanted to see what happened. Did the patients remain on the binder and were they able to tolerate the spironolactone? In fact, that was the case.

At the end of the study, more patients had been able to stay on their spironolactone, which is that one drug that we’re not doing so well on when you look at large databases. If they were on the zirconium drug, they were more likely to stay on the spironolactone. They even did a sensitivity analysis, which really showed that it was consistent across the board. 

 

Edema and Hyperkalemia

Now we have two binders that have shown to us that patients can stay on their drugs. There were some interesting findings here, though.

There was more edema — again, everything is based on small numbers — and there seemed to be more heart failure events in the group that received the zirconium cyclosilicate. The first episode of hyperkalemia was delayed or didn’t happen at all. Again, the hyperkalemia was controlled. 

What does that tell you? Well, the exchange is sodium. There had been reports before that if you gave this binder at the higher doses, you would have more retention of sodium. I think we see that in this trial, even though the numbers are very small. 

According to the investigators, these were issues that could be resolved through an increase in diuretics or having the patient remember to be careful with their sodium intake so they don’t retain more fluid. 

My message to you is to use these binders, whichever one of the two you want or whichever your hospital has available for you on their formulary, because it may give you that sense of comfort and self-efficacy so that you can actually start your patients on an MRA and keep them on it.

The MRAs are lifesaving drugs and the patients with HFrEF need to be on them. This is a way to do it without having to sacrifice your true guideline-directed medical therapy.

Dr. Piña, Professor of Medicine/Cardiology/Heart Failure/Transplant; Quality Officer, Cardiovascular Line, Sidney Kimmel College of Medicine, Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; Clinical Professor of Medicine, Central Michigan University College of Medicine, Mount Pleasant, Michigan; Adjunct Professor of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Population & Quantitative Health Sciences, Case Western University, Cleveland, Ohio, disclosed ties with the Food and Drug Administration’s Center for Devices and Radiological Health.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com

TOPLINE:

Veterans receiving blood pressure (BP) medication as needed while hospitalized were at a 23% higher risk for acute kidney injury (AKI) and a 1.5-fold greater risk for potentially dangerous rapid reductions in BP.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers analyzed the records of 133,760 veterans (90% men; mean age, 71.2 years) hospitalized in Veterans Affairs hospitals between 2015 and 2020.
• The study analyzed as-needed administration of BP drugs to patients who had an elevated BP but were asymptomatic.
• Patients who had at least one systolic BP reading above 140 mm Hg and received scheduled BP medication in the first 24 hours of hospitalization were included; those admitted to intensive care units or those who required surgery were excluded.
• The analysis compared outcomes between 28,526 patients who received as-needed drugs and 105,234 who did not; the primary outcome was time to the first AKI occurrence while hospitalized.
• Secondary outcomes included a reduction of more than 25% in systolic BP within 3 hours of as-needed BP medication, as well as a composite outcome of myocardial infarction, stroke, or death during hospitalization.

TAKEAWAY:

• Researchers found that an AKI was 23% more likely to occur in veterans who received at least one as-needed BP medication (hazard ratio [HR], 1.23; 95% CI, 1.18-1.29).
• Veterans who received BP medication as needed were 50% more likely to experience a rapid drop in BP within 3 hours (HR, 1.50; 95% CI, 1.39-1.62) and more than twice as likely after 1 hour (HR, 2.11; 95% CI, 1.81-2.46) than those who did not receive medication.
• The risk of experiencing the composite outcome was 69% times higher in the as-needed group (rate ratio [RR], 1.69; 95% CI, 1.49-1.92), with individual increased risks for myocardial infarction (RR, 2.92; 95% CI, 2.09-4.07), stroke (RR, 1.99; 95% CI, 1.30-3.03), and death (RR, 1.52; 95% CI, 1.32-1.75).

IN PRACTICE:

“The practical implication of our findings is that there is at least equipoise regarding the utility of as-needed BP medication use for asymptomatic BP elevations in hospitals ... future prospective trials should evaluate the risks and benefits of this common practice,” the study authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Muna Thalji Canales, MD, MS, of the North Florida/South Georgia Veterans Health System in Gainesville, Florida. It was published online on November 25 in JAMA Internal Medicine.

LIMITATIONS:

The analysis may have included confounding factors that could have influenced results. The focus on veterans who had not undergone surgery limits generalizability to women, surgical patients, and nonveteran populations. The researchers noted limited data on factors that might influence BP readings in the hospital such as pain, stress, and faulty machinery.

DISCLOSURES:

Study authors reported grants and consulting fees from Merck Sharp & Dohme and BMS, and Teva Pharmaceuticals, among others.

 

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Veterans receiving blood pressure (BP) medication as needed while hospitalized were at a 23% higher risk for acute kidney injury (AKI) and a 1.5-fold greater risk for potentially dangerous rapid reductions in BP.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers analyzed the records of 133,760 veterans (90% men; mean age, 71.2 years) hospitalized in Veterans Affairs hospitals between 2015 and 2020.
• The study analyzed as-needed administration of BP drugs to patients who had an elevated BP but were asymptomatic.
• Patients who had at least one systolic BP reading above 140 mm Hg and received scheduled BP medication in the first 24 hours of hospitalization were included; those admitted to intensive care units or those who required surgery were excluded.
• The analysis compared outcomes between 28,526 patients who received as-needed drugs and 105,234 who did not; the primary outcome was time to the first AKI occurrence while hospitalized.
• Secondary outcomes included a reduction of more than 25% in systolic BP within 3 hours of as-needed BP medication, as well as a composite outcome of myocardial infarction, stroke, or death during hospitalization.

TAKEAWAY:

• Researchers found that an AKI was 23% more likely to occur in veterans who received at least one as-needed BP medication (hazard ratio [HR], 1.23; 95% CI, 1.18-1.29).
• Veterans who received BP medication as needed were 50% more likely to experience a rapid drop in BP within 3 hours (HR, 1.50; 95% CI, 1.39-1.62) and more than twice as likely after 1 hour (HR, 2.11; 95% CI, 1.81-2.46) than those who did not receive medication.
• The risk of experiencing the composite outcome was 69% times higher in the as-needed group (rate ratio [RR], 1.69; 95% CI, 1.49-1.92), with individual increased risks for myocardial infarction (RR, 2.92; 95% CI, 2.09-4.07), stroke (RR, 1.99; 95% CI, 1.30-3.03), and death (RR, 1.52; 95% CI, 1.32-1.75).

IN PRACTICE:

“The practical implication of our findings is that there is at least equipoise regarding the utility of as-needed BP medication use for asymptomatic BP elevations in hospitals ... future prospective trials should evaluate the risks and benefits of this common practice,” the study authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Muna Thalji Canales, MD, MS, of the North Florida/South Georgia Veterans Health System in Gainesville, Florida. It was published online on November 25 in JAMA Internal Medicine.

LIMITATIONS:

The analysis may have included confounding factors that could have influenced results. The focus on veterans who had not undergone surgery limits generalizability to women, surgical patients, and nonveteran populations. The researchers noted limited data on factors that might influence BP readings in the hospital such as pain, stress, and faulty machinery.

DISCLOSURES:

Study authors reported grants and consulting fees from Merck Sharp & Dohme and BMS, and Teva Pharmaceuticals, among others.

 

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Veterans receiving blood pressure (BP) medication as needed while hospitalized were at a 23% higher risk for acute kidney injury (AKI) and a 1.5-fold greater risk for potentially dangerous rapid reductions in BP.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers analyzed the records of 133,760 veterans (90% men; mean age, 71.2 years) hospitalized in Veterans Affairs hospitals between 2015 and 2020.
• The study analyzed as-needed administration of BP drugs to patients who had an elevated BP but were asymptomatic.
• Patients who had at least one systolic BP reading above 140 mm Hg and received scheduled BP medication in the first 24 hours of hospitalization were included; those admitted to intensive care units or those who required surgery were excluded.
• The analysis compared outcomes between 28,526 patients who received as-needed drugs and 105,234 who did not; the primary outcome was time to the first AKI occurrence while hospitalized.
• Secondary outcomes included a reduction of more than 25% in systolic BP within 3 hours of as-needed BP medication, as well as a composite outcome of myocardial infarction, stroke, or death during hospitalization.

TAKEAWAY:

• Researchers found that an AKI was 23% more likely to occur in veterans who received at least one as-needed BP medication (hazard ratio [HR], 1.23; 95% CI, 1.18-1.29).
• Veterans who received BP medication as needed were 50% more likely to experience a rapid drop in BP within 3 hours (HR, 1.50; 95% CI, 1.39-1.62) and more than twice as likely after 1 hour (HR, 2.11; 95% CI, 1.81-2.46) than those who did not receive medication.
• The risk of experiencing the composite outcome was 69% times higher in the as-needed group (rate ratio [RR], 1.69; 95% CI, 1.49-1.92), with individual increased risks for myocardial infarction (RR, 2.92; 95% CI, 2.09-4.07), stroke (RR, 1.99; 95% CI, 1.30-3.03), and death (RR, 1.52; 95% CI, 1.32-1.75).

IN PRACTICE:

“The practical implication of our findings is that there is at least equipoise regarding the utility of as-needed BP medication use for asymptomatic BP elevations in hospitals ... future prospective trials should evaluate the risks and benefits of this common practice,” the study authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Muna Thalji Canales, MD, MS, of the North Florida/South Georgia Veterans Health System in Gainesville, Florida. It was published online on November 25 in JAMA Internal Medicine.

LIMITATIONS:

The analysis may have included confounding factors that could have influenced results. The focus on veterans who had not undergone surgery limits generalizability to women, surgical patients, and nonveteran populations. The researchers noted limited data on factors that might influence BP readings in the hospital such as pain, stress, and faulty machinery.

DISCLOSURES:

Study authors reported grants and consulting fees from Merck Sharp & Dohme and BMS, and Teva Pharmaceuticals, among others.

 

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The word “malnutrition” probably brings to mind images of very thin patients with catabolic illness. But it really just means “poor nutrition,” which can — and often does — apply to patients with overweight or obesity.

That’s because malnutrition doesn’t occur simply because of a lack of calories, but rather because there is a gap in the nutrition the body requires and the nutrition it receives.

Each day, clinicians see patients with chronic conditions related to malnutrition. That list includes diabetes and hypertension, which can be promoted by excess intake of certain nutrients (carbohydrates and sodium) or inadequate intake of others (fiber, protein, potassium, magnesium, and calcium).

 

Diet Education Is Vital in Chronic Disease Management

Diet education is without a doubt a core pillar of chronic disease management. Nutrition therapy is recommended in treatment guidelines for the management of some of the most commonly seen chronic conditions such as hypertension, diabetes, and kidney disease. But in one study, only 58% of physicians, nurses and other health professionals surveyed had received formal nutrition education and only 40% were confident in their ability to provide nutrition education to patients.

As a registered dietitian, I welcome referrals for both prevention and management of chronic diseases with open arms. But medical nutrition therapy with a registered dietitian may not be realistic for all patients owing to financial, geographic, or other constraints. So, their best option may be the few minutes that a physician or physician extender has to spare at the end of their appointment.

But time constraints may result in clinicians turning to short, easy-to-remember messages such as “Don’t eat anything white” or “Only shop the edges of the grocery store.” Although catchy, this type of advice can inadvertently encourage patients to skip over foods that are actually very nutrient dense. For example, white foods such as onions, turnips, mushrooms, cauliflower, and even popcorn are low in calories and high in nutritional value. The center aisles of the grocery store may harbor high-carbohydrate breakfast cereals and potato chips, but they are also home to legumes, nuts, and canned and frozen fruits and vegetables.

What may be more effective is educating the patient on the importance of focusing on the nutrient density of foods, rather than simply limiting certain food groups or colors.

 

How to Work Nutrient Density into the Conversation

Nutrient density is a concept that refers to the proportion of nutrients to calories in a food item: essentially, a food’s qualitative nutritional value. It provides more depth than simply referring to foods as being high or low in calories, healthy or unhealthy, or good or bad.

Educating patients about nutrition density and encouraging a focus on foods that are low in calories and high in vitamins and minerals can help address micronutrient deficiencies, which may be more common than previously thought and linked to the chronic diseases that we see daily. It is worth noting that some foods that are not low in calories are still nutrient dense. Avocados, liver, and nuts come to mind as foods that are high in calories, but they have additional nutrients such as fiber, potassium, antioxidants, vitamin A, iron, and selenium that can still make them an excellent choice if they are part of a well-balanced diet.

I fear that we often underestimate our patients. We worry that not providing them with a list of acceptable foods will set them up for failure. But, in my experience, that list of “good” and “bad” foods may be useful for a week or so but will eventually become lost on the fridge under children’s artwork and save-the-dates.

Patients know that potato chips offer little more than fat, carbs, and salt and that they’re a poor choice for long-term health. What they might not know is that cocktail peanuts can also satisfy the craving for a salty snack, with more than four times the protein, twice the fiber, and just over half of the sodium found in the same serving size of regular salted potato chips. Peanuts have the added bonus of being high in heart-healthy monounsaturated fatty acids.

The best thing that clinicians can do with just a few minutes of time for diet education is to talk to patients about the nutrient density of whole foods and caution patients against highly processed foods, because processing can decrease nutritional content. Our most effective option is to explain why a varied diet with focus on fruits, vegetables, lean protein, nuts, legumes, and healthy fats is beneficial for cardiovascular and metabolic health. After that, all that is left is to trust the patient to make the right choices for their health.

Brandy Winfree Root, a renal dietitian in private practice in Mary Esther, Florida, has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The word “malnutrition” probably brings to mind images of very thin patients with catabolic illness. But it really just means “poor nutrition,” which can — and often does — apply to patients with overweight or obesity.

That’s because malnutrition doesn’t occur simply because of a lack of calories, but rather because there is a gap in the nutrition the body requires and the nutrition it receives.

Each day, clinicians see patients with chronic conditions related to malnutrition. That list includes diabetes and hypertension, which can be promoted by excess intake of certain nutrients (carbohydrates and sodium) or inadequate intake of others (fiber, protein, potassium, magnesium, and calcium).

 

Diet Education Is Vital in Chronic Disease Management

Diet education is without a doubt a core pillar of chronic disease management. Nutrition therapy is recommended in treatment guidelines for the management of some of the most commonly seen chronic conditions such as hypertension, diabetes, and kidney disease. But in one study, only 58% of physicians, nurses and other health professionals surveyed had received formal nutrition education and only 40% were confident in their ability to provide nutrition education to patients.

As a registered dietitian, I welcome referrals for both prevention and management of chronic diseases with open arms. But medical nutrition therapy with a registered dietitian may not be realistic for all patients owing to financial, geographic, or other constraints. So, their best option may be the few minutes that a physician or physician extender has to spare at the end of their appointment.

But time constraints may result in clinicians turning to short, easy-to-remember messages such as “Don’t eat anything white” or “Only shop the edges of the grocery store.” Although catchy, this type of advice can inadvertently encourage patients to skip over foods that are actually very nutrient dense. For example, white foods such as onions, turnips, mushrooms, cauliflower, and even popcorn are low in calories and high in nutritional value. The center aisles of the grocery store may harbor high-carbohydrate breakfast cereals and potato chips, but they are also home to legumes, nuts, and canned and frozen fruits and vegetables.

What may be more effective is educating the patient on the importance of focusing on the nutrient density of foods, rather than simply limiting certain food groups or colors.

 

How to Work Nutrient Density into the Conversation

Nutrient density is a concept that refers to the proportion of nutrients to calories in a food item: essentially, a food’s qualitative nutritional value. It provides more depth than simply referring to foods as being high or low in calories, healthy or unhealthy, or good or bad.

Educating patients about nutrition density and encouraging a focus on foods that are low in calories and high in vitamins and minerals can help address micronutrient deficiencies, which may be more common than previously thought and linked to the chronic diseases that we see daily. It is worth noting that some foods that are not low in calories are still nutrient dense. Avocados, liver, and nuts come to mind as foods that are high in calories, but they have additional nutrients such as fiber, potassium, antioxidants, vitamin A, iron, and selenium that can still make them an excellent choice if they are part of a well-balanced diet.

I fear that we often underestimate our patients. We worry that not providing them with a list of acceptable foods will set them up for failure. But, in my experience, that list of “good” and “bad” foods may be useful for a week or so but will eventually become lost on the fridge under children’s artwork and save-the-dates.

Patients know that potato chips offer little more than fat, carbs, and salt and that they’re a poor choice for long-term health. What they might not know is that cocktail peanuts can also satisfy the craving for a salty snack, with more than four times the protein, twice the fiber, and just over half of the sodium found in the same serving size of regular salted potato chips. Peanuts have the added bonus of being high in heart-healthy monounsaturated fatty acids.

The best thing that clinicians can do with just a few minutes of time for diet education is to talk to patients about the nutrient density of whole foods and caution patients against highly processed foods, because processing can decrease nutritional content. Our most effective option is to explain why a varied diet with focus on fruits, vegetables, lean protein, nuts, legumes, and healthy fats is beneficial for cardiovascular and metabolic health. After that, all that is left is to trust the patient to make the right choices for their health.

Brandy Winfree Root, a renal dietitian in private practice in Mary Esther, Florida, has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The word “malnutrition” probably brings to mind images of very thin patients with catabolic illness. But it really just means “poor nutrition,” which can — and often does — apply to patients with overweight or obesity.

That’s because malnutrition doesn’t occur simply because of a lack of calories, but rather because there is a gap in the nutrition the body requires and the nutrition it receives.

Each day, clinicians see patients with chronic conditions related to malnutrition. That list includes diabetes and hypertension, which can be promoted by excess intake of certain nutrients (carbohydrates and sodium) or inadequate intake of others (fiber, protein, potassium, magnesium, and calcium).

 

Diet Education Is Vital in Chronic Disease Management

Diet education is without a doubt a core pillar of chronic disease management. Nutrition therapy is recommended in treatment guidelines for the management of some of the most commonly seen chronic conditions such as hypertension, diabetes, and kidney disease. But in one study, only 58% of physicians, nurses and other health professionals surveyed had received formal nutrition education and only 40% were confident in their ability to provide nutrition education to patients.

As a registered dietitian, I welcome referrals for both prevention and management of chronic diseases with open arms. But medical nutrition therapy with a registered dietitian may not be realistic for all patients owing to financial, geographic, or other constraints. So, their best option may be the few minutes that a physician or physician extender has to spare at the end of their appointment.

But time constraints may result in clinicians turning to short, easy-to-remember messages such as “Don’t eat anything white” or “Only shop the edges of the grocery store.” Although catchy, this type of advice can inadvertently encourage patients to skip over foods that are actually very nutrient dense. For example, white foods such as onions, turnips, mushrooms, cauliflower, and even popcorn are low in calories and high in nutritional value. The center aisles of the grocery store may harbor high-carbohydrate breakfast cereals and potato chips, but they are also home to legumes, nuts, and canned and frozen fruits and vegetables.

What may be more effective is educating the patient on the importance of focusing on the nutrient density of foods, rather than simply limiting certain food groups or colors.

 

How to Work Nutrient Density into the Conversation

Nutrient density is a concept that refers to the proportion of nutrients to calories in a food item: essentially, a food’s qualitative nutritional value. It provides more depth than simply referring to foods as being high or low in calories, healthy or unhealthy, or good or bad.

Educating patients about nutrition density and encouraging a focus on foods that are low in calories and high in vitamins and minerals can help address micronutrient deficiencies, which may be more common than previously thought and linked to the chronic diseases that we see daily. It is worth noting that some foods that are not low in calories are still nutrient dense. Avocados, liver, and nuts come to mind as foods that are high in calories, but they have additional nutrients such as fiber, potassium, antioxidants, vitamin A, iron, and selenium that can still make them an excellent choice if they are part of a well-balanced diet.

I fear that we often underestimate our patients. We worry that not providing them with a list of acceptable foods will set them up for failure. But, in my experience, that list of “good” and “bad” foods may be useful for a week or so but will eventually become lost on the fridge under children’s artwork and save-the-dates.

Patients know that potato chips offer little more than fat, carbs, and salt and that they’re a poor choice for long-term health. What they might not know is that cocktail peanuts can also satisfy the craving for a salty snack, with more than four times the protein, twice the fiber, and just over half of the sodium found in the same serving size of regular salted potato chips. Peanuts have the added bonus of being high in heart-healthy monounsaturated fatty acids.

The best thing that clinicians can do with just a few minutes of time for diet education is to talk to patients about the nutrient density of whole foods and caution patients against highly processed foods, because processing can decrease nutritional content. Our most effective option is to explain why a varied diet with focus on fruits, vegetables, lean protein, nuts, legumes, and healthy fats is beneficial for cardiovascular and metabolic health. After that, all that is left is to trust the patient to make the right choices for their health.

Brandy Winfree Root, a renal dietitian in private practice in Mary Esther, Florida, has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

I want to briefly present a fascinating effort, one that needs to be applauded and applauded again, and then we need to scratch our collective heads and ask, why did we do it and what did we learn? 

I’m referring to a report recently published in Annals of Internal Medicine, “Long-Term Effect of Randomization to Calcium and Vitamin D Supplementation on Health in Older Women: Postintervention Follow-up of a Randomized Clinical Trial.” The title of this report does not do it justice. This was a massive effort — one could, I believe, even use the term Herculean — to ask an important question that was asked more than 20 years ago. 

This was a national women’s health initiative to answer these questions. The study looked at 36,282 postmenopausal women who, at the time of agreeing to be randomized in this trial, had no history of breast or colorectal cancer. This was a 7-year randomized intervention effort, and 40 centers across the United States participated, obviously funded by the government. Randomization was one-to-one to placebo or 1000 mg calcium and 400 international units of vitamin D3 daily. 

They looked at the incidence of colorectal cancer, breast cancer, and total cancer, and importantly as an endpoint, total cardiovascular disease and hip fractures. They didn’t comment on hip fractures in this particular analysis. Obviously, hip fractures relate to this question of osteoporosis in postmenopausal women.

Here’s the bottom line: With a median follow-up now of 22.3 years — that’s not 2 years, but 22.3 years — there was a 7% decrease in cancer mortality in the population that received the calcium and vitamin D3. This is nothing to snicker at, and nothing at which to say, “Wow. That’s not important.” 

However, in this analysis involving several tens of thousands of women, there was a 6% increase in cardiovascular disease mortality noted and reported. Overall, there was no effect on all-cause mortality of this intervention, with a hazard ratio — you rarely see this — of 1.00.

There is much that can be said, but I will summarize my comments very briefly. Criticize this if you want. It’s not inappropriate to criticize, but what was the individual impact of the calcium vs vitamin D? If they had only used one vs the other, or used both but in separate arms of the trial, and you could have separated what might have caused the decrease in cancer mortality and not the increased cardiovascular disease… This was designed more than 20 years ago. That’s one point. 

The second is, how many more tens of thousands of patients would they have had to add to do this, and at what cost? This was a massive study, a national study, and a simple study in terms of the intervention. It was low risk except if you look at the long-term outcome. You can only imagine how much it would cost to do that study today — not the cost of the calcium, the vitamin D3, but the cost of doing the trial that was concluded to have no impact.

From a societal perspective, this was an important question to answer, certainly then. What did we learn and at what cost? The bottom line is that we have to figure out a way of answering these kinds of questions.

Perhaps now they should be from real-world data, looking at electronic medical records or at a variety of other population-based data so that we can get the answer — not in 20 years but in perhaps 2 months, because we’ve looked at the data using artificial intelligence to help us to answer these questions; and maybe not 36,000 patients but 360,000 individuals looked at over this period of time.

Again, I’m proposing an alternative solution because the questions that were asked 20 years ago remain important today. This cannot be the way that we, in the future, try to answer them, certainly from the perspective of cost and also the perspective of time to get the answers.

Let me conclude by, again, applauding these researchers because of the quality of the work they started out doing and ended up doing and reporting. Also, I think we’ve learned that we have to come up with alternative ways to answer what were important questions then and are important questions today.

Dr. Markman, Professor of Medical Oncology and Therapeutics Research, City of Hope Comprehensive Cancer Center; President, Medicine & Science, City of Hope Atlanta, Chicago, Phoenix, disclosed ties with GlaxoSmithKline and AstraZeneca.

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

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

I want to briefly present a fascinating effort, one that needs to be applauded and applauded again, and then we need to scratch our collective heads and ask, why did we do it and what did we learn? 

I’m referring to a report recently published in Annals of Internal Medicine, “Long-Term Effect of Randomization to Calcium and Vitamin D Supplementation on Health in Older Women: Postintervention Follow-up of a Randomized Clinical Trial.” The title of this report does not do it justice. This was a massive effort — one could, I believe, even use the term Herculean — to ask an important question that was asked more than 20 years ago. 

This was a national women’s health initiative to answer these questions. The study looked at 36,282 postmenopausal women who, at the time of agreeing to be randomized in this trial, had no history of breast or colorectal cancer. This was a 7-year randomized intervention effort, and 40 centers across the United States participated, obviously funded by the government. Randomization was one-to-one to placebo or 1000 mg calcium and 400 international units of vitamin D3 daily. 

They looked at the incidence of colorectal cancer, breast cancer, and total cancer, and importantly as an endpoint, total cardiovascular disease and hip fractures. They didn’t comment on hip fractures in this particular analysis. Obviously, hip fractures relate to this question of osteoporosis in postmenopausal women.

Here’s the bottom line: With a median follow-up now of 22.3 years — that’s not 2 years, but 22.3 years — there was a 7% decrease in cancer mortality in the population that received the calcium and vitamin D3. This is nothing to snicker at, and nothing at which to say, “Wow. That’s not important.” 

However, in this analysis involving several tens of thousands of women, there was a 6% increase in cardiovascular disease mortality noted and reported. Overall, there was no effect on all-cause mortality of this intervention, with a hazard ratio — you rarely see this — of 1.00.

There is much that can be said, but I will summarize my comments very briefly. Criticize this if you want. It’s not inappropriate to criticize, but what was the individual impact of the calcium vs vitamin D? If they had only used one vs the other, or used both but in separate arms of the trial, and you could have separated what might have caused the decrease in cancer mortality and not the increased cardiovascular disease… This was designed more than 20 years ago. That’s one point. 

The second is, how many more tens of thousands of patients would they have had to add to do this, and at what cost? This was a massive study, a national study, and a simple study in terms of the intervention. It was low risk except if you look at the long-term outcome. You can only imagine how much it would cost to do that study today — not the cost of the calcium, the vitamin D3, but the cost of doing the trial that was concluded to have no impact.

From a societal perspective, this was an important question to answer, certainly then. What did we learn and at what cost? The bottom line is that we have to figure out a way of answering these kinds of questions.

Perhaps now they should be from real-world data, looking at electronic medical records or at a variety of other population-based data so that we can get the answer — not in 20 years but in perhaps 2 months, because we’ve looked at the data using artificial intelligence to help us to answer these questions; and maybe not 36,000 patients but 360,000 individuals looked at over this period of time.

Again, I’m proposing an alternative solution because the questions that were asked 20 years ago remain important today. This cannot be the way that we, in the future, try to answer them, certainly from the perspective of cost and also the perspective of time to get the answers.

Let me conclude by, again, applauding these researchers because of the quality of the work they started out doing and ended up doing and reporting. Also, I think we’ve learned that we have to come up with alternative ways to answer what were important questions then and are important questions today.

Dr. Markman, Professor of Medical Oncology and Therapeutics Research, City of Hope Comprehensive Cancer Center; President, Medicine & Science, City of Hope Atlanta, Chicago, Phoenix, disclosed ties with GlaxoSmithKline and AstraZeneca.

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

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

I want to briefly present a fascinating effort, one that needs to be applauded and applauded again, and then we need to scratch our collective heads and ask, why did we do it and what did we learn? 

I’m referring to a report recently published in Annals of Internal Medicine, “Long-Term Effect of Randomization to Calcium and Vitamin D Supplementation on Health in Older Women: Postintervention Follow-up of a Randomized Clinical Trial.” The title of this report does not do it justice. This was a massive effort — one could, I believe, even use the term Herculean — to ask an important question that was asked more than 20 years ago. 

This was a national women’s health initiative to answer these questions. The study looked at 36,282 postmenopausal women who, at the time of agreeing to be randomized in this trial, had no history of breast or colorectal cancer. This was a 7-year randomized intervention effort, and 40 centers across the United States participated, obviously funded by the government. Randomization was one-to-one to placebo or 1000 mg calcium and 400 international units of vitamin D3 daily. 

They looked at the incidence of colorectal cancer, breast cancer, and total cancer, and importantly as an endpoint, total cardiovascular disease and hip fractures. They didn’t comment on hip fractures in this particular analysis. Obviously, hip fractures relate to this question of osteoporosis in postmenopausal women.

Here’s the bottom line: With a median follow-up now of 22.3 years — that’s not 2 years, but 22.3 years — there was a 7% decrease in cancer mortality in the population that received the calcium and vitamin D3. This is nothing to snicker at, and nothing at which to say, “Wow. That’s not important.” 

However, in this analysis involving several tens of thousands of women, there was a 6% increase in cardiovascular disease mortality noted and reported. Overall, there was no effect on all-cause mortality of this intervention, with a hazard ratio — you rarely see this — of 1.00.

There is much that can be said, but I will summarize my comments very briefly. Criticize this if you want. It’s not inappropriate to criticize, but what was the individual impact of the calcium vs vitamin D? If they had only used one vs the other, or used both but in separate arms of the trial, and you could have separated what might have caused the decrease in cancer mortality and not the increased cardiovascular disease… This was designed more than 20 years ago. That’s one point. 

The second is, how many more tens of thousands of patients would they have had to add to do this, and at what cost? This was a massive study, a national study, and a simple study in terms of the intervention. It was low risk except if you look at the long-term outcome. You can only imagine how much it would cost to do that study today — not the cost of the calcium, the vitamin D3, but the cost of doing the trial that was concluded to have no impact.

From a societal perspective, this was an important question to answer, certainly then. What did we learn and at what cost? The bottom line is that we have to figure out a way of answering these kinds of questions.

Perhaps now they should be from real-world data, looking at electronic medical records or at a variety of other population-based data so that we can get the answer — not in 20 years but in perhaps 2 months, because we’ve looked at the data using artificial intelligence to help us to answer these questions; and maybe not 36,000 patients but 360,000 individuals looked at over this period of time.

Again, I’m proposing an alternative solution because the questions that were asked 20 years ago remain important today. This cannot be the way that we, in the future, try to answer them, certainly from the perspective of cost and also the perspective of time to get the answers.

Let me conclude by, again, applauding these researchers because of the quality of the work they started out doing and ended up doing and reporting. Also, I think we’ve learned that we have to come up with alternative ways to answer what were important questions then and are important questions today.

Dr. Markman, Professor of Medical Oncology and Therapeutics Research, City of Hope Comprehensive Cancer Center; President, Medicine & Science, City of Hope Atlanta, Chicago, Phoenix, disclosed ties with GlaxoSmithKline and AstraZeneca.

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

The answer one gets often depends on how one crafts the question. For example, Jeffrey D. Johnson PhD, a professor of communications at Portland State University in Oregon has found that if patients are asked “Is there something else you would like to address today?” 80% had their unmet questions addressed. However, if the question was worded “Is there anything else ...?” Very few had their unmet concerns addressed.

I recently encountered two studies that provide another striking example of how differently structured questions aimed at same topic can result in dramatically different results. In this case both studies used one database, the UK Biobank cohort study which contains “de-identified genetic, lifestyle, and health information” collected from a half million adults in the UK. A subgroup of nearly 90,000 who had undergone a week long activity measurement using a wrist accelerometer was the focus of both groups of investigators who asked the same broad question “What is the relationship between physical activity and disease?”

 

The first study I found has already received some publicity in the lay press and dealt with those individuals who, for a variety of reasons, pack all of their exercise into just a few days, usually the weekend, aka weekend warriors. The investigators found that when compared with generally inactive individuals those who were able to achieve activity volumes that met current guidelines were at lower risk for more than 200 diseases, particularly those that were cardiac based. I guess that shouldn’t surprise us. The finding that has received most of the publicity to date in the lay press was that “Associations were similar whether the activity followed a weekend warrior pattern or was spread out evenly through the week.”

The second study, using the same database, found that those individuals who spent more than 10.6 hours per day sitting had 60% an increased risk of heart failure and cardiovascular related death. And, here’s the real news, that risk remained even in people who were otherwise physically active.

I suspect these two groups of investigators, both associated with Harvard-related institutions, knew of each other’s work and would agree that their findings are not incompatible. However, it is interesting that, when presented with the same database, one group chose to focus its attention on the exercise end of the spectrum while the other looked at the effect of inactivity. 

I have always tried to include a “healthy” amount of exercise in my day. However, more recently my professional interest has been drawn to the increasing number of studies I read that deal with the risks of inactivity and sedentarism. For example, just in the last 2 years I have written about a study in children that showed that sedentary time is responsible for 70% of the total increase in cholesterol as children advance into young adulthood. Another study in adults found that every 2-hour increase in sedentary behavior was associated with a 12% decrease in the patient’s likelihood of achieving healthy aging.

If I were asked to place relative values on these two studies, I would say that the study highlighting the risk of prolonged sitting is potentially far more relevant to the population at large, which is for the most part sedentary. Of course, while I have no data to support my contention, I see the weekend warrior population as a niche group.

So what are the take-home messages from these two studies? One is for the weekend warrior. “You can take some comfort in the results that support your exercise schedule but don’t feel too comfortable about it if most of the week you are sitting at a desk.” 

For the rest of us — whether we are pediatricians, family practitioners, or internists — the message is to ease off our messaging on exercise and spend more energy getting our patients off their rear ends. It’s beginning to feel like we should be including accelerometers in our regular diagnostic and therapeutic weaponry. Sending home patients with a Holter cardiac monitor has become commonplace. We should be sending more folks home with accelerometers or asking the more affluent to share the data from their smart watches. “You’ve been bragging about your “steps. Show me your sitting time.”

Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Other than a Littman stethoscope he accepted as a first-year medical student in 1966, Dr. Wilkoff reports having nothing to disclose. Email him at [email protected].

The answer one gets often depends on how one crafts the question. For example, Jeffrey D. Johnson PhD, a professor of communications at Portland State University in Oregon has found that if patients are asked “Is there something else you would like to address today?” 80% had their unmet questions addressed. However, if the question was worded “Is there anything else ...?” Very few had their unmet concerns addressed.

I recently encountered two studies that provide another striking example of how differently structured questions aimed at same topic can result in dramatically different results. In this case both studies used one database, the UK Biobank cohort study which contains “de-identified genetic, lifestyle, and health information” collected from a half million adults in the UK. A subgroup of nearly 90,000 who had undergone a week long activity measurement using a wrist accelerometer was the focus of both groups of investigators who asked the same broad question “What is the relationship between physical activity and disease?”

 

The first study I found has already received some publicity in the lay press and dealt with those individuals who, for a variety of reasons, pack all of their exercise into just a few days, usually the weekend, aka weekend warriors. The investigators found that when compared with generally inactive individuals those who were able to achieve activity volumes that met current guidelines were at lower risk for more than 200 diseases, particularly those that were cardiac based. I guess that shouldn’t surprise us. The finding that has received most of the publicity to date in the lay press was that “Associations were similar whether the activity followed a weekend warrior pattern or was spread out evenly through the week.”

The second study, using the same database, found that those individuals who spent more than 10.6 hours per day sitting had 60% an increased risk of heart failure and cardiovascular related death. And, here’s the real news, that risk remained even in people who were otherwise physically active.

I suspect these two groups of investigators, both associated with Harvard-related institutions, knew of each other’s work and would agree that their findings are not incompatible. However, it is interesting that, when presented with the same database, one group chose to focus its attention on the exercise end of the spectrum while the other looked at the effect of inactivity. 

I have always tried to include a “healthy” amount of exercise in my day. However, more recently my professional interest has been drawn to the increasing number of studies I read that deal with the risks of inactivity and sedentarism. For example, just in the last 2 years I have written about a study in children that showed that sedentary time is responsible for 70% of the total increase in cholesterol as children advance into young adulthood. Another study in adults found that every 2-hour increase in sedentary behavior was associated with a 12% decrease in the patient’s likelihood of achieving healthy aging.

If I were asked to place relative values on these two studies, I would say that the study highlighting the risk of prolonged sitting is potentially far more relevant to the population at large, which is for the most part sedentary. Of course, while I have no data to support my contention, I see the weekend warrior population as a niche group.

So what are the take-home messages from these two studies? One is for the weekend warrior. “You can take some comfort in the results that support your exercise schedule but don’t feel too comfortable about it if most of the week you are sitting at a desk.” 

For the rest of us — whether we are pediatricians, family practitioners, or internists — the message is to ease off our messaging on exercise and spend more energy getting our patients off their rear ends. It’s beginning to feel like we should be including accelerometers in our regular diagnostic and therapeutic weaponry. Sending home patients with a Holter cardiac monitor has become commonplace. We should be sending more folks home with accelerometers or asking the more affluent to share the data from their smart watches. “You’ve been bragging about your “steps. Show me your sitting time.”

Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Other than a Littman stethoscope he accepted as a first-year medical student in 1966, Dr. Wilkoff reports having nothing to disclose. Email him at [email protected].

The answer one gets often depends on how one crafts the question. For example, Jeffrey D. Johnson PhD, a professor of communications at Portland State University in Oregon has found that if patients are asked “Is there something else you would like to address today?” 80% had their unmet questions addressed. However, if the question was worded “Is there anything else ...?” Very few had their unmet concerns addressed.

I recently encountered two studies that provide another striking example of how differently structured questions aimed at same topic can result in dramatically different results. In this case both studies used one database, the UK Biobank cohort study which contains “de-identified genetic, lifestyle, and health information” collected from a half million adults in the UK. A subgroup of nearly 90,000 who had undergone a week long activity measurement using a wrist accelerometer was the focus of both groups of investigators who asked the same broad question “What is the relationship between physical activity and disease?”

 

The first study I found has already received some publicity in the lay press and dealt with those individuals who, for a variety of reasons, pack all of their exercise into just a few days, usually the weekend, aka weekend warriors. The investigators found that when compared with generally inactive individuals those who were able to achieve activity volumes that met current guidelines were at lower risk for more than 200 diseases, particularly those that were cardiac based. I guess that shouldn’t surprise us. The finding that has received most of the publicity to date in the lay press was that “Associations were similar whether the activity followed a weekend warrior pattern or was spread out evenly through the week.”

The second study, using the same database, found that those individuals who spent more than 10.6 hours per day sitting had 60% an increased risk of heart failure and cardiovascular related death. And, here’s the real news, that risk remained even in people who were otherwise physically active.

I suspect these two groups of investigators, both associated with Harvard-related institutions, knew of each other’s work and would agree that their findings are not incompatible. However, it is interesting that, when presented with the same database, one group chose to focus its attention on the exercise end of the spectrum while the other looked at the effect of inactivity. 

I have always tried to include a “healthy” amount of exercise in my day. However, more recently my professional interest has been drawn to the increasing number of studies I read that deal with the risks of inactivity and sedentarism. For example, just in the last 2 years I have written about a study in children that showed that sedentary time is responsible for 70% of the total increase in cholesterol as children advance into young adulthood. Another study in adults found that every 2-hour increase in sedentary behavior was associated with a 12% decrease in the patient’s likelihood of achieving healthy aging.

If I were asked to place relative values on these two studies, I would say that the study highlighting the risk of prolonged sitting is potentially far more relevant to the population at large, which is for the most part sedentary. Of course, while I have no data to support my contention, I see the weekend warrior population as a niche group.

So what are the take-home messages from these two studies? One is for the weekend warrior. “You can take some comfort in the results that support your exercise schedule but don’t feel too comfortable about it if most of the week you are sitting at a desk.” 

For the rest of us — whether we are pediatricians, family practitioners, or internists — the message is to ease off our messaging on exercise and spend more energy getting our patients off their rear ends. It’s beginning to feel like we should be including accelerometers in our regular diagnostic and therapeutic weaponry. Sending home patients with a Holter cardiac monitor has become commonplace. We should be sending more folks home with accelerometers or asking the more affluent to share the data from their smart watches. “You’ve been bragging about your “steps. Show me your sitting time.”

Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Other than a Littman stethoscope he accepted as a first-year medical student in 1966, Dr. Wilkoff reports having nothing to disclose. Email him at [email protected].

This video transcript has been edited for clarity. 

Dear colleagues, I am Christoph Diener, from the Faculty of Medicine at the University Duisburg-Essen in Germany. In this video, I would like to cover six publications on stroke, which were published this fall. 

The Best Thrombolytic?

Let me start with systemic thrombolysis. We now have two thrombolytic agents available. One is the well-known alteplase, and newly approved for the treatment of stroke is tenecteplase. The ATTEST-2 study in the United Kingdom, published in The Lancet Neurology, compared tenecteplase 0.25 mg/kg body weight as a bolus with alteplase 0.9 mg/kg body weight as an infusion over 60 minutes in the 4.5-hour time window in 1777 patients with ischemic stroke.

There was no significant difference between the two thrombolytics for the primary endpoint of modified Rankin Scale score after 90 days. There was also no difference with respect to mortality, intracranial bleeding, or extracranial bleeding. 

We finally have 11 randomized controlled trials that compared tenecteplase and alteplase in acute ischemic stroke. A meta-analysis of these randomized trials was published in Neurology. The analysis included 3700 patients treated with tenecteplase and 3700 patients treated with alteplase. For the primary endpoint, excellent functional outcome defined as modified Rankin Scale score 0-1 after 90 days, there was a significant benefit for tenecteplase (relative risk, 1.05), but the absolute difference was very small, at 3%. There was no difference in mortality or bleeding complications. 

In conclusion, I think both substances are great. They are effective. Tenecteplase is most probably the drug which should be used in people who have to transfer from a primary stroke center to a dedicated stroke center that provides thrombectomy. Otherwise, I think it’s a choice of the physician as to which thrombolytic agent to use. 

 

Mobile Stroke Units

A highly debated topic is mobile stroke units. These stroke units have a CT scanner and laboratory on board, and this makes it possible to perform thrombolysis on the way to the hospital. A retrospective, observational study collected data between 2018 and 2023, and included 19,400 patients with acute stroke, of whom 1237, or 6.4%, were treated in a mobile stroke unit. This study was published in JAMA Neurology. 

The modified Rankin Scale score at the time of discharge was better in patients treated with a mobile stroke unit, but the absolute benefit was only 0.03 points on the modified Rankin Scale. The question is whether this is cost-effective, and can we really do this at times when there is a traumatic shortage of physicians and nursing staff in the hospital? 

 

DOAC Reversal Agents

Oral anticoagulation, as you know, is usually considered a contraindication for systemic thrombolysis. Idarucizumab, a monoclonal antibody, was developed to reverse the biological activity of dabigatran and then allow systemic thrombolysis.

A recent publication in Neurology analyzed 13 cohort studies with 553 stroke patients on dabigatran who received idarucizumab prior to systemic thrombolysis, and the rate of intracranial hemorrhage was 4%. This means it’s obviously possible to perform thrombolysis when the activity of dabigatran is neutralized by idarucizumab.

Unfortunately, until today, we have no data on whether this can also be done with andexanet alfa in people who are treated with a factor Xa inhibitor like, for example, apixaban, rivaroxaban, or edoxaban. 

 

Anticoagulation in ESUS 

My next topic is ESUS, or embolic stroke of undetermined source. We have four large randomized trials and three smaller trials that compared antiplatelet therapy with DOACs in patients with ESUS. A group in Neurology published a meta-analysis of seven randomized controlled studies with, altogether, 14,800 patients with ESUS. 

The comparison between antiplatelet therapy and anticoagulants showed no difference for recurrent ischemic stroke, and also not for major subgroups. This means that people with ESUS should receive antiplatelet therapy, most probably aspirin. 

 

Anticoagulation Post–Ischemic Stroke With AF 

My final topic is the optimal time to start anticoagulation in people with atrial fibrillation who suffer an ischemic stroke. The OPTIMAS study, published in The Lancet, randomized 3650 patients who were anticoagulated with DOACs early (which means less than 4 days) or delayed (between 7 and 14 days). There was no difference in the primary endpoint, which was recurrent ischemic stroke, intracranial hemorrhage, or systemic embolism at 90 days.

The conclusion is that, in most cases, we can probably initiate anticoagulation in people with ischemic stroke and atrial fibrillation within the first 4 days. 

Dear colleagues, this is an exciting time for the stroke field. I presented six new studies that have impact, I think, on the management of patients with ischemic stroke.

Dr. Diener is a professor in the Department of Neurology, Stroke Center-Headache Center, University Duisburg-Essen in Germany. He reported conflicts of interest with Abbott, AbbVie, Boehringer Ingelheim, Lundbeck, Novartis, Orion Pharma, Teva, WebMD, and The German Research Council. He also serves on the editorial boards of Cephalalgia, Lancet Neurology, and Drugs.

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

This video transcript has been edited for clarity. 

Dear colleagues, I am Christoph Diener, from the Faculty of Medicine at the University Duisburg-Essen in Germany. In this video, I would like to cover six publications on stroke, which were published this fall. 

The Best Thrombolytic?

Let me start with systemic thrombolysis. We now have two thrombolytic agents available. One is the well-known alteplase, and newly approved for the treatment of stroke is tenecteplase. The ATTEST-2 study in the United Kingdom, published in The Lancet Neurology, compared tenecteplase 0.25 mg/kg body weight as a bolus with alteplase 0.9 mg/kg body weight as an infusion over 60 minutes in the 4.5-hour time window in 1777 patients with ischemic stroke.

There was no significant difference between the two thrombolytics for the primary endpoint of modified Rankin Scale score after 90 days. There was also no difference with respect to mortality, intracranial bleeding, or extracranial bleeding. 

We finally have 11 randomized controlled trials that compared tenecteplase and alteplase in acute ischemic stroke. A meta-analysis of these randomized trials was published in Neurology. The analysis included 3700 patients treated with tenecteplase and 3700 patients treated with alteplase. For the primary endpoint, excellent functional outcome defined as modified Rankin Scale score 0-1 after 90 days, there was a significant benefit for tenecteplase (relative risk, 1.05), but the absolute difference was very small, at 3%. There was no difference in mortality or bleeding complications. 

In conclusion, I think both substances are great. They are effective. Tenecteplase is most probably the drug which should be used in people who have to transfer from a primary stroke center to a dedicated stroke center that provides thrombectomy. Otherwise, I think it’s a choice of the physician as to which thrombolytic agent to use. 

 

Mobile Stroke Units

A highly debated topic is mobile stroke units. These stroke units have a CT scanner and laboratory on board, and this makes it possible to perform thrombolysis on the way to the hospital. A retrospective, observational study collected data between 2018 and 2023, and included 19,400 patients with acute stroke, of whom 1237, or 6.4%, were treated in a mobile stroke unit. This study was published in JAMA Neurology. 

The modified Rankin Scale score at the time of discharge was better in patients treated with a mobile stroke unit, but the absolute benefit was only 0.03 points on the modified Rankin Scale. The question is whether this is cost-effective, and can we really do this at times when there is a traumatic shortage of physicians and nursing staff in the hospital? 

 

DOAC Reversal Agents

Oral anticoagulation, as you know, is usually considered a contraindication for systemic thrombolysis. Idarucizumab, a monoclonal antibody, was developed to reverse the biological activity of dabigatran and then allow systemic thrombolysis.

A recent publication in Neurology analyzed 13 cohort studies with 553 stroke patients on dabigatran who received idarucizumab prior to systemic thrombolysis, and the rate of intracranial hemorrhage was 4%. This means it’s obviously possible to perform thrombolysis when the activity of dabigatran is neutralized by idarucizumab.

Unfortunately, until today, we have no data on whether this can also be done with andexanet alfa in people who are treated with a factor Xa inhibitor like, for example, apixaban, rivaroxaban, or edoxaban. 

 

Anticoagulation in ESUS 

My next topic is ESUS, or embolic stroke of undetermined source. We have four large randomized trials and three smaller trials that compared antiplatelet therapy with DOACs in patients with ESUS. A group in Neurology published a meta-analysis of seven randomized controlled studies with, altogether, 14,800 patients with ESUS. 

The comparison between antiplatelet therapy and anticoagulants showed no difference for recurrent ischemic stroke, and also not for major subgroups. This means that people with ESUS should receive antiplatelet therapy, most probably aspirin. 

 

Anticoagulation Post–Ischemic Stroke With AF 

My final topic is the optimal time to start anticoagulation in people with atrial fibrillation who suffer an ischemic stroke. The OPTIMAS study, published in The Lancet, randomized 3650 patients who were anticoagulated with DOACs early (which means less than 4 days) or delayed (between 7 and 14 days). There was no difference in the primary endpoint, which was recurrent ischemic stroke, intracranial hemorrhage, or systemic embolism at 90 days.

The conclusion is that, in most cases, we can probably initiate anticoagulation in people with ischemic stroke and atrial fibrillation within the first 4 days. 

Dear colleagues, this is an exciting time for the stroke field. I presented six new studies that have impact, I think, on the management of patients with ischemic stroke.

Dr. Diener is a professor in the Department of Neurology, Stroke Center-Headache Center, University Duisburg-Essen in Germany. He reported conflicts of interest with Abbott, AbbVie, Boehringer Ingelheim, Lundbeck, Novartis, Orion Pharma, Teva, WebMD, and The German Research Council. He also serves on the editorial boards of Cephalalgia, Lancet Neurology, and Drugs.

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

This video transcript has been edited for clarity. 

Dear colleagues, I am Christoph Diener, from the Faculty of Medicine at the University Duisburg-Essen in Germany. In this video, I would like to cover six publications on stroke, which were published this fall. 

The Best Thrombolytic?

Let me start with systemic thrombolysis. We now have two thrombolytic agents available. One is the well-known alteplase, and newly approved for the treatment of stroke is tenecteplase. The ATTEST-2 study in the United Kingdom, published in The Lancet Neurology, compared tenecteplase 0.25 mg/kg body weight as a bolus with alteplase 0.9 mg/kg body weight as an infusion over 60 minutes in the 4.5-hour time window in 1777 patients with ischemic stroke.

There was no significant difference between the two thrombolytics for the primary endpoint of modified Rankin Scale score after 90 days. There was also no difference with respect to mortality, intracranial bleeding, or extracranial bleeding. 

We finally have 11 randomized controlled trials that compared tenecteplase and alteplase in acute ischemic stroke. A meta-analysis of these randomized trials was published in Neurology. The analysis included 3700 patients treated with tenecteplase and 3700 patients treated with alteplase. For the primary endpoint, excellent functional outcome defined as modified Rankin Scale score 0-1 after 90 days, there was a significant benefit for tenecteplase (relative risk, 1.05), but the absolute difference was very small, at 3%. There was no difference in mortality or bleeding complications. 

In conclusion, I think both substances are great. They are effective. Tenecteplase is most probably the drug which should be used in people who have to transfer from a primary stroke center to a dedicated stroke center that provides thrombectomy. Otherwise, I think it’s a choice of the physician as to which thrombolytic agent to use. 

 

Mobile Stroke Units

A highly debated topic is mobile stroke units. These stroke units have a CT scanner and laboratory on board, and this makes it possible to perform thrombolysis on the way to the hospital. A retrospective, observational study collected data between 2018 and 2023, and included 19,400 patients with acute stroke, of whom 1237, or 6.4%, were treated in a mobile stroke unit. This study was published in JAMA Neurology. 

The modified Rankin Scale score at the time of discharge was better in patients treated with a mobile stroke unit, but the absolute benefit was only 0.03 points on the modified Rankin Scale. The question is whether this is cost-effective, and can we really do this at times when there is a traumatic shortage of physicians and nursing staff in the hospital? 

 

DOAC Reversal Agents

Oral anticoagulation, as you know, is usually considered a contraindication for systemic thrombolysis. Idarucizumab, a monoclonal antibody, was developed to reverse the biological activity of dabigatran and then allow systemic thrombolysis.

A recent publication in Neurology analyzed 13 cohort studies with 553 stroke patients on dabigatran who received idarucizumab prior to systemic thrombolysis, and the rate of intracranial hemorrhage was 4%. This means it’s obviously possible to perform thrombolysis when the activity of dabigatran is neutralized by idarucizumab.

Unfortunately, until today, we have no data on whether this can also be done with andexanet alfa in people who are treated with a factor Xa inhibitor like, for example, apixaban, rivaroxaban, or edoxaban. 

 

Anticoagulation in ESUS 

My next topic is ESUS, or embolic stroke of undetermined source. We have four large randomized trials and three smaller trials that compared antiplatelet therapy with DOACs in patients with ESUS. A group in Neurology published a meta-analysis of seven randomized controlled studies with, altogether, 14,800 patients with ESUS. 

The comparison between antiplatelet therapy and anticoagulants showed no difference for recurrent ischemic stroke, and also not for major subgroups. This means that people with ESUS should receive antiplatelet therapy, most probably aspirin. 

 

Anticoagulation Post–Ischemic Stroke With AF 

My final topic is the optimal time to start anticoagulation in people with atrial fibrillation who suffer an ischemic stroke. The OPTIMAS study, published in The Lancet, randomized 3650 patients who were anticoagulated with DOACs early (which means less than 4 days) or delayed (between 7 and 14 days). There was no difference in the primary endpoint, which was recurrent ischemic stroke, intracranial hemorrhage, or systemic embolism at 90 days.

The conclusion is that, in most cases, we can probably initiate anticoagulation in people with ischemic stroke and atrial fibrillation within the first 4 days. 

Dear colleagues, this is an exciting time for the stroke field. I presented six new studies that have impact, I think, on the management of patients with ischemic stroke.

Dr. Diener is a professor in the Department of Neurology, Stroke Center-Headache Center, University Duisburg-Essen in Germany. He reported conflicts of interest with Abbott, AbbVie, Boehringer Ingelheim, Lundbeck, Novartis, Orion Pharma, Teva, WebMD, and The German Research Council. He also serves on the editorial boards of Cephalalgia, Lancet Neurology, and Drugs.

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

When a patient signs on to a telehealth portal, there’s little more a provider can do than ask questions. But a new artificial intelligence (AI) technology could allow providers to get feedback about the patient’s blood pressure and diabetes risk just from a video call or a smartphone app.

Researchers at the University of Tokyo in Japan are using AI to determine whether people might have high blood pressure or diabetes based on video data collected with a special sensor. 

The technology relies on photoplethysmography (PPG), which measures changes in blood volume by detecting the amount of light absorbed by blood just below the skin. 

This technology is already used for things like finger pulse oximetry to determine oxygen saturation and heart rate. Wearable devices like Apple Watches and Fitbits also use PPG technologies to detect heart rate and atrial fibrillation.

“If we could detect and accurately measure your blood pressure, heart rate, and oxygen saturation non-invasively that would be fantastic,” said Eugene Yang, MD, professor of medicine in the division of cardiology at the University of Washington School of Medicine in Seattle who was not involved in the study.

 

How Does PPG Work — and Is This New Tech Accurate?

Using PPG, “you’re detecting these small, little blood vessels that sit underneath the surface of your skin,” explained Yang.

“Since both hypertension and diabetes are diseases that damage blood vessels, we thought these diseases might affect blood flow and pulse wave transit times,” said Ryoko Uchida, a project researcher in the cardiology department at the University of Tokyo and one of the leaders of the study.

PPG devices primarily use green light to detect blood flow, as hemoglobin, the oxygen-carrying molecule in blood, absorbs green light most effectively, Yang said. “So, if you extract and remove all the other channels of light and only focus on the green channel, then that’s when you’ll be able to potentially see blood flow and pulsatile blood flow activity,” he noted.

The University of Tokyo researchers used remote or contactless PPG, which requires a short video recording of someone’s face and palms, as the person holds as still as possible. A special sensor collects the video and detects only certain wavelengths of light. Then the researchers developed an AI algorithm to extract data from participants’ skin, such as changes in pulse transit time — the time it takes for the pulse to travel from the palm to the face.

To correlate the video algorithm to blood pressure and diabetes risk, the researchers measured blood participants’ pressure with a continuous sphygmomanometer (an automatic blood pressure cuff) at the same time as they collected the video. They also did a blood A1c test to detect diabetes.

So far, they’ve tested their video algorithm on 215 people. The algorithm applied to a 30-second video was 86% accurate in detecting if blood pressure was above normal, and a 5-second video was 81% accurate in detecting higher blood pressure.

Compared with using hemoglobin A1c blood test results to screen for diabetes, the video algorithm was 75% accurate in identifying people who had subtle blood changes that correlated to diabetes.

“Most of this focus has been on wearable devices, patches, rings, wrist devices,” Yang said, “the facial video stuff is great because you can imagine that there are other ways of applying it.”

Yang, who is also doing research on facial video processing, pointed out it could be helpful not only in telehealth visits, but also for patients in the hospital with highly contagious diseases who need to be in isolation, or just for people using their smartphones. 

“People are tied to their smartphones, so you could imagine that that would be great as a way for people to have awareness about their blood pressure or their diabetes status,” Yang noted.

 

More Work to Do

The study has a few caveats. The special sensor they used in this study isn’t yet integrated into smartphone cameras or other common video recording devices. But Uchida is hopeful that it could be mass-produced and inexpensive to someday add.

Also, the study was done in a Japanese population, and lighter skin may be easier to capture changes in blood flow, Uchida noted. Pulse oximeters, which use the same technology, tend to overestimate blood oxygen in people with darker skin tones.

“It is necessary to test whether the same results are obtained in a variety of subjects other than Japanese and Asians,” Uchida said, in addition to validating the tool with more participants.

The study has also not yet undergone peer review.

And Yang pointed out that this new AI technology provides more of a screening tool to predict who is at high risk for high blood pressure or diabetes, rather than precise measurements for either disease.

There are already some devices that claim to measure blood pressure using PPG technology, like blood pressure monitoring watches. But Yang warns that these kinds of devices aren’t validated, meaning we don’t really know how well they work.

One difficulty in getting any kind of PPG blood pressure monitoring device to market is that the organizations involved in setting medical device standards (like the International Organization for Standards) doesn’t yet have a validation standard for this technology, Yang said, so there’s really no way to consistently verify the technology’s accuracy.

“I am optimistic that we are capable of figuring out how to validate these things. I just think we have so many things we have to iron out before that happens,” Yang explained, noting that it will be at least 3 years before a remote blood monitoring system is widely available.

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

When a patient signs on to a telehealth portal, there’s little more a provider can do than ask questions. But a new artificial intelligence (AI) technology could allow providers to get feedback about the patient’s blood pressure and diabetes risk just from a video call or a smartphone app.

Researchers at the University of Tokyo in Japan are using AI to determine whether people might have high blood pressure or diabetes based on video data collected with a special sensor. 

The technology relies on photoplethysmography (PPG), which measures changes in blood volume by detecting the amount of light absorbed by blood just below the skin. 

This technology is already used for things like finger pulse oximetry to determine oxygen saturation and heart rate. Wearable devices like Apple Watches and Fitbits also use PPG technologies to detect heart rate and atrial fibrillation.

“If we could detect and accurately measure your blood pressure, heart rate, and oxygen saturation non-invasively that would be fantastic,” said Eugene Yang, MD, professor of medicine in the division of cardiology at the University of Washington School of Medicine in Seattle who was not involved in the study.

 

How Does PPG Work — and Is This New Tech Accurate?

Using PPG, “you’re detecting these small, little blood vessels that sit underneath the surface of your skin,” explained Yang.

“Since both hypertension and diabetes are diseases that damage blood vessels, we thought these diseases might affect blood flow and pulse wave transit times,” said Ryoko Uchida, a project researcher in the cardiology department at the University of Tokyo and one of the leaders of the study.

PPG devices primarily use green light to detect blood flow, as hemoglobin, the oxygen-carrying molecule in blood, absorbs green light most effectively, Yang said. “So, if you extract and remove all the other channels of light and only focus on the green channel, then that’s when you’ll be able to potentially see blood flow and pulsatile blood flow activity,” he noted.

The University of Tokyo researchers used remote or contactless PPG, which requires a short video recording of someone’s face and palms, as the person holds as still as possible. A special sensor collects the video and detects only certain wavelengths of light. Then the researchers developed an AI algorithm to extract data from participants’ skin, such as changes in pulse transit time — the time it takes for the pulse to travel from the palm to the face.

To correlate the video algorithm to blood pressure and diabetes risk, the researchers measured blood participants’ pressure with a continuous sphygmomanometer (an automatic blood pressure cuff) at the same time as they collected the video. They also did a blood A1c test to detect diabetes.

So far, they’ve tested their video algorithm on 215 people. The algorithm applied to a 30-second video was 86% accurate in detecting if blood pressure was above normal, and a 5-second video was 81% accurate in detecting higher blood pressure.

Compared with using hemoglobin A1c blood test results to screen for diabetes, the video algorithm was 75% accurate in identifying people who had subtle blood changes that correlated to diabetes.

“Most of this focus has been on wearable devices, patches, rings, wrist devices,” Yang said, “the facial video stuff is great because you can imagine that there are other ways of applying it.”

Yang, who is also doing research on facial video processing, pointed out it could be helpful not only in telehealth visits, but also for patients in the hospital with highly contagious diseases who need to be in isolation, or just for people using their smartphones. 

“People are tied to their smartphones, so you could imagine that that would be great as a way for people to have awareness about their blood pressure or their diabetes status,” Yang noted.

 

More Work to Do

The study has a few caveats. The special sensor they used in this study isn’t yet integrated into smartphone cameras or other common video recording devices. But Uchida is hopeful that it could be mass-produced and inexpensive to someday add.

Also, the study was done in a Japanese population, and lighter skin may be easier to capture changes in blood flow, Uchida noted. Pulse oximeters, which use the same technology, tend to overestimate blood oxygen in people with darker skin tones.

“It is necessary to test whether the same results are obtained in a variety of subjects other than Japanese and Asians,” Uchida said, in addition to validating the tool with more participants.

The study has also not yet undergone peer review.

And Yang pointed out that this new AI technology provides more of a screening tool to predict who is at high risk for high blood pressure or diabetes, rather than precise measurements for either disease.

There are already some devices that claim to measure blood pressure using PPG technology, like blood pressure monitoring watches. But Yang warns that these kinds of devices aren’t validated, meaning we don’t really know how well they work.

One difficulty in getting any kind of PPG blood pressure monitoring device to market is that the organizations involved in setting medical device standards (like the International Organization for Standards) doesn’t yet have a validation standard for this technology, Yang said, so there’s really no way to consistently verify the technology’s accuracy.

“I am optimistic that we are capable of figuring out how to validate these things. I just think we have so many things we have to iron out before that happens,” Yang explained, noting that it will be at least 3 years before a remote blood monitoring system is widely available.

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

When a patient signs on to a telehealth portal, there’s little more a provider can do than ask questions. But a new artificial intelligence (AI) technology could allow providers to get feedback about the patient’s blood pressure and diabetes risk just from a video call or a smartphone app.

Researchers at the University of Tokyo in Japan are using AI to determine whether people might have high blood pressure or diabetes based on video data collected with a special sensor. 

The technology relies on photoplethysmography (PPG), which measures changes in blood volume by detecting the amount of light absorbed by blood just below the skin. 

This technology is already used for things like finger pulse oximetry to determine oxygen saturation and heart rate. Wearable devices like Apple Watches and Fitbits also use PPG technologies to detect heart rate and atrial fibrillation.

“If we could detect and accurately measure your blood pressure, heart rate, and oxygen saturation non-invasively that would be fantastic,” said Eugene Yang, MD, professor of medicine in the division of cardiology at the University of Washington School of Medicine in Seattle who was not involved in the study.

 

How Does PPG Work — and Is This New Tech Accurate?

Using PPG, “you’re detecting these small, little blood vessels that sit underneath the surface of your skin,” explained Yang.

“Since both hypertension and diabetes are diseases that damage blood vessels, we thought these diseases might affect blood flow and pulse wave transit times,” said Ryoko Uchida, a project researcher in the cardiology department at the University of Tokyo and one of the leaders of the study.

PPG devices primarily use green light to detect blood flow, as hemoglobin, the oxygen-carrying molecule in blood, absorbs green light most effectively, Yang said. “So, if you extract and remove all the other channels of light and only focus on the green channel, then that’s when you’ll be able to potentially see blood flow and pulsatile blood flow activity,” he noted.

The University of Tokyo researchers used remote or contactless PPG, which requires a short video recording of someone’s face and palms, as the person holds as still as possible. A special sensor collects the video and detects only certain wavelengths of light. Then the researchers developed an AI algorithm to extract data from participants’ skin, such as changes in pulse transit time — the time it takes for the pulse to travel from the palm to the face.

To correlate the video algorithm to blood pressure and diabetes risk, the researchers measured blood participants’ pressure with a continuous sphygmomanometer (an automatic blood pressure cuff) at the same time as they collected the video. They also did a blood A1c test to detect diabetes.

So far, they’ve tested their video algorithm on 215 people. The algorithm applied to a 30-second video was 86% accurate in detecting if blood pressure was above normal, and a 5-second video was 81% accurate in detecting higher blood pressure.

Compared with using hemoglobin A1c blood test results to screen for diabetes, the video algorithm was 75% accurate in identifying people who had subtle blood changes that correlated to diabetes.

“Most of this focus has been on wearable devices, patches, rings, wrist devices,” Yang said, “the facial video stuff is great because you can imagine that there are other ways of applying it.”

Yang, who is also doing research on facial video processing, pointed out it could be helpful not only in telehealth visits, but also for patients in the hospital with highly contagious diseases who need to be in isolation, or just for people using their smartphones. 

“People are tied to their smartphones, so you could imagine that that would be great as a way for people to have awareness about their blood pressure or their diabetes status,” Yang noted.

 

More Work to Do

The study has a few caveats. The special sensor they used in this study isn’t yet integrated into smartphone cameras or other common video recording devices. But Uchida is hopeful that it could be mass-produced and inexpensive to someday add.

Also, the study was done in a Japanese population, and lighter skin may be easier to capture changes in blood flow, Uchida noted. Pulse oximeters, which use the same technology, tend to overestimate blood oxygen in people with darker skin tones.

“It is necessary to test whether the same results are obtained in a variety of subjects other than Japanese and Asians,” Uchida said, in addition to validating the tool with more participants.

The study has also not yet undergone peer review.

And Yang pointed out that this new AI technology provides more of a screening tool to predict who is at high risk for high blood pressure or diabetes, rather than precise measurements for either disease.

There are already some devices that claim to measure blood pressure using PPG technology, like blood pressure monitoring watches. But Yang warns that these kinds of devices aren’t validated, meaning we don’t really know how well they work.

One difficulty in getting any kind of PPG blood pressure monitoring device to market is that the organizations involved in setting medical device standards (like the International Organization for Standards) doesn’t yet have a validation standard for this technology, Yang said, so there’s really no way to consistently verify the technology’s accuracy.

“I am optimistic that we are capable of figuring out how to validate these things. I just think we have so many things we have to iron out before that happens,” Yang explained, noting that it will be at least 3 years before a remote blood monitoring system is widely available.

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

Case: 45-year-old woman comes to clinic and requests lipoprotein(a) [Lp(a)] testing. She has a family history of early coronary disease (mother age 50, sister age 48) and has hypertension with home blood pressure readings of 130-140/70-75. She had a lipid panel checked last year which showed a total cholesterol of 210 mg/dL, LDL 145 mg/dL, HDL 45 mg/dL, and triglycerides of 100 mg/dL. She does not smoke and is currently taking irbesartan, chlorthalidone, sertraline, a multivitamin, and vitamin D.

What do you recommend?

There has been a great deal of media attention on testing for Lp(a). Many of my patients are requesting testing although many of them do not need it. This patient is an exception. I think Lp(a) testing would help inform her medical care. She has a family history of early coronary disease in her mother and sister, but her own lipid profile is not worrisome.

Her 10-year cardiovascular disease risk is 2%. The cardiac risk calculator does not incorporate family history; I think this is a situation where testing for Lp(a)(as well as apolipoprotein B) can be helpful. If her Lp(a) is elevated, it helps reassess her risk and that information would be helpful in targeting aggressive interventions for other CV risk factors, including optimal blood pressure control. In her case, pushing for a goal systolic blood pressure below 120 mm Hg and making sure she is doing regular exercise and eating a heart-healthy diet. The current consensus statement on Lp(a) recommends that patients with elevated levels have aggressive lifestyle and cardiovascular risk management.¹

 

Currently, there are no medical treatments available for high Lp(a) for primary prevention. Apheresis has been approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for patients with familial hyperlipidemia who have LDL ≥ 100 mg/dL, Lp(a) ≥ 60 mg/dL, and coronary or other artery disease. 

PCSK9 inhibitors have shown a reduction in major cardiovascular events in patients who have established coronary artery disease and high Lp(a) levels, albeit with limited data. Unlike statins, which increase Lp(a) levels, PCSK9 inhibitors reduce Lp(a) levels.² There are promising early results in a phase 2 trial of the oral drug muvalaplin lowering Lp(a) levels by up to 85% for the highest dose, but there are no peer-reviewed articles confirming these results and no outcome trials at this time.

In patients who are already recognized as high risk, especially those with established coronary artery disease, measuring Lp(a) levels offer little benefit. These patients should already be receiving aggressive medical therapy to reach blood pressure targets if hypertensive, maximal lifestyle modifications, and statin therapy. 

If these patients need more therapy because of continued coronary events, despite maximal conventional medical therapy, then adding a PCSK9 inhibitor would be appropriate whether or not a patient has a high Lp(a) level. Once Lp(a) targeted therapies are available and show clinical benefit, then the role of Lp(a) measurement and treatment in this population will be clearer.

Pearl: Most patients do not need Lp(a) testing. There are no FDA-approved treatments for high Lp(a) levels.

Dr. Paauw is professor of medicine in the division of general internal medicine at the University of Washington, Seattle, and he serves as third-year medical student clerkship director at the University of Washington. Contact Dr. Paauw at [email protected].

References

1. Kronenberg F et al. Lipoprotein(a) in atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease and aortic stenosis: A European Atherosclerosis Society consensus statement. Eur Heart J. 2022;43:3925-46.

2. Ruscica M et al. Lipoprotein(a) and PCSK9 inhibition: Clinical evidence Eur Heart J Suppl 2020;Nov 18(Suppl L):L53–L56.

Case: 45-year-old woman comes to clinic and requests lipoprotein(a) [Lp(a)] testing. She has a family history of early coronary disease (mother age 50, sister age 48) and has hypertension with home blood pressure readings of 130-140/70-75. She had a lipid panel checked last year which showed a total cholesterol of 210 mg/dL, LDL 145 mg/dL, HDL 45 mg/dL, and triglycerides of 100 mg/dL. She does not smoke and is currently taking irbesartan, chlorthalidone, sertraline, a multivitamin, and vitamin D.

What do you recommend?

There has been a great deal of media attention on testing for Lp(a). Many of my patients are requesting testing although many of them do not need it. This patient is an exception. I think Lp(a) testing would help inform her medical care. She has a family history of early coronary disease in her mother and sister, but her own lipid profile is not worrisome.

Her 10-year cardiovascular disease risk is 2%. The cardiac risk calculator does not incorporate family history; I think this is a situation where testing for Lp(a)(as well as apolipoprotein B) can be helpful. If her Lp(a) is elevated, it helps reassess her risk and that information would be helpful in targeting aggressive interventions for other CV risk factors, including optimal blood pressure control. In her case, pushing for a goal systolic blood pressure below 120 mm Hg and making sure she is doing regular exercise and eating a heart-healthy diet. The current consensus statement on Lp(a) recommends that patients with elevated levels have aggressive lifestyle and cardiovascular risk management.¹

 

Currently, there are no medical treatments available for high Lp(a) for primary prevention. Apheresis has been approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for patients with familial hyperlipidemia who have LDL ≥ 100 mg/dL, Lp(a) ≥ 60 mg/dL, and coronary or other artery disease. 

PCSK9 inhibitors have shown a reduction in major cardiovascular events in patients who have established coronary artery disease and high Lp(a) levels, albeit with limited data. Unlike statins, which increase Lp(a) levels, PCSK9 inhibitors reduce Lp(a) levels.² There are promising early results in a phase 2 trial of the oral drug muvalaplin lowering Lp(a) levels by up to 85% for the highest dose, but there are no peer-reviewed articles confirming these results and no outcome trials at this time.

In patients who are already recognized as high risk, especially those with established coronary artery disease, measuring Lp(a) levels offer little benefit. These patients should already be receiving aggressive medical therapy to reach blood pressure targets if hypertensive, maximal lifestyle modifications, and statin therapy. 

If these patients need more therapy because of continued coronary events, despite maximal conventional medical therapy, then adding a PCSK9 inhibitor would be appropriate whether or not a patient has a high Lp(a) level. Once Lp(a) targeted therapies are available and show clinical benefit, then the role of Lp(a) measurement and treatment in this population will be clearer.

Pearl: Most patients do not need Lp(a) testing. There are no FDA-approved treatments for high Lp(a) levels.

Dr. Paauw is professor of medicine in the division of general internal medicine at the University of Washington, Seattle, and he serves as third-year medical student clerkship director at the University of Washington. Contact Dr. Paauw at [email protected].

References

1. Kronenberg F et al. Lipoprotein(a) in atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease and aortic stenosis: A European Atherosclerosis Society consensus statement. Eur Heart J. 2022;43:3925-46.

2. Ruscica M et al. Lipoprotein(a) and PCSK9 inhibition: Clinical evidence Eur Heart J Suppl 2020;Nov 18(Suppl L):L53–L56.

Case: 45-year-old woman comes to clinic and requests lipoprotein(a) [Lp(a)] testing. She has a family history of early coronary disease (mother age 50, sister age 48) and has hypertension with home blood pressure readings of 130-140/70-75. She had a lipid panel checked last year which showed a total cholesterol of 210 mg/dL, LDL 145 mg/dL, HDL 45 mg/dL, and triglycerides of 100 mg/dL. She does not smoke and is currently taking irbesartan, chlorthalidone, sertraline, a multivitamin, and vitamin D.

What do you recommend?

There has been a great deal of media attention on testing for Lp(a). Many of my patients are requesting testing although many of them do not need it. This patient is an exception. I think Lp(a) testing would help inform her medical care. She has a family history of early coronary disease in her mother and sister, but her own lipid profile is not worrisome.

Her 10-year cardiovascular disease risk is 2%. The cardiac risk calculator does not incorporate family history; I think this is a situation where testing for Lp(a)(as well as apolipoprotein B) can be helpful. If her Lp(a) is elevated, it helps reassess her risk and that information would be helpful in targeting aggressive interventions for other CV risk factors, including optimal blood pressure control. In her case, pushing for a goal systolic blood pressure below 120 mm Hg and making sure she is doing regular exercise and eating a heart-healthy diet. The current consensus statement on Lp(a) recommends that patients with elevated levels have aggressive lifestyle and cardiovascular risk management.¹

 

Currently, there are no medical treatments available for high Lp(a) for primary prevention. Apheresis has been approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for patients with familial hyperlipidemia who have LDL ≥ 100 mg/dL, Lp(a) ≥ 60 mg/dL, and coronary or other artery disease. 

PCSK9 inhibitors have shown a reduction in major cardiovascular events in patients who have established coronary artery disease and high Lp(a) levels, albeit with limited data. Unlike statins, which increase Lp(a) levels, PCSK9 inhibitors reduce Lp(a) levels.² There are promising early results in a phase 2 trial of the oral drug muvalaplin lowering Lp(a) levels by up to 85% for the highest dose, but there are no peer-reviewed articles confirming these results and no outcome trials at this time.

In patients who are already recognized as high risk, especially those with established coronary artery disease, measuring Lp(a) levels offer little benefit. These patients should already be receiving aggressive medical therapy to reach blood pressure targets if hypertensive, maximal lifestyle modifications, and statin therapy. 

If these patients need more therapy because of continued coronary events, despite maximal conventional medical therapy, then adding a PCSK9 inhibitor would be appropriate whether or not a patient has a high Lp(a) level. Once Lp(a) targeted therapies are available and show clinical benefit, then the role of Lp(a) measurement and treatment in this population will be clearer.

Pearl: Most patients do not need Lp(a) testing. There are no FDA-approved treatments for high Lp(a) levels.

Dr. Paauw is professor of medicine in the division of general internal medicine at the University of Washington, Seattle, and he serves as third-year medical student clerkship director at the University of Washington. Contact Dr. Paauw at [email protected].

References

1. Kronenberg F et al. Lipoprotein(a) in atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease and aortic stenosis: A European Atherosclerosis Society consensus statement. Eur Heart J. 2022;43:3925-46.

2. Ruscica M et al. Lipoprotein(a) and PCSK9 inhibition: Clinical evidence Eur Heart J Suppl 2020;Nov 18(Suppl L):L53–L56.