Hypertension

Leading cardiology societies have issued a “call for action” on a global scale to reinvent randomized clinical trials fit for the 21st century.

“Randomized trials are an essential tool for reliably assessing the effects of treatments, but they have become too costly and too burdensome,” first author Louise Bowman, University of Oxford, England, told this news organization. “We urgently need to modernize our approach to clinical trials in order to continue to improve patient care.”

The joint opinion is from the European Society of Cardiology, the American Heart Association, the American College of Cardiology, and the World Heart Federation. It was simultaneously published online in the European Heart Journal, Circulation, Journal of the American College of Cardiology, and Global Heart.

The authors note that the availability of large-scale “real-world” data is increasingly being touted as a way to bypass the challenges of conducting randomized trials. Yet, observational analyses of real-world data “are not a suitable alternative to randomization,” Prof. Bowman said.

Cardiology has historically led the way in transforming clinical practice with groundbreaking “mega-trials,” such as the International Study of Infarct Survival (ISIS), Gruppo Italiano per lo Studio della Streptochinasi nell’Infarto (GISSI), and Global Utilization of Streptokinase and Tissue Plasminogen Activator for Occluded Coronary Arteries (GUSTO).

But over the past 25 years, there has been a huge increase in the rules and related bureaucracy governing clinical trials, which hinders the ability to conduct trials swiftly and affordably, the authors point out.

The COVID-19 pandemic has shown that important clinical trials can be performed quickly and efficiently in busy hospitals, they note.

“The RECOVERY trial in COVID-19 has been an excellent example of this, with results that are estimated to have saved around 1 million lives worldwide within just 1 year,” Prof. Bowman told this news organization.

A Good Clinical Trials Collaborative made up of key stakeholders recently developed new guidelines designed to promote better, more efficient randomized controlled trials.

“If widely adopted and used alongside valuable 21st century electronic health records, we could transform the clinical trials landscape and do many more high-quality trials very cost-effectively,” Prof. Bowman said.

“Widespread adoption and implementation of the revised guidelines will require collaboration with a wide range of national and international organizations, including patient, professional, academic, and industry groups, funders and government organizations, and ethics, health policy, and regulatory bodies,” Prof. Bowman acknowledged.

“This is work that the Good Clinical Trials Collaborative is leading. It is hoped that this endorsement by the joint cardiovascular societies will increase awareness and provide valuable support to his important work,” she added.

No commercial funding was received. The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Leading cardiology societies have issued a “call for action” on a global scale to reinvent randomized clinical trials fit for the 21st century.

“Randomized trials are an essential tool for reliably assessing the effects of treatments, but they have become too costly and too burdensome,” first author Louise Bowman, University of Oxford, England, told this news organization. “We urgently need to modernize our approach to clinical trials in order to continue to improve patient care.”

The joint opinion is from the European Society of Cardiology, the American Heart Association, the American College of Cardiology, and the World Heart Federation. It was simultaneously published online in the European Heart Journal, Circulation, Journal of the American College of Cardiology, and Global Heart.

The authors note that the availability of large-scale “real-world” data is increasingly being touted as a way to bypass the challenges of conducting randomized trials. Yet, observational analyses of real-world data “are not a suitable alternative to randomization,” Prof. Bowman said.

Cardiology has historically led the way in transforming clinical practice with groundbreaking “mega-trials,” such as the International Study of Infarct Survival (ISIS), Gruppo Italiano per lo Studio della Streptochinasi nell’Infarto (GISSI), and Global Utilization of Streptokinase and Tissue Plasminogen Activator for Occluded Coronary Arteries (GUSTO).

But over the past 25 years, there has been a huge increase in the rules and related bureaucracy governing clinical trials, which hinders the ability to conduct trials swiftly and affordably, the authors point out.

The COVID-19 pandemic has shown that important clinical trials can be performed quickly and efficiently in busy hospitals, they note.

“The RECOVERY trial in COVID-19 has been an excellent example of this, with results that are estimated to have saved around 1 million lives worldwide within just 1 year,” Prof. Bowman told this news organization.

A Good Clinical Trials Collaborative made up of key stakeholders recently developed new guidelines designed to promote better, more efficient randomized controlled trials.

“If widely adopted and used alongside valuable 21st century electronic health records, we could transform the clinical trials landscape and do many more high-quality trials very cost-effectively,” Prof. Bowman said.

“Widespread adoption and implementation of the revised guidelines will require collaboration with a wide range of national and international organizations, including patient, professional, academic, and industry groups, funders and government organizations, and ethics, health policy, and regulatory bodies,” Prof. Bowman acknowledged.

“This is work that the Good Clinical Trials Collaborative is leading. It is hoped that this endorsement by the joint cardiovascular societies will increase awareness and provide valuable support to his important work,” she added.

No commercial funding was received. The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Leading cardiology societies have issued a “call for action” on a global scale to reinvent randomized clinical trials fit for the 21st century.

“Randomized trials are an essential tool for reliably assessing the effects of treatments, but they have become too costly and too burdensome,” first author Louise Bowman, University of Oxford, England, told this news organization. “We urgently need to modernize our approach to clinical trials in order to continue to improve patient care.”

The joint opinion is from the European Society of Cardiology, the American Heart Association, the American College of Cardiology, and the World Heart Federation. It was simultaneously published online in the European Heart Journal, Circulation, Journal of the American College of Cardiology, and Global Heart.

The authors note that the availability of large-scale “real-world” data is increasingly being touted as a way to bypass the challenges of conducting randomized trials. Yet, observational analyses of real-world data “are not a suitable alternative to randomization,” Prof. Bowman said.

Cardiology has historically led the way in transforming clinical practice with groundbreaking “mega-trials,” such as the International Study of Infarct Survival (ISIS), Gruppo Italiano per lo Studio della Streptochinasi nell’Infarto (GISSI), and Global Utilization of Streptokinase and Tissue Plasminogen Activator for Occluded Coronary Arteries (GUSTO).

But over the past 25 years, there has been a huge increase in the rules and related bureaucracy governing clinical trials, which hinders the ability to conduct trials swiftly and affordably, the authors point out.

The COVID-19 pandemic has shown that important clinical trials can be performed quickly and efficiently in busy hospitals, they note.

“The RECOVERY trial in COVID-19 has been an excellent example of this, with results that are estimated to have saved around 1 million lives worldwide within just 1 year,” Prof. Bowman told this news organization.

A Good Clinical Trials Collaborative made up of key stakeholders recently developed new guidelines designed to promote better, more efficient randomized controlled trials.

“If widely adopted and used alongside valuable 21st century electronic health records, we could transform the clinical trials landscape and do many more high-quality trials very cost-effectively,” Prof. Bowman said.

“Widespread adoption and implementation of the revised guidelines will require collaboration with a wide range of national and international organizations, including patient, professional, academic, and industry groups, funders and government organizations, and ethics, health policy, and regulatory bodies,” Prof. Bowman acknowledged.

“This is work that the Good Clinical Trials Collaborative is leading. It is hoped that this endorsement by the joint cardiovascular societies will increase awareness and provide valuable support to his important work,” she added.

No commercial funding was received. The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Lupin Pharmaceuticals is recalling four lots of quinapril tablets because of unacceptable levels of the nitrosamine impurity, N-nitroso-quinapril, a potential carcinogen.

Nitrosamines “may increase the risk of cancer if people are exposed to them above acceptable levels over long periods of time,” the company says in a recall notice posted on the Food and Drug Administration website.

Lupin says it “has received no reports of illness that appear to relate to this issue.”

Quinapril is an ACE inhibitor used to treat hypertension. Lupin stopped marketing quinapril tablets in September 2022.

The recalled product – quinapril tablets USP 20 mg and 40 mg – are packaged in 90-count bottles and were distributed nationwide to U.S. wholesalers, drug chains, mail order pharmacies, and supermarkets between March 15, 2021, and Sept. 1, 2022.

Lupin is notifying customers to immediately stop distribution of the recalled product and is arranging for the affected product lots to be returned to the company.

The company is advising patients to continue taking their medication and to contact their pharmacist, physician, or healthcare professional for advice regarding an alternative treatment.

Questions regarding this recall should be directed to Inmar Rx Solutions at (877) 538-8445 Monday to Friday between 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. EST.

Patients and physicians are also advised to report any adverse events or side effects related to the affected products to MedWatch, the FDA’s Safety Information and Adverse Event Reporting program.

Pfizer recalled several lots of quinapril owing to the presence of the same impurity in March 2022and again in April.

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

Lupin Pharmaceuticals is recalling four lots of quinapril tablets because of unacceptable levels of the nitrosamine impurity, N-nitroso-quinapril, a potential carcinogen.

Nitrosamines “may increase the risk of cancer if people are exposed to them above acceptable levels over long periods of time,” the company says in a recall notice posted on the Food and Drug Administration website.

Lupin says it “has received no reports of illness that appear to relate to this issue.”

Quinapril is an ACE inhibitor used to treat hypertension. Lupin stopped marketing quinapril tablets in September 2022.

The recalled product – quinapril tablets USP 20 mg and 40 mg – are packaged in 90-count bottles and were distributed nationwide to U.S. wholesalers, drug chains, mail order pharmacies, and supermarkets between March 15, 2021, and Sept. 1, 2022.

Lupin is notifying customers to immediately stop distribution of the recalled product and is arranging for the affected product lots to be returned to the company.

The company is advising patients to continue taking their medication and to contact their pharmacist, physician, or healthcare professional for advice regarding an alternative treatment.

Questions regarding this recall should be directed to Inmar Rx Solutions at (877) 538-8445 Monday to Friday between 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. EST.

Patients and physicians are also advised to report any adverse events or side effects related to the affected products to MedWatch, the FDA’s Safety Information and Adverse Event Reporting program.

Pfizer recalled several lots of quinapril owing to the presence of the same impurity in March 2022and again in April.

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

Lupin Pharmaceuticals is recalling four lots of quinapril tablets because of unacceptable levels of the nitrosamine impurity, N-nitroso-quinapril, a potential carcinogen.

Nitrosamines “may increase the risk of cancer if people are exposed to them above acceptable levels over long periods of time,” the company says in a recall notice posted on the Food and Drug Administration website.

Lupin says it “has received no reports of illness that appear to relate to this issue.”

Quinapril is an ACE inhibitor used to treat hypertension. Lupin stopped marketing quinapril tablets in September 2022.

The recalled product – quinapril tablets USP 20 mg and 40 mg – are packaged in 90-count bottles and were distributed nationwide to U.S. wholesalers, drug chains, mail order pharmacies, and supermarkets between March 15, 2021, and Sept. 1, 2022.

Lupin is notifying customers to immediately stop distribution of the recalled product and is arranging for the affected product lots to be returned to the company.

The company is advising patients to continue taking their medication and to contact their pharmacist, physician, or healthcare professional for advice regarding an alternative treatment.

Questions regarding this recall should be directed to Inmar Rx Solutions at (877) 538-8445 Monday to Friday between 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. EST.

Patients and physicians are also advised to report any adverse events or side effects related to the affected products to MedWatch, the FDA’s Safety Information and Adverse Event Reporting program.

Pfizer recalled several lots of quinapril owing to the presence of the same impurity in March 2022and again in April.

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

Sleep-disordered breathing was significantly associated with increased odds of preeclampsia and with greater arterial stiffness in high-risk pregnancies, based on data from 181 individuals.

The intermittent hypoxia resulting from sleep-disordered breathing (SDB) has been linked to cardiovascular disease and hypertension, wrote Kim Phan, PhD, of McGill University, Montreal, and colleagues.

SDB has been associated with increased preeclampsia risk, and women with preeclampsia show increased arterial stiffness, but an association between SDB and arterial stiffness in pregnancy has not been explored, they said.

In a study published in the American Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology, the researchers reviewed data from 181 women with high-risk singleton pregnancies recruited from two tertiary obstetrics clinics in Montreal. High-risk pregnancy was defined as meeting at least one of the following criteria: age 35 years and older, body mass index 25 kg/m² or higher, chronic hypertension, preexisting diabetes mellitus, preexisting renal disease, or personal or first-degree relative with a history of preeclampsia.

Participants were assessed at each trimester via the Epworth Sleepiness Scale, Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index, and Restless Legs Syndrome questionnaire. Sleep-disordered breathing was defined as loud snoring or witnessed sleep apneas at least three times a week. Arterial stiffness was assessed via applanation tonometry every 4 weeks from baseline throughout pregnancy.

Overall, 23% of the study population met the criteria for SDB; SDB in the first or second trimester was associated with a significantly increased risk of preeclampsia (odds ratio 3.4). The effect of SDB on preeclampsia was increased in women who reported excessive daytime sleepiness, defined as scores higher than 10 on the Epworth Sleepiness Scale. The odds ratio for preeclampsia in the first or second trimester increased to 5.7 in women with hypersomnolence in addition to SDB. The risk of preeclampsia was even higher (OR 8.2) in the third trimester.

Self-reported total sleep time decreased in the second and third trimesters compared with the first, but reports of excessive daytime sleepiness remained consistent throughout the pregnancies, the researchers noted.

The results highlight the need to screen pregnant women for SDB in all three trimesters; however, “future studies will need to assess the incremental benefit of integrating SDB into risk assessment calculators in pregnancy,” the researchers wrote in their discussion. Randomized trials are needed to determine the value of interventions such as continuous positive airway pressure to reduce arterial stiffness and the risks of hypertensive disorders of pregnancy, they said. More data also are needed to examine the role of excessive daytime sleepiness as a modifier of arterial stiffness and preeclampsia risk, they noted.

The findings were limited by the prospective design, which prevents conclusions of causality, the researchers noted. Other limitations included the focus on high-risk pregnancy, which may limit generalizability, and the use of symptoms, not sleep recordings, to identify SDB, they said.

However, the results show an independent association between SDB and arterial stiffness during pregnancy, and offer potentially useful insights into the mechanisms of SDB-associated cardiovascular conditions, they noted.

“This work may inform future studies exploring the value of using arterial stiffness, as an early noninvasive indicator of subclinical vascular dysfunction in pregnant women with SDB,” they concluded.

The study was supported by the Fonds de recherche du Quebec – Sante (FRQS), Heart and Stroke Foundation of Canada, McGill University’s academic enrichment fund, and the Canadian Foundation for Women’s Health. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Sleep-disordered breathing was significantly associated with increased odds of preeclampsia and with greater arterial stiffness in high-risk pregnancies, based on data from 181 individuals.

The intermittent hypoxia resulting from sleep-disordered breathing (SDB) has been linked to cardiovascular disease and hypertension, wrote Kim Phan, PhD, of McGill University, Montreal, and colleagues.

SDB has been associated with increased preeclampsia risk, and women with preeclampsia show increased arterial stiffness, but an association between SDB and arterial stiffness in pregnancy has not been explored, they said.

In a study published in the American Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology, the researchers reviewed data from 181 women with high-risk singleton pregnancies recruited from two tertiary obstetrics clinics in Montreal. High-risk pregnancy was defined as meeting at least one of the following criteria: age 35 years and older, body mass index 25 kg/m² or higher, chronic hypertension, preexisting diabetes mellitus, preexisting renal disease, or personal or first-degree relative with a history of preeclampsia.

Participants were assessed at each trimester via the Epworth Sleepiness Scale, Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index, and Restless Legs Syndrome questionnaire. Sleep-disordered breathing was defined as loud snoring or witnessed sleep apneas at least three times a week. Arterial stiffness was assessed via applanation tonometry every 4 weeks from baseline throughout pregnancy.

Overall, 23% of the study population met the criteria for SDB; SDB in the first or second trimester was associated with a significantly increased risk of preeclampsia (odds ratio 3.4). The effect of SDB on preeclampsia was increased in women who reported excessive daytime sleepiness, defined as scores higher than 10 on the Epworth Sleepiness Scale. The odds ratio for preeclampsia in the first or second trimester increased to 5.7 in women with hypersomnolence in addition to SDB. The risk of preeclampsia was even higher (OR 8.2) in the third trimester.

Self-reported total sleep time decreased in the second and third trimesters compared with the first, but reports of excessive daytime sleepiness remained consistent throughout the pregnancies, the researchers noted.

The results highlight the need to screen pregnant women for SDB in all three trimesters; however, “future studies will need to assess the incremental benefit of integrating SDB into risk assessment calculators in pregnancy,” the researchers wrote in their discussion. Randomized trials are needed to determine the value of interventions such as continuous positive airway pressure to reduce arterial stiffness and the risks of hypertensive disorders of pregnancy, they said. More data also are needed to examine the role of excessive daytime sleepiness as a modifier of arterial stiffness and preeclampsia risk, they noted.

The findings were limited by the prospective design, which prevents conclusions of causality, the researchers noted. Other limitations included the focus on high-risk pregnancy, which may limit generalizability, and the use of symptoms, not sleep recordings, to identify SDB, they said.

However, the results show an independent association between SDB and arterial stiffness during pregnancy, and offer potentially useful insights into the mechanisms of SDB-associated cardiovascular conditions, they noted.

“This work may inform future studies exploring the value of using arterial stiffness, as an early noninvasive indicator of subclinical vascular dysfunction in pregnant women with SDB,” they concluded.

The study was supported by the Fonds de recherche du Quebec – Sante (FRQS), Heart and Stroke Foundation of Canada, McGill University’s academic enrichment fund, and the Canadian Foundation for Women’s Health. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Sleep-disordered breathing was significantly associated with increased odds of preeclampsia and with greater arterial stiffness in high-risk pregnancies, based on data from 181 individuals.

The intermittent hypoxia resulting from sleep-disordered breathing (SDB) has been linked to cardiovascular disease and hypertension, wrote Kim Phan, PhD, of McGill University, Montreal, and colleagues.

SDB has been associated with increased preeclampsia risk, and women with preeclampsia show increased arterial stiffness, but an association between SDB and arterial stiffness in pregnancy has not been explored, they said.

In a study published in the American Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology, the researchers reviewed data from 181 women with high-risk singleton pregnancies recruited from two tertiary obstetrics clinics in Montreal. High-risk pregnancy was defined as meeting at least one of the following criteria: age 35 years and older, body mass index 25 kg/m² or higher, chronic hypertension, preexisting diabetes mellitus, preexisting renal disease, or personal or first-degree relative with a history of preeclampsia.

Participants were assessed at each trimester via the Epworth Sleepiness Scale, Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index, and Restless Legs Syndrome questionnaire. Sleep-disordered breathing was defined as loud snoring or witnessed sleep apneas at least three times a week. Arterial stiffness was assessed via applanation tonometry every 4 weeks from baseline throughout pregnancy.

Overall, 23% of the study population met the criteria for SDB; SDB in the first or second trimester was associated with a significantly increased risk of preeclampsia (odds ratio 3.4). The effect of SDB on preeclampsia was increased in women who reported excessive daytime sleepiness, defined as scores higher than 10 on the Epworth Sleepiness Scale. The odds ratio for preeclampsia in the first or second trimester increased to 5.7 in women with hypersomnolence in addition to SDB. The risk of preeclampsia was even higher (OR 8.2) in the third trimester.

Self-reported total sleep time decreased in the second and third trimesters compared with the first, but reports of excessive daytime sleepiness remained consistent throughout the pregnancies, the researchers noted.

The results highlight the need to screen pregnant women for SDB in all three trimesters; however, “future studies will need to assess the incremental benefit of integrating SDB into risk assessment calculators in pregnancy,” the researchers wrote in their discussion. Randomized trials are needed to determine the value of interventions such as continuous positive airway pressure to reduce arterial stiffness and the risks of hypertensive disorders of pregnancy, they said. More data also are needed to examine the role of excessive daytime sleepiness as a modifier of arterial stiffness and preeclampsia risk, they noted.

The findings were limited by the prospective design, which prevents conclusions of causality, the researchers noted. Other limitations included the focus on high-risk pregnancy, which may limit generalizability, and the use of symptoms, not sleep recordings, to identify SDB, they said.

However, the results show an independent association between SDB and arterial stiffness during pregnancy, and offer potentially useful insights into the mechanisms of SDB-associated cardiovascular conditions, they noted.

“This work may inform future studies exploring the value of using arterial stiffness, as an early noninvasive indicator of subclinical vascular dysfunction in pregnant women with SDB,” they concluded.

The study was supported by the Fonds de recherche du Quebec – Sante (FRQS), Heart and Stroke Foundation of Canada, McGill University’s academic enrichment fund, and the Canadian Foundation for Women’s Health. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

CHICAGO – Black patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) may receive more benefit from treatment with a sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 (SGLT2) inhibitor than do White patients, according to a new report.

A secondary analysis of data collected from the pivotal trials that assessed the SGLT2 inhibitor empagliflozin in patients with HFrEF, EMPEROR-Reduced, and in patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF), EMPEROR-Preserved, was presented by Subodh Verma, MD, PhD, at the American Heart Association scientific sessions.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

The “hypothesis-generating” analysis of data from EMPEROR-Reduced showed “a suggestion of a greater benefit of empagliflozin” in Black, compared with White patients, for the study’s primary endpoint (cardiovascular death or hospitalization for heart failure) as well as for first and total hospitalizations for heart failure, he reported.

However, a similar but separate analysis that compared Black and White patients with heart failure who received treatment with a second agent, dapagliflozin, from the same SGLT2-inhibitor class did not show any suggestion of heterogeneity in the drug’s effect based on race.
 

Race-linked heterogeneity in empagliflozin’s effect

In EMPEROR-Reduced, which randomized 3,730 patients with heart failure and a left ventricular ejection fraction of 40% or less, treatment of White patients with empagliflozin (Jardiance) produced a nonsignificant 16% relative reduction in the rate of the primary endpoint, compared with placebo, during a median 16-month follow-up.

By contrast, among Black patients, treatment with empagliflozin produced a significant 56% reduction in the primary endpoint, compared with placebo-treated patients, a significant heterogeneity (P = .02) in effect between the two race subgroups, said Dr. Verma, a cardiac surgeon and professor at the University of Toronto.

The analysis he reported used combined data from EMPEROR-Reduced and the companion trial EMPEROR-Preserved, which randomized 5,988 patients with heart failure and a left ventricular ejection fraction greater than 40% to treatment with either empagliflozin or placebo and followed them for a median of 26 months.

To assess the effects of the randomized treatments in the two racial subgroups, Dr. Verma and associates used pooled data from both trials, but only from the 3,502 patients enrolled in the Americas, which included 3,024 White patients and 478 Black patients. Analysis of the patients in this subgroup who were randomized to placebo showed a significantly excess rate of the primary outcome among Blacks, who tallied 49% more of the primary outcome events during follow-up than did White patients, Dr. Verma reported. The absolute rate of the primary outcome without empagliflozin treatment was 13.15 events/100 patient-years of follow-up in White patients and 20.83 events/100 patient-years in Black patients.

The impact of empagliflozin was not statistically heterogeneous in the total pool of patients that included both those with HFrEF and those with HFpEF. The drug reduced the primary outcome incidence by a significant 20% in White patients, and by a significant 44% among Black patients.

But this point-estimate difference in efficacy, when coupled with the underlying difference in risk for an event between the two racial groups, meant that the number-needed-to-treat to prevent one primary outcome event was 42 among White patients and 12 among Black patients.
 

Race-linked treatment responses only in HFrEF

This suggestion of an imbalance in treatment efficacy was especially apparent among patients with HFrEF. In addition to the heterogeneity for the primary outcome, the Black and White subgroups also showed significantly divergent results for the outcomes of first hospitalization for heart failure, with a nonsignificant 21% relative reduction with empagliflozin treatment in Whites but a significant 65% relative cut in this endpoint with empagliflozin in Blacks, and for total hospitalizations for heart failure, which showed a similar level of significant heterogeneity between the two race subgroups.

In contrast, the patients with HFpEF showed no signal at all for heterogeneous outcome rates between Black and White subgroups.

One other study outcome, change in symptom burden measured by the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire (KCCQ), also showed suggestion of a race-based imbalance. The adjusted mean difference from baseline in the KCCQ clinical summary score was 1.50 points higher with empagliflozin treatment, compared with placebo among all White patients (those with HFrEF and those with HFpEF), and compared with a 5.25-point increase with empagliflozin over placebo among all Black patients with heart failure in the pooled American EMPEROR dataset, a difference between White and Black patients that just missed significance (P = .06). Again, this difference was especially notable and significant among the patients with HFrEF, where the adjusted mean difference in KCCQ was a 0.77-point increase in White patients and a 6.71-point increase among Black patients (P = .043),

These results also appeared in a report published simultaneously with Dr. Verma’s talk.

But two other analyses that assessed a possible race-based difference in empagliflozin’s effect on renal protection and on functional status showed no suggestion of heterogeneity.

Dr. Verma stressed caution about the limitations of these analyses because they involved a relatively small number of Black patients, and were possibly subject to unadjusted confounding from differences in baseline characteristics between the Black and White patients.

Black patients also had a number-needed-to-treat advantage with dapagliflozin

The finding that Black patients with heart failure potentially get more bang for the buck from treatment with an SGLT2 inhibitor by having a lower number needed to treat also showed up in a separate report at the meeting that assessed the treatment effect from dapagliflozin (Farxiga) in Black and White patients in a pooled analysis of the DAPA-HF pivotal trial of patients with HFrEF and the DELIVER pivotal trial of patients with HFpEF. The pooled cohort included a total of 11,007, but for the analysis by race the investigators also limited their focus to patients from the Americas with 2,626 White patients and 381 Black patients.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

Assessment of the effect of dapagliflozin on the primary outcome of cardiovascular death or hospitalization for heart failure among all patients, both those with HFrEF and those with HFpEF, again showed that event rates among patients treated with placebo were significantly higher in Black, compared with White patients, and this led to a difference in the number needed to treat to prevent one primary outcome event of 12 in Blacks and 17 in Whites, Jawad H. Butt, MD said in a talk at the meeting.

Although treatment with dapagliflozin reduced the rate of the primary outcome in this subgroup of patients from the DAPA-HF trial and the DELIVER trial by similar rates in Black and White patients, event rates were higher in the Black patients resulting in “greater benefit in absolute terms” for Black patients, explained Dr. Butt, a cardiologist at Rigshospitalet in Copenhagen.

But in contrast to the empagliflozin findings reported by Dr. Verma, the combined data from the dapagliflozin trials showed no suggestion of heterogeneity in the beneficial effect of dapagliflozin based on left ventricular ejection fraction. In the Black patients, for example, the relative benefit from dapagliflozin on the primary outcome was consistent across the full spectrum of patients with HFrEF and HFpEF.

EMPEROR-Reduced and EMPEROR-Preserved were sponsored by Boehringer Ingelheim and Lilly, the companies that jointly market empagliflozin (Jardiance). The DAPA-HF and DELIVER trials were sponsored by AstraZeneca, the company that markets dapagliflozin (Farxiga). Dr. Verma has received honoraria, research support, or both from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, and Lilly, and from numerous other companies. Dr. Butt has been a consultant to and received travel grants from AstraZeneca, honoraria from Novartis, and has been an adviser to Bayer.




 

CHICAGO – Black patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) may receive more benefit from treatment with a sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 (SGLT2) inhibitor than do White patients, according to a new report.

A secondary analysis of data collected from the pivotal trials that assessed the SGLT2 inhibitor empagliflozin in patients with HFrEF, EMPEROR-Reduced, and in patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF), EMPEROR-Preserved, was presented by Subodh Verma, MD, PhD, at the American Heart Association scientific sessions.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

The “hypothesis-generating” analysis of data from EMPEROR-Reduced showed “a suggestion of a greater benefit of empagliflozin” in Black, compared with White patients, for the study’s primary endpoint (cardiovascular death or hospitalization for heart failure) as well as for first and total hospitalizations for heart failure, he reported.

However, a similar but separate analysis that compared Black and White patients with heart failure who received treatment with a second agent, dapagliflozin, from the same SGLT2-inhibitor class did not show any suggestion of heterogeneity in the drug’s effect based on race.
 

Race-linked heterogeneity in empagliflozin’s effect

In EMPEROR-Reduced, which randomized 3,730 patients with heart failure and a left ventricular ejection fraction of 40% or less, treatment of White patients with empagliflozin (Jardiance) produced a nonsignificant 16% relative reduction in the rate of the primary endpoint, compared with placebo, during a median 16-month follow-up.

By contrast, among Black patients, treatment with empagliflozin produced a significant 56% reduction in the primary endpoint, compared with placebo-treated patients, a significant heterogeneity (P = .02) in effect between the two race subgroups, said Dr. Verma, a cardiac surgeon and professor at the University of Toronto.

The analysis he reported used combined data from EMPEROR-Reduced and the companion trial EMPEROR-Preserved, which randomized 5,988 patients with heart failure and a left ventricular ejection fraction greater than 40% to treatment with either empagliflozin or placebo and followed them for a median of 26 months.

To assess the effects of the randomized treatments in the two racial subgroups, Dr. Verma and associates used pooled data from both trials, but only from the 3,502 patients enrolled in the Americas, which included 3,024 White patients and 478 Black patients. Analysis of the patients in this subgroup who were randomized to placebo showed a significantly excess rate of the primary outcome among Blacks, who tallied 49% more of the primary outcome events during follow-up than did White patients, Dr. Verma reported. The absolute rate of the primary outcome without empagliflozin treatment was 13.15 events/100 patient-years of follow-up in White patients and 20.83 events/100 patient-years in Black patients.

The impact of empagliflozin was not statistically heterogeneous in the total pool of patients that included both those with HFrEF and those with HFpEF. The drug reduced the primary outcome incidence by a significant 20% in White patients, and by a significant 44% among Black patients.

But this point-estimate difference in efficacy, when coupled with the underlying difference in risk for an event between the two racial groups, meant that the number-needed-to-treat to prevent one primary outcome event was 42 among White patients and 12 among Black patients.
 

Race-linked treatment responses only in HFrEF

This suggestion of an imbalance in treatment efficacy was especially apparent among patients with HFrEF. In addition to the heterogeneity for the primary outcome, the Black and White subgroups also showed significantly divergent results for the outcomes of first hospitalization for heart failure, with a nonsignificant 21% relative reduction with empagliflozin treatment in Whites but a significant 65% relative cut in this endpoint with empagliflozin in Blacks, and for total hospitalizations for heart failure, which showed a similar level of significant heterogeneity between the two race subgroups.

In contrast, the patients with HFpEF showed no signal at all for heterogeneous outcome rates between Black and White subgroups.

One other study outcome, change in symptom burden measured by the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire (KCCQ), also showed suggestion of a race-based imbalance. The adjusted mean difference from baseline in the KCCQ clinical summary score was 1.50 points higher with empagliflozin treatment, compared with placebo among all White patients (those with HFrEF and those with HFpEF), and compared with a 5.25-point increase with empagliflozin over placebo among all Black patients with heart failure in the pooled American EMPEROR dataset, a difference between White and Black patients that just missed significance (P = .06). Again, this difference was especially notable and significant among the patients with HFrEF, where the adjusted mean difference in KCCQ was a 0.77-point increase in White patients and a 6.71-point increase among Black patients (P = .043),

These results also appeared in a report published simultaneously with Dr. Verma’s talk.

But two other analyses that assessed a possible race-based difference in empagliflozin’s effect on renal protection and on functional status showed no suggestion of heterogeneity.

Dr. Verma stressed caution about the limitations of these analyses because they involved a relatively small number of Black patients, and were possibly subject to unadjusted confounding from differences in baseline characteristics between the Black and White patients.

Black patients also had a number-needed-to-treat advantage with dapagliflozin

The finding that Black patients with heart failure potentially get more bang for the buck from treatment with an SGLT2 inhibitor by having a lower number needed to treat also showed up in a separate report at the meeting that assessed the treatment effect from dapagliflozin (Farxiga) in Black and White patients in a pooled analysis of the DAPA-HF pivotal trial of patients with HFrEF and the DELIVER pivotal trial of patients with HFpEF. The pooled cohort included a total of 11,007, but for the analysis by race the investigators also limited their focus to patients from the Americas with 2,626 White patients and 381 Black patients.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

Assessment of the effect of dapagliflozin on the primary outcome of cardiovascular death or hospitalization for heart failure among all patients, both those with HFrEF and those with HFpEF, again showed that event rates among patients treated with placebo were significantly higher in Black, compared with White patients, and this led to a difference in the number needed to treat to prevent one primary outcome event of 12 in Blacks and 17 in Whites, Jawad H. Butt, MD said in a talk at the meeting.

Although treatment with dapagliflozin reduced the rate of the primary outcome in this subgroup of patients from the DAPA-HF trial and the DELIVER trial by similar rates in Black and White patients, event rates were higher in the Black patients resulting in “greater benefit in absolute terms” for Black patients, explained Dr. Butt, a cardiologist at Rigshospitalet in Copenhagen.

But in contrast to the empagliflozin findings reported by Dr. Verma, the combined data from the dapagliflozin trials showed no suggestion of heterogeneity in the beneficial effect of dapagliflozin based on left ventricular ejection fraction. In the Black patients, for example, the relative benefit from dapagliflozin on the primary outcome was consistent across the full spectrum of patients with HFrEF and HFpEF.

EMPEROR-Reduced and EMPEROR-Preserved were sponsored by Boehringer Ingelheim and Lilly, the companies that jointly market empagliflozin (Jardiance). The DAPA-HF and DELIVER trials were sponsored by AstraZeneca, the company that markets dapagliflozin (Farxiga). Dr. Verma has received honoraria, research support, or both from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, and Lilly, and from numerous other companies. Dr. Butt has been a consultant to and received travel grants from AstraZeneca, honoraria from Novartis, and has been an adviser to Bayer.




 

CHICAGO – Black patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) may receive more benefit from treatment with a sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 (SGLT2) inhibitor than do White patients, according to a new report.

A secondary analysis of data collected from the pivotal trials that assessed the SGLT2 inhibitor empagliflozin in patients with HFrEF, EMPEROR-Reduced, and in patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF), EMPEROR-Preserved, was presented by Subodh Verma, MD, PhD, at the American Heart Association scientific sessions.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

The “hypothesis-generating” analysis of data from EMPEROR-Reduced showed “a suggestion of a greater benefit of empagliflozin” in Black, compared with White patients, for the study’s primary endpoint (cardiovascular death or hospitalization for heart failure) as well as for first and total hospitalizations for heart failure, he reported.

However, a similar but separate analysis that compared Black and White patients with heart failure who received treatment with a second agent, dapagliflozin, from the same SGLT2-inhibitor class did not show any suggestion of heterogeneity in the drug’s effect based on race.
 

Race-linked heterogeneity in empagliflozin’s effect

In EMPEROR-Reduced, which randomized 3,730 patients with heart failure and a left ventricular ejection fraction of 40% or less, treatment of White patients with empagliflozin (Jardiance) produced a nonsignificant 16% relative reduction in the rate of the primary endpoint, compared with placebo, during a median 16-month follow-up.

By contrast, among Black patients, treatment with empagliflozin produced a significant 56% reduction in the primary endpoint, compared with placebo-treated patients, a significant heterogeneity (P = .02) in effect between the two race subgroups, said Dr. Verma, a cardiac surgeon and professor at the University of Toronto.

The analysis he reported used combined data from EMPEROR-Reduced and the companion trial EMPEROR-Preserved, which randomized 5,988 patients with heart failure and a left ventricular ejection fraction greater than 40% to treatment with either empagliflozin or placebo and followed them for a median of 26 months.

To assess the effects of the randomized treatments in the two racial subgroups, Dr. Verma and associates used pooled data from both trials, but only from the 3,502 patients enrolled in the Americas, which included 3,024 White patients and 478 Black patients. Analysis of the patients in this subgroup who were randomized to placebo showed a significantly excess rate of the primary outcome among Blacks, who tallied 49% more of the primary outcome events during follow-up than did White patients, Dr. Verma reported. The absolute rate of the primary outcome without empagliflozin treatment was 13.15 events/100 patient-years of follow-up in White patients and 20.83 events/100 patient-years in Black patients.

The impact of empagliflozin was not statistically heterogeneous in the total pool of patients that included both those with HFrEF and those with HFpEF. The drug reduced the primary outcome incidence by a significant 20% in White patients, and by a significant 44% among Black patients.

But this point-estimate difference in efficacy, when coupled with the underlying difference in risk for an event between the two racial groups, meant that the number-needed-to-treat to prevent one primary outcome event was 42 among White patients and 12 among Black patients.
 

Race-linked treatment responses only in HFrEF

This suggestion of an imbalance in treatment efficacy was especially apparent among patients with HFrEF. In addition to the heterogeneity for the primary outcome, the Black and White subgroups also showed significantly divergent results for the outcomes of first hospitalization for heart failure, with a nonsignificant 21% relative reduction with empagliflozin treatment in Whites but a significant 65% relative cut in this endpoint with empagliflozin in Blacks, and for total hospitalizations for heart failure, which showed a similar level of significant heterogeneity between the two race subgroups.

In contrast, the patients with HFpEF showed no signal at all for heterogeneous outcome rates between Black and White subgroups.

One other study outcome, change in symptom burden measured by the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire (KCCQ), also showed suggestion of a race-based imbalance. The adjusted mean difference from baseline in the KCCQ clinical summary score was 1.50 points higher with empagliflozin treatment, compared with placebo among all White patients (those with HFrEF and those with HFpEF), and compared with a 5.25-point increase with empagliflozin over placebo among all Black patients with heart failure in the pooled American EMPEROR dataset, a difference between White and Black patients that just missed significance (P = .06). Again, this difference was especially notable and significant among the patients with HFrEF, where the adjusted mean difference in KCCQ was a 0.77-point increase in White patients and a 6.71-point increase among Black patients (P = .043),

These results also appeared in a report published simultaneously with Dr. Verma’s talk.

But two other analyses that assessed a possible race-based difference in empagliflozin’s effect on renal protection and on functional status showed no suggestion of heterogeneity.

Dr. Verma stressed caution about the limitations of these analyses because they involved a relatively small number of Black patients, and were possibly subject to unadjusted confounding from differences in baseline characteristics between the Black and White patients.

Black patients also had a number-needed-to-treat advantage with dapagliflozin

The finding that Black patients with heart failure potentially get more bang for the buck from treatment with an SGLT2 inhibitor by having a lower number needed to treat also showed up in a separate report at the meeting that assessed the treatment effect from dapagliflozin (Farxiga) in Black and White patients in a pooled analysis of the DAPA-HF pivotal trial of patients with HFrEF and the DELIVER pivotal trial of patients with HFpEF. The pooled cohort included a total of 11,007, but for the analysis by race the investigators also limited their focus to patients from the Americas with 2,626 White patients and 381 Black patients.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

Assessment of the effect of dapagliflozin on the primary outcome of cardiovascular death or hospitalization for heart failure among all patients, both those with HFrEF and those with HFpEF, again showed that event rates among patients treated with placebo were significantly higher in Black, compared with White patients, and this led to a difference in the number needed to treat to prevent one primary outcome event of 12 in Blacks and 17 in Whites, Jawad H. Butt, MD said in a talk at the meeting.

Although treatment with dapagliflozin reduced the rate of the primary outcome in this subgroup of patients from the DAPA-HF trial and the DELIVER trial by similar rates in Black and White patients, event rates were higher in the Black patients resulting in “greater benefit in absolute terms” for Black patients, explained Dr. Butt, a cardiologist at Rigshospitalet in Copenhagen.

But in contrast to the empagliflozin findings reported by Dr. Verma, the combined data from the dapagliflozin trials showed no suggestion of heterogeneity in the beneficial effect of dapagliflozin based on left ventricular ejection fraction. In the Black patients, for example, the relative benefit from dapagliflozin on the primary outcome was consistent across the full spectrum of patients with HFrEF and HFpEF.

EMPEROR-Reduced and EMPEROR-Preserved were sponsored by Boehringer Ingelheim and Lilly, the companies that jointly market empagliflozin (Jardiance). The DAPA-HF and DELIVER trials were sponsored by AstraZeneca, the company that markets dapagliflozin (Farxiga). Dr. Verma has received honoraria, research support, or both from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, and Lilly, and from numerous other companies. Dr. Butt has been a consultant to and received travel grants from AstraZeneca, honoraria from Novartis, and has been an adviser to Bayer.




 

High levels of lipoprotein(a) increase the risk for incident cardiovascular disease (CVD) for hypertensive individuals but not for those without hypertension, a new MESA analysis suggests.

There are ways to test for statistical interaction, “in this case, multiplicative interaction between Lp(a) and hypertension, which suggests that Lp(a) is actually modifying the effect between blood pressure and cardiovascular disease. It’s not simply additive,” senior author Michael D. Shapiro, DO, Wake Forest University, Winston-Salem, N.C., told this news organization.

“So that’s new and I don’t think anybody’s looked at that before.”

Although Lp(a) is recognized as an independent cause of atherosclerotic CVD (ASCVD), the significance of Lp(a) in hypertension has been “virtually untapped,” he noted. A recent prospective study reported that elevated CVD risk was present only in individuals with Lp(a) ≥ 30 mg/dL and hypertension but it included only Chinese participants with stable coronary artery disease.

The current analysis, published online in the journal Hypertension, included 6,674 participants in the ongoing Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis (MESA), all free of baseline ASCVD, who were recruited from six communities in the United States and had measured baseline Lp(a), blood pressure, and CVD events data over follow-up from 2000 to 2018.

Participants were stratified into four groups based on the presence or absence of hypertension (defined as 140/90 mm Hg or higher or the use of antihypertensive drugs) and an Lp(a) threshold of 50 mg/dL, as recommended by the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association cholesterol guideline for consideration as an ASCVD risk-enhancing factor.

Slightly more than half of participants were female (52.8%), 38.6% were White, 27.5% were African American, 22.1% were Hispanic, and 11.9% were Chinese American.

According to the researchers, 809 participants had a CVD event over an average follow-up of 13.9 years, including 7.7% of group 1 with Lp(a) < 50 mg/dL and no hypertension, 8.0% of group 2 with Lp(a) ≥ 50 mg/dL and no hypertension, 16.2% of group 3 with Lp(a) < 50 mg/dL and hypertension, and 18.8% of group 4 with Lp(a) ≥ 50 mg/dL and hypertension.

When compared with group 1 in a fully adjusted Cox proportional model, participants with elevated Lp(a) and no hypertension (group 2) did not have an increased risk of CVD events (hazard ratio [HR], 1.09; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.79-1.50).

CVD risk, however, was significantly higher in group 3 with normal Lp(a) and hypertension (HR, 1.66; 95% CI, 1.39-1.98) and group 4 with elevated Lp(a) and hypertension (HR, 2.07, 95% CI, 1.63-2.62).

Among all participants with hypertension (groups 3 and 4), Lp(a) was associated with a significant increase in CVD risk (HR, 1.24, 95% CI, 1.01-1.53).

“What I think is interesting here is that in the absence of hypertension, we didn’t really see an increased risk despite having an elevated Lp(a),” said Dr. Shapiro. “What it may indicate is that really for Lp(a) to be associated with risk, there may already need to be some kind of arterial damage that allows the Lp(a) to have its atherogenic impact.

“In other words, in individuals who have totally normal arterial walls, potentially, maybe that is protective enough against Lp(a) that in the absence of any other injurious factor, maybe it’s not an issue,” he said. “That’s a big hypothesis-generating [statement], but hypertension is certainly one of those risk factors that’s known to cause endothelial injury and endothelial dysfunction.”

Dr. Shapiro pointed out that when first measured in MESA, Lp(a) was measured in 4,600 participants who were not on statins, which is important because statins can increase Lp(a) levels.

“When you look just at those participants, those 4,600, you actually do see a relationship between Lp(a) and cardiovascular disease,” he said. “When you look at the whole population, including the 17% who are baseline populations, even when you adjust for statin therapy, we fail to see that, at least in the long-term follow up.”

Nevertheless, he cautioned that hypertension is just one of many traditional cardiovascular risk factors that could affect the relationship between Lp(a) and CVD risk. “I don’t want to suggest that we believe there’s something specifically magical about hypertension and Lp(a). If we chose, say, diabetes or smoking or another traditional risk factor, we may or may not have seen kind of similar results.”

When the investigators stratified the analyses by sex and race/ethnicity, they found that Lp(a) was not associated with CVD risk, regardless of hypertension status. In Black participants, however, greater CVD risk was seen when both elevated Lp(a) and hypertension were present (HR, 2.07, 95% CI, 1.34-3.21; P = .001).

Asked whether the results support one-time universal screening for Lp(a), which is almost exclusively genetically determined, Dr. Shapiro said he supports screening but that this was a secondary analysis and its numbers were modest. He added that median Lp(a) level is higher in African Americans than any other racial/ethnic group but the “most recent data has clarified that, per any absolute level of Lp(a), it appears to confer the same absolute risk in any racial or ethnic group.”

The authors acknowledge that differential loss to follow-up could have resulted in selection bias in the study and that there were relatively few CVD events in group 2, which may have limited the ability to detect differences in groups without hypertension, particularly in the subgroup analyses. Other limitations are the potential for residual confounding and participants may have developed hypertension during follow-up, resulting in misclassification bias.

Further research is needed to better understand the mechanistic link between Lp(a), hypertension, and CVD, Dr. Shapiro said. Further insights also should be provided by the ongoing phase 3 Lp(a) HORIZON trial evaluating the effect of Lp(a) lowering with the investigational antisense drug, pelacarsen, on cardiovascular events in 8,324 patients with established CVD and elevated Lp(a). The study is expected to be completed in May 2025.

The study was supported by contracts from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute and by grants from the National Center for Advanced Translational Sciences. Dr. Shapiro reports participating in scientific advisory boards with Amgen, Novartis, and Novo Nordisk, and consulting for Regeneron.

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

High levels of lipoprotein(a) increase the risk for incident cardiovascular disease (CVD) for hypertensive individuals but not for those without hypertension, a new MESA analysis suggests.

There are ways to test for statistical interaction, “in this case, multiplicative interaction between Lp(a) and hypertension, which suggests that Lp(a) is actually modifying the effect between blood pressure and cardiovascular disease. It’s not simply additive,” senior author Michael D. Shapiro, DO, Wake Forest University, Winston-Salem, N.C., told this news organization.

“So that’s new and I don’t think anybody’s looked at that before.”

Although Lp(a) is recognized as an independent cause of atherosclerotic CVD (ASCVD), the significance of Lp(a) in hypertension has been “virtually untapped,” he noted. A recent prospective study reported that elevated CVD risk was present only in individuals with Lp(a) ≥ 30 mg/dL and hypertension but it included only Chinese participants with stable coronary artery disease.

The current analysis, published online in the journal Hypertension, included 6,674 participants in the ongoing Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis (MESA), all free of baseline ASCVD, who were recruited from six communities in the United States and had measured baseline Lp(a), blood pressure, and CVD events data over follow-up from 2000 to 2018.

Participants were stratified into four groups based on the presence or absence of hypertension (defined as 140/90 mm Hg or higher or the use of antihypertensive drugs) and an Lp(a) threshold of 50 mg/dL, as recommended by the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association cholesterol guideline for consideration as an ASCVD risk-enhancing factor.

Slightly more than half of participants were female (52.8%), 38.6% were White, 27.5% were African American, 22.1% were Hispanic, and 11.9% were Chinese American.

According to the researchers, 809 participants had a CVD event over an average follow-up of 13.9 years, including 7.7% of group 1 with Lp(a) < 50 mg/dL and no hypertension, 8.0% of group 2 with Lp(a) ≥ 50 mg/dL and no hypertension, 16.2% of group 3 with Lp(a) < 50 mg/dL and hypertension, and 18.8% of group 4 with Lp(a) ≥ 50 mg/dL and hypertension.

When compared with group 1 in a fully adjusted Cox proportional model, participants with elevated Lp(a) and no hypertension (group 2) did not have an increased risk of CVD events (hazard ratio [HR], 1.09; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.79-1.50).

CVD risk, however, was significantly higher in group 3 with normal Lp(a) and hypertension (HR, 1.66; 95% CI, 1.39-1.98) and group 4 with elevated Lp(a) and hypertension (HR, 2.07, 95% CI, 1.63-2.62).

Among all participants with hypertension (groups 3 and 4), Lp(a) was associated with a significant increase in CVD risk (HR, 1.24, 95% CI, 1.01-1.53).

“What I think is interesting here is that in the absence of hypertension, we didn’t really see an increased risk despite having an elevated Lp(a),” said Dr. Shapiro. “What it may indicate is that really for Lp(a) to be associated with risk, there may already need to be some kind of arterial damage that allows the Lp(a) to have its atherogenic impact.

“In other words, in individuals who have totally normal arterial walls, potentially, maybe that is protective enough against Lp(a) that in the absence of any other injurious factor, maybe it’s not an issue,” he said. “That’s a big hypothesis-generating [statement], but hypertension is certainly one of those risk factors that’s known to cause endothelial injury and endothelial dysfunction.”

Dr. Shapiro pointed out that when first measured in MESA, Lp(a) was measured in 4,600 participants who were not on statins, which is important because statins can increase Lp(a) levels.

“When you look just at those participants, those 4,600, you actually do see a relationship between Lp(a) and cardiovascular disease,” he said. “When you look at the whole population, including the 17% who are baseline populations, even when you adjust for statin therapy, we fail to see that, at least in the long-term follow up.”

Nevertheless, he cautioned that hypertension is just one of many traditional cardiovascular risk factors that could affect the relationship between Lp(a) and CVD risk. “I don’t want to suggest that we believe there’s something specifically magical about hypertension and Lp(a). If we chose, say, diabetes or smoking or another traditional risk factor, we may or may not have seen kind of similar results.”

When the investigators stratified the analyses by sex and race/ethnicity, they found that Lp(a) was not associated with CVD risk, regardless of hypertension status. In Black participants, however, greater CVD risk was seen when both elevated Lp(a) and hypertension were present (HR, 2.07, 95% CI, 1.34-3.21; P = .001).

Asked whether the results support one-time universal screening for Lp(a), which is almost exclusively genetically determined, Dr. Shapiro said he supports screening but that this was a secondary analysis and its numbers were modest. He added that median Lp(a) level is higher in African Americans than any other racial/ethnic group but the “most recent data has clarified that, per any absolute level of Lp(a), it appears to confer the same absolute risk in any racial or ethnic group.”

The authors acknowledge that differential loss to follow-up could have resulted in selection bias in the study and that there were relatively few CVD events in group 2, which may have limited the ability to detect differences in groups without hypertension, particularly in the subgroup analyses. Other limitations are the potential for residual confounding and participants may have developed hypertension during follow-up, resulting in misclassification bias.

Further research is needed to better understand the mechanistic link between Lp(a), hypertension, and CVD, Dr. Shapiro said. Further insights also should be provided by the ongoing phase 3 Lp(a) HORIZON trial evaluating the effect of Lp(a) lowering with the investigational antisense drug, pelacarsen, on cardiovascular events in 8,324 patients with established CVD and elevated Lp(a). The study is expected to be completed in May 2025.

The study was supported by contracts from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute and by grants from the National Center for Advanced Translational Sciences. Dr. Shapiro reports participating in scientific advisory boards with Amgen, Novartis, and Novo Nordisk, and consulting for Regeneron.

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

High levels of lipoprotein(a) increase the risk for incident cardiovascular disease (CVD) for hypertensive individuals but not for those without hypertension, a new MESA analysis suggests.

There are ways to test for statistical interaction, “in this case, multiplicative interaction between Lp(a) and hypertension, which suggests that Lp(a) is actually modifying the effect between blood pressure and cardiovascular disease. It’s not simply additive,” senior author Michael D. Shapiro, DO, Wake Forest University, Winston-Salem, N.C., told this news organization.

“So that’s new and I don’t think anybody’s looked at that before.”

Although Lp(a) is recognized as an independent cause of atherosclerotic CVD (ASCVD), the significance of Lp(a) in hypertension has been “virtually untapped,” he noted. A recent prospective study reported that elevated CVD risk was present only in individuals with Lp(a) ≥ 30 mg/dL and hypertension but it included only Chinese participants with stable coronary artery disease.

The current analysis, published online in the journal Hypertension, included 6,674 participants in the ongoing Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis (MESA), all free of baseline ASCVD, who were recruited from six communities in the United States and had measured baseline Lp(a), blood pressure, and CVD events data over follow-up from 2000 to 2018.

Participants were stratified into four groups based on the presence or absence of hypertension (defined as 140/90 mm Hg or higher or the use of antihypertensive drugs) and an Lp(a) threshold of 50 mg/dL, as recommended by the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association cholesterol guideline for consideration as an ASCVD risk-enhancing factor.

Slightly more than half of participants were female (52.8%), 38.6% were White, 27.5% were African American, 22.1% were Hispanic, and 11.9% were Chinese American.

According to the researchers, 809 participants had a CVD event over an average follow-up of 13.9 years, including 7.7% of group 1 with Lp(a) < 50 mg/dL and no hypertension, 8.0% of group 2 with Lp(a) ≥ 50 mg/dL and no hypertension, 16.2% of group 3 with Lp(a) < 50 mg/dL and hypertension, and 18.8% of group 4 with Lp(a) ≥ 50 mg/dL and hypertension.

When compared with group 1 in a fully adjusted Cox proportional model, participants with elevated Lp(a) and no hypertension (group 2) did not have an increased risk of CVD events (hazard ratio [HR], 1.09; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.79-1.50).

CVD risk, however, was significantly higher in group 3 with normal Lp(a) and hypertension (HR, 1.66; 95% CI, 1.39-1.98) and group 4 with elevated Lp(a) and hypertension (HR, 2.07, 95% CI, 1.63-2.62).

Among all participants with hypertension (groups 3 and 4), Lp(a) was associated with a significant increase in CVD risk (HR, 1.24, 95% CI, 1.01-1.53).

“What I think is interesting here is that in the absence of hypertension, we didn’t really see an increased risk despite having an elevated Lp(a),” said Dr. Shapiro. “What it may indicate is that really for Lp(a) to be associated with risk, there may already need to be some kind of arterial damage that allows the Lp(a) to have its atherogenic impact.

“In other words, in individuals who have totally normal arterial walls, potentially, maybe that is protective enough against Lp(a) that in the absence of any other injurious factor, maybe it’s not an issue,” he said. “That’s a big hypothesis-generating [statement], but hypertension is certainly one of those risk factors that’s known to cause endothelial injury and endothelial dysfunction.”

Dr. Shapiro pointed out that when first measured in MESA, Lp(a) was measured in 4,600 participants who were not on statins, which is important because statins can increase Lp(a) levels.

“When you look just at those participants, those 4,600, you actually do see a relationship between Lp(a) and cardiovascular disease,” he said. “When you look at the whole population, including the 17% who are baseline populations, even when you adjust for statin therapy, we fail to see that, at least in the long-term follow up.”

Nevertheless, he cautioned that hypertension is just one of many traditional cardiovascular risk factors that could affect the relationship between Lp(a) and CVD risk. “I don’t want to suggest that we believe there’s something specifically magical about hypertension and Lp(a). If we chose, say, diabetes or smoking or another traditional risk factor, we may or may not have seen kind of similar results.”

When the investigators stratified the analyses by sex and race/ethnicity, they found that Lp(a) was not associated with CVD risk, regardless of hypertension status. In Black participants, however, greater CVD risk was seen when both elevated Lp(a) and hypertension were present (HR, 2.07, 95% CI, 1.34-3.21; P = .001).

Asked whether the results support one-time universal screening for Lp(a), which is almost exclusively genetically determined, Dr. Shapiro said he supports screening but that this was a secondary analysis and its numbers were modest. He added that median Lp(a) level is higher in African Americans than any other racial/ethnic group but the “most recent data has clarified that, per any absolute level of Lp(a), it appears to confer the same absolute risk in any racial or ethnic group.”

The authors acknowledge that differential loss to follow-up could have resulted in selection bias in the study and that there were relatively few CVD events in group 2, which may have limited the ability to detect differences in groups without hypertension, particularly in the subgroup analyses. Other limitations are the potential for residual confounding and participants may have developed hypertension during follow-up, resulting in misclassification bias.

Further research is needed to better understand the mechanistic link between Lp(a), hypertension, and CVD, Dr. Shapiro said. Further insights also should be provided by the ongoing phase 3 Lp(a) HORIZON trial evaluating the effect of Lp(a) lowering with the investigational antisense drug, pelacarsen, on cardiovascular events in 8,324 patients with established CVD and elevated Lp(a). The study is expected to be completed in May 2025.

The study was supported by contracts from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute and by grants from the National Center for Advanced Translational Sciences. Dr. Shapiro reports participating in scientific advisory boards with Amgen, Novartis, and Novo Nordisk, and consulting for Regeneron.

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

The Diuretic Comparison Project (DCP) trial, showing no difference in reduction of clinical events between the thiazide diuretics chlorthalidone and hydrochlorothiazide when used for the treatment of hypertension, has now been published. 

The trial was first presented at the 2022 annual scientific sessions of the American Heart Association. 

Courtesy April Eilers

In the current paper, published online in the New England Journal of Medicine, the authors, led by Areef Ishani, MD, Minneapolis Veterans Affairs Health Care System, explained that early studies suggested that chlorthalidone was superior to hydrochlorothiazide in patients with hypertension, but more recent observational studies have shown that the two drugs reduced cardiovascular events at a similar rate. Chlorthalidone may be associated with an increased risk of adverse events, including hypokalemia.

They noted that, in 2020, Part D Medicare expenditures showed that approximately 1.5 million persons received prescriptions for chlorthalidone, compared with 11.5 million who received prescriptions for hydrochlorothiazide, despite guidelines that recommended chlorthalidone as the preferred agent. The discrepancy between guideline recommendation and real-world use is possibly related to the belief that chlorthalidone has a greater risk for adverse effects without clear evidence for differences in cardiovascular outcomes, the authors suggested.

They conducted the current study to directly compare the effect of the two agents on cardiovascular outcomes in patients with hypertension.

The pragmatic DCP trial was carried out within the VA Healthcare System, and randomly assigned 13,523 patients (mean age, 72.5 years) with hypertension who were receiving hydrochlorothiazide at baseline (25 or 50 mg per day) to continue hydrochlorothiazide at their baseline dose or to switch to chlorthalidone (12.5 or 25 mg per day).

The mean baseline systolic blood pressure was 139 mm Hg in both trial groups and did not change substantially during the trial.

Over a median follow-up of 2.4 years, there was no difference in the primary outcome – a composite of MI, stroke, hospitalization for heart failure, urgent coronary revascularization for unstable angina, and non–cancer-related death – between the chlorthalidone group (10.4%) and the hydrochlorothiazide group (10.0%), giving a hazard ratio of 1.04 (95% CI, 0.94-1.16; P = .45).

In addition, there were no treatment differences between the two groups in any primary outcome component. Hypokalemia and potassium supplement use were more common in the chlorthalidone group than in the hydrochlorothiazide group.

‘Importance lies in the design’

In an accompanying editorial, Julie R. Ingelfinger, MD, deputy editor of the New England Journal of Medicine, said the results are not surprising and may not change clinical practice. But she suggested that the importance of the trial lies in its design, which shows that a high-quality pragmatic comparative effectiveness trial can be accomplished in a cost-effective manner within a health care system with little disruption in patient care.

Dr. Ingelfinger pointed out several limitations of the trial. These include a lower-than-expected occurrence of primary outcome events, and the stipulation that patients were eligible to participate only if they continued to have hypertension while receiving hydrochlorothiazide.

In addition, 95% of the participants were receiving 25 mg of hydrochlorothiazide and only 5% were receiving 50 mg, which limited comparisons of the dose generally used in practice. Also, only approximately 13% of the patients were receiving hydrochlorothiazide alone for the treatment of hypertension at baseline.

She noted that the DCP is the first head-to-head comparison of hydrochlorothiazide and chlorthalidone in a randomized, prospective outcome trial.

“Without an apparent difference in the hazard ratios for the primary outcome in the two groups over the median follow-up of 2.4 years, results suggest that chlorthalidone therapy remains a good choice for hypertension despite the secondary observation that hypokalemia was more common with chlorthalidone than with hydrochlorothiazide,” Dr. Ingelfinger said.

“Although a subgroup analysis suggested that chlorthalidone was better than hydrochlorothiazide for participants with a history of myocardial infarction or stroke, that result may have been by chance,” she added.

As clinicians generally prefer using hydrochlorothiazide, she suggested that these DCP results will not provide any impetus for change.

“Furthermore, combined therapy and polypills may alter therapy beyond the results of this well-done, highly anticipated trial. Thus, its major effect may be as a model for other pragmatic study programs, which are greatly needed,” she concluded.

This study was supported by the Veterans Affairs Cooperative Studies Program through a grant to the Diuretic Comparison Project. Dr. Ishani reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Ingelfinger reported book royalties from Springer and from St. Martin’s Press, outside the submitted work, and that she is employed by the New England Journal of Medicine as deputy editor.

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

The Diuretic Comparison Project (DCP) trial, showing no difference in reduction of clinical events between the thiazide diuretics chlorthalidone and hydrochlorothiazide when used for the treatment of hypertension, has now been published. 

The trial was first presented at the 2022 annual scientific sessions of the American Heart Association. 

Courtesy April Eilers

In the current paper, published online in the New England Journal of Medicine, the authors, led by Areef Ishani, MD, Minneapolis Veterans Affairs Health Care System, explained that early studies suggested that chlorthalidone was superior to hydrochlorothiazide in patients with hypertension, but more recent observational studies have shown that the two drugs reduced cardiovascular events at a similar rate. Chlorthalidone may be associated with an increased risk of adverse events, including hypokalemia.

They noted that, in 2020, Part D Medicare expenditures showed that approximately 1.5 million persons received prescriptions for chlorthalidone, compared with 11.5 million who received prescriptions for hydrochlorothiazide, despite guidelines that recommended chlorthalidone as the preferred agent. The discrepancy between guideline recommendation and real-world use is possibly related to the belief that chlorthalidone has a greater risk for adverse effects without clear evidence for differences in cardiovascular outcomes, the authors suggested.

They conducted the current study to directly compare the effect of the two agents on cardiovascular outcomes in patients with hypertension.

The pragmatic DCP trial was carried out within the VA Healthcare System, and randomly assigned 13,523 patients (mean age, 72.5 years) with hypertension who were receiving hydrochlorothiazide at baseline (25 or 50 mg per day) to continue hydrochlorothiazide at their baseline dose or to switch to chlorthalidone (12.5 or 25 mg per day).

The mean baseline systolic blood pressure was 139 mm Hg in both trial groups and did not change substantially during the trial.

Over a median follow-up of 2.4 years, there was no difference in the primary outcome – a composite of MI, stroke, hospitalization for heart failure, urgent coronary revascularization for unstable angina, and non–cancer-related death – between the chlorthalidone group (10.4%) and the hydrochlorothiazide group (10.0%), giving a hazard ratio of 1.04 (95% CI, 0.94-1.16; P = .45).

In addition, there were no treatment differences between the two groups in any primary outcome component. Hypokalemia and potassium supplement use were more common in the chlorthalidone group than in the hydrochlorothiazide group.

‘Importance lies in the design’

In an accompanying editorial, Julie R. Ingelfinger, MD, deputy editor of the New England Journal of Medicine, said the results are not surprising and may not change clinical practice. But she suggested that the importance of the trial lies in its design, which shows that a high-quality pragmatic comparative effectiveness trial can be accomplished in a cost-effective manner within a health care system with little disruption in patient care.

Dr. Ingelfinger pointed out several limitations of the trial. These include a lower-than-expected occurrence of primary outcome events, and the stipulation that patients were eligible to participate only if they continued to have hypertension while receiving hydrochlorothiazide.

In addition, 95% of the participants were receiving 25 mg of hydrochlorothiazide and only 5% were receiving 50 mg, which limited comparisons of the dose generally used in practice. Also, only approximately 13% of the patients were receiving hydrochlorothiazide alone for the treatment of hypertension at baseline.

She noted that the DCP is the first head-to-head comparison of hydrochlorothiazide and chlorthalidone in a randomized, prospective outcome trial.

“Without an apparent difference in the hazard ratios for the primary outcome in the two groups over the median follow-up of 2.4 years, results suggest that chlorthalidone therapy remains a good choice for hypertension despite the secondary observation that hypokalemia was more common with chlorthalidone than with hydrochlorothiazide,” Dr. Ingelfinger said.

“Although a subgroup analysis suggested that chlorthalidone was better than hydrochlorothiazide for participants with a history of myocardial infarction or stroke, that result may have been by chance,” she added.

As clinicians generally prefer using hydrochlorothiazide, she suggested that these DCP results will not provide any impetus for change.

“Furthermore, combined therapy and polypills may alter therapy beyond the results of this well-done, highly anticipated trial. Thus, its major effect may be as a model for other pragmatic study programs, which are greatly needed,” she concluded.

This study was supported by the Veterans Affairs Cooperative Studies Program through a grant to the Diuretic Comparison Project. Dr. Ishani reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Ingelfinger reported book royalties from Springer and from St. Martin’s Press, outside the submitted work, and that she is employed by the New England Journal of Medicine as deputy editor.

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

The Diuretic Comparison Project (DCP) trial, showing no difference in reduction of clinical events between the thiazide diuretics chlorthalidone and hydrochlorothiazide when used for the treatment of hypertension, has now been published. 

The trial was first presented at the 2022 annual scientific sessions of the American Heart Association. 

Courtesy April Eilers

In the current paper, published online in the New England Journal of Medicine, the authors, led by Areef Ishani, MD, Minneapolis Veterans Affairs Health Care System, explained that early studies suggested that chlorthalidone was superior to hydrochlorothiazide in patients with hypertension, but more recent observational studies have shown that the two drugs reduced cardiovascular events at a similar rate. Chlorthalidone may be associated with an increased risk of adverse events, including hypokalemia.

They noted that, in 2020, Part D Medicare expenditures showed that approximately 1.5 million persons received prescriptions for chlorthalidone, compared with 11.5 million who received prescriptions for hydrochlorothiazide, despite guidelines that recommended chlorthalidone as the preferred agent. The discrepancy between guideline recommendation and real-world use is possibly related to the belief that chlorthalidone has a greater risk for adverse effects without clear evidence for differences in cardiovascular outcomes, the authors suggested.

They conducted the current study to directly compare the effect of the two agents on cardiovascular outcomes in patients with hypertension.

The pragmatic DCP trial was carried out within the VA Healthcare System, and randomly assigned 13,523 patients (mean age, 72.5 years) with hypertension who were receiving hydrochlorothiazide at baseline (25 or 50 mg per day) to continue hydrochlorothiazide at their baseline dose or to switch to chlorthalidone (12.5 or 25 mg per day).

The mean baseline systolic blood pressure was 139 mm Hg in both trial groups and did not change substantially during the trial.

Over a median follow-up of 2.4 years, there was no difference in the primary outcome – a composite of MI, stroke, hospitalization for heart failure, urgent coronary revascularization for unstable angina, and non–cancer-related death – between the chlorthalidone group (10.4%) and the hydrochlorothiazide group (10.0%), giving a hazard ratio of 1.04 (95% CI, 0.94-1.16; P = .45).

In addition, there were no treatment differences between the two groups in any primary outcome component. Hypokalemia and potassium supplement use were more common in the chlorthalidone group than in the hydrochlorothiazide group.

‘Importance lies in the design’

In an accompanying editorial, Julie R. Ingelfinger, MD, deputy editor of the New England Journal of Medicine, said the results are not surprising and may not change clinical practice. But she suggested that the importance of the trial lies in its design, which shows that a high-quality pragmatic comparative effectiveness trial can be accomplished in a cost-effective manner within a health care system with little disruption in patient care.

Dr. Ingelfinger pointed out several limitations of the trial. These include a lower-than-expected occurrence of primary outcome events, and the stipulation that patients were eligible to participate only if they continued to have hypertension while receiving hydrochlorothiazide.

In addition, 95% of the participants were receiving 25 mg of hydrochlorothiazide and only 5% were receiving 50 mg, which limited comparisons of the dose generally used in practice. Also, only approximately 13% of the patients were receiving hydrochlorothiazide alone for the treatment of hypertension at baseline.

She noted that the DCP is the first head-to-head comparison of hydrochlorothiazide and chlorthalidone in a randomized, prospective outcome trial.

“Without an apparent difference in the hazard ratios for the primary outcome in the two groups over the median follow-up of 2.4 years, results suggest that chlorthalidone therapy remains a good choice for hypertension despite the secondary observation that hypokalemia was more common with chlorthalidone than with hydrochlorothiazide,” Dr. Ingelfinger said.

“Although a subgroup analysis suggested that chlorthalidone was better than hydrochlorothiazide for participants with a history of myocardial infarction or stroke, that result may have been by chance,” she added.

As clinicians generally prefer using hydrochlorothiazide, she suggested that these DCP results will not provide any impetus for change.

“Furthermore, combined therapy and polypills may alter therapy beyond the results of this well-done, highly anticipated trial. Thus, its major effect may be as a model for other pragmatic study programs, which are greatly needed,” she concluded.

This study was supported by the Veterans Affairs Cooperative Studies Program through a grant to the Diuretic Comparison Project. Dr. Ishani reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Ingelfinger reported book royalties from Springer and from St. Martin’s Press, outside the submitted work, and that she is employed by the New England Journal of Medicine as deputy editor.

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

New more aggressive targets for blood pressure and lipids are among the changes to the annual American Diabetes Association (ADA) Standards of Care in Diabetes – 2023.

The document, long considered the gold standard for care of the more than 100 million Americans living with diabetes and prediabetes, was published as a supplement in Diabetes Care. The guidelines are also accessible to doctors via an app; last year’s standards were accessed more than 4 million times.

The standards now advise a blood pressure target for people with diabetes of less than 130/80 mm Hg, and low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol targets of below 70 mg/dL or no greater than 55 mg/dL, depending on the individual’s cardiovascular risk.

Courtesy Joslin Diabetes Center

“In this year’s version of the ADA Standards of Care – the longstanding guidelines for diabetes management globally – you’ll see information that really speaks to how we can more aggressively treat diabetes and reduce complications in a variety of different ways,” ADA Chief Scientific and Medical Officer Robert A. Gabbay, MD, PhD, said in an interview.

Other changes for 2023 include a new emphasis on weight loss as a goal of therapy for type 2 diabetes; guidance for screening and assessing peripheral arterial disease in an effort to prevent amputations; use of finerenone in people with diabetes and chronic kidney disease; use of approved point-of-care A1c tests; and guidance on screening for food insecurity, along with an elevated role for community health workers.

“The management of type 2 diabetes is not just about glucose,” Dr. Gabbay emphasized, noting that the ADA Standards have increasingly focused on cardiorenal risk as well as weight management. “We need to think about all those things, not just one. We have better tools now that have been helpful in being able to move forward with this.”
 

New targets in cardiovascular disease and risk management

As it has been for the past 6 years, the section on cardiovascular disease and risk management is also endorsed by the American College of Cardiology.

The new definition of hypertension in people with diabetes is ≥ 130 mm Hg systolic or ≥ 80 mm Hg diastolic blood pressure, repeated on two measurements at different times. Among individuals with established cardiovascular disease, hypertension can be diagnosed with one measurement of ≥ 180/110 mm Hg.

The goal of treatment is now less than 130/80 mm Hg if it can be reached safely.

In 2012, easing of the systolic target to 140 mm Hg by the ADA caused some controversy.

But, as Dr. Gabbay explained: “The evidence wasn’t there 10 years ago. We stuck to the evidence at that time, although there was a belief that lower was better. Over the past decade, a number of studies have made it quite clear that there is benefit to a lower target. That’s why we staked out the ground on this.”

The new Standards of Care also has new lipid targets. For people with diabetes aged 40-75 years at increased cardiovascular risk, including those with one or more atherosclerotic risk factors, high-intensity statin therapy is recommended to reduce LDL cholesterol by 50% or more from baseline and to a target of less than 70 mg/dL, in contrast to the previous target of 100 mg/dL.  

To achieve that goal, the document advises to consider adding ezetimibe or a PCSK9 inhibitor to maximally tolerated statin therapy.

For people with diabetes aged 40-75 who have established cardiovascular disease, treatment with high-intensity statin therapy is recommended with the target of a 50% or greater reduction from baseline and an LDL cholesterol level of 55 mg/dL or lower, in contrast to the previous 70 mg/dL.

“That is a lower goal than previously recommended, and based on strong evidence in the literature,” Dr. Gabbay noted.

Here, a stronger recommendation is made for ezetimibe or a PCSK9 inhibitor added to maximal statins.

And for people with diabetes older than 75 years, those already on statins should continue taking them. For those who aren’t, it may be reasonable to initiate moderate-intensity statin therapy after discussion of the benefits and risks.

Another new recommendation based on recent trial data is use of a sodium–glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitor in people with diabetes and heart failure with preserved, as well as reduced, ejection fraction.
 

Kidney disease guidance updated: SGLT2 inhibitors, finerenone

Another recommendation calls for the addition of finerenone for people with type 2 diabetes who have chronic kidney disease (CKD) with albuminuria and have been treated with the maximum tolerated doses of an angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor or angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB) to improve cardiovascular outcomes as well as reduce the risk of CKD progression.

The threshold for initiating an SGLT2 inhibitor for kidney protection has changed to an estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) ≥ 20 mL/min/1.73 m² and urinary albumin ≥ 200 mg/g creatinine (previously ≥ 25 mL/min/1.73 m² and ≥ 300 mg/g, respectively). An SGLT2 inhibitor may also be beneficial in people with a urinary albumin of normal to ≥ 200 mg/g creatinine, but supporting data have not yet been published.

Referral to a nephrologist is advised for individuals with increasing urinary albumin levels or continued decreasing eGFR or eGFR < 30 mL/min/1.73 m².
 

Weight loss, point-of-care testing, food insecurity assessment 

Other changes for 2023 include fresh emphasis on supporting weight loss of up to 15% with the new twincretin tirzepatide (Mounjaro) – approved in the United States in May for type 2 diabetes – added as a glucose-lowering drug with weight loss potential.

A novel section was added with guidance for peripheral arterial disease screening.

And a new recommendation advises use of point-of-care A1c testing for diabetes screening and diagnosis using only tests approved by the Food and Drug Administration.

Also introduced for 2023 is guidance to use community health workers to support the management of diabetes and cardiovascular risk factors, particularly in underserved areas and health systems.

“Community health workers can be a link to help people navigate and engage with the health system for better outcomes,” said Dr. Gabbay.

He added that these professionals are among those who can also assist with screening for food insecurity, another new recommendation. “We talk about screening for food insecurity and tools to use. That shouldn’t be something only dietitians do.”

Dr. Gabbay said he’d like to see more clinicians partner with community health workers. “We’d like to see more of that ... They should be considered part of the health care team,” he said.

Dr. Gabbay has reported serving on advisory boards for Lark, Health Reveal, Sweetch, StartUp Health, Vida Health, and Onduo.

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

New more aggressive targets for blood pressure and lipids are among the changes to the annual American Diabetes Association (ADA) Standards of Care in Diabetes – 2023.

The document, long considered the gold standard for care of the more than 100 million Americans living with diabetes and prediabetes, was published as a supplement in Diabetes Care. The guidelines are also accessible to doctors via an app; last year’s standards were accessed more than 4 million times.

The standards now advise a blood pressure target for people with diabetes of less than 130/80 mm Hg, and low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol targets of below 70 mg/dL or no greater than 55 mg/dL, depending on the individual’s cardiovascular risk.

Courtesy Joslin Diabetes Center

“In this year’s version of the ADA Standards of Care – the longstanding guidelines for diabetes management globally – you’ll see information that really speaks to how we can more aggressively treat diabetes and reduce complications in a variety of different ways,” ADA Chief Scientific and Medical Officer Robert A. Gabbay, MD, PhD, said in an interview.

Other changes for 2023 include a new emphasis on weight loss as a goal of therapy for type 2 diabetes; guidance for screening and assessing peripheral arterial disease in an effort to prevent amputations; use of finerenone in people with diabetes and chronic kidney disease; use of approved point-of-care A1c tests; and guidance on screening for food insecurity, along with an elevated role for community health workers.

“The management of type 2 diabetes is not just about glucose,” Dr. Gabbay emphasized, noting that the ADA Standards have increasingly focused on cardiorenal risk as well as weight management. “We need to think about all those things, not just one. We have better tools now that have been helpful in being able to move forward with this.”
 

New targets in cardiovascular disease and risk management

As it has been for the past 6 years, the section on cardiovascular disease and risk management is also endorsed by the American College of Cardiology.

The new definition of hypertension in people with diabetes is ≥ 130 mm Hg systolic or ≥ 80 mm Hg diastolic blood pressure, repeated on two measurements at different times. Among individuals with established cardiovascular disease, hypertension can be diagnosed with one measurement of ≥ 180/110 mm Hg.

The goal of treatment is now less than 130/80 mm Hg if it can be reached safely.

In 2012, easing of the systolic target to 140 mm Hg by the ADA caused some controversy.

But, as Dr. Gabbay explained: “The evidence wasn’t there 10 years ago. We stuck to the evidence at that time, although there was a belief that lower was better. Over the past decade, a number of studies have made it quite clear that there is benefit to a lower target. That’s why we staked out the ground on this.”

The new Standards of Care also has new lipid targets. For people with diabetes aged 40-75 years at increased cardiovascular risk, including those with one or more atherosclerotic risk factors, high-intensity statin therapy is recommended to reduce LDL cholesterol by 50% or more from baseline and to a target of less than 70 mg/dL, in contrast to the previous target of 100 mg/dL.  

To achieve that goal, the document advises to consider adding ezetimibe or a PCSK9 inhibitor to maximally tolerated statin therapy.

For people with diabetes aged 40-75 who have established cardiovascular disease, treatment with high-intensity statin therapy is recommended with the target of a 50% or greater reduction from baseline and an LDL cholesterol level of 55 mg/dL or lower, in contrast to the previous 70 mg/dL.

“That is a lower goal than previously recommended, and based on strong evidence in the literature,” Dr. Gabbay noted.

Here, a stronger recommendation is made for ezetimibe or a PCSK9 inhibitor added to maximal statins.

And for people with diabetes older than 75 years, those already on statins should continue taking them. For those who aren’t, it may be reasonable to initiate moderate-intensity statin therapy after discussion of the benefits and risks.

Another new recommendation based on recent trial data is use of a sodium–glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitor in people with diabetes and heart failure with preserved, as well as reduced, ejection fraction.
 

Kidney disease guidance updated: SGLT2 inhibitors, finerenone

Another recommendation calls for the addition of finerenone for people with type 2 diabetes who have chronic kidney disease (CKD) with albuminuria and have been treated with the maximum tolerated doses of an angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor or angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB) to improve cardiovascular outcomes as well as reduce the risk of CKD progression.

The threshold for initiating an SGLT2 inhibitor for kidney protection has changed to an estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) ≥ 20 mL/min/1.73 m² and urinary albumin ≥ 200 mg/g creatinine (previously ≥ 25 mL/min/1.73 m² and ≥ 300 mg/g, respectively). An SGLT2 inhibitor may also be beneficial in people with a urinary albumin of normal to ≥ 200 mg/g creatinine, but supporting data have not yet been published.

Referral to a nephrologist is advised for individuals with increasing urinary albumin levels or continued decreasing eGFR or eGFR < 30 mL/min/1.73 m².
 

Weight loss, point-of-care testing, food insecurity assessment 

Other changes for 2023 include fresh emphasis on supporting weight loss of up to 15% with the new twincretin tirzepatide (Mounjaro) – approved in the United States in May for type 2 diabetes – added as a glucose-lowering drug with weight loss potential.

A novel section was added with guidance for peripheral arterial disease screening.

And a new recommendation advises use of point-of-care A1c testing for diabetes screening and diagnosis using only tests approved by the Food and Drug Administration.

Also introduced for 2023 is guidance to use community health workers to support the management of diabetes and cardiovascular risk factors, particularly in underserved areas and health systems.

“Community health workers can be a link to help people navigate and engage with the health system for better outcomes,” said Dr. Gabbay.

He added that these professionals are among those who can also assist with screening for food insecurity, another new recommendation. “We talk about screening for food insecurity and tools to use. That shouldn’t be something only dietitians do.”

Dr. Gabbay said he’d like to see more clinicians partner with community health workers. “We’d like to see more of that ... They should be considered part of the health care team,” he said.

Dr. Gabbay has reported serving on advisory boards for Lark, Health Reveal, Sweetch, StartUp Health, Vida Health, and Onduo.

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

New more aggressive targets for blood pressure and lipids are among the changes to the annual American Diabetes Association (ADA) Standards of Care in Diabetes – 2023.

The document, long considered the gold standard for care of the more than 100 million Americans living with diabetes and prediabetes, was published as a supplement in Diabetes Care. The guidelines are also accessible to doctors via an app; last year’s standards were accessed more than 4 million times.

The standards now advise a blood pressure target for people with diabetes of less than 130/80 mm Hg, and low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol targets of below 70 mg/dL or no greater than 55 mg/dL, depending on the individual’s cardiovascular risk.

Courtesy Joslin Diabetes Center

“In this year’s version of the ADA Standards of Care – the longstanding guidelines for diabetes management globally – you’ll see information that really speaks to how we can more aggressively treat diabetes and reduce complications in a variety of different ways,” ADA Chief Scientific and Medical Officer Robert A. Gabbay, MD, PhD, said in an interview.

Other changes for 2023 include a new emphasis on weight loss as a goal of therapy for type 2 diabetes; guidance for screening and assessing peripheral arterial disease in an effort to prevent amputations; use of finerenone in people with diabetes and chronic kidney disease; use of approved point-of-care A1c tests; and guidance on screening for food insecurity, along with an elevated role for community health workers.

“The management of type 2 diabetes is not just about glucose,” Dr. Gabbay emphasized, noting that the ADA Standards have increasingly focused on cardiorenal risk as well as weight management. “We need to think about all those things, not just one. We have better tools now that have been helpful in being able to move forward with this.”
 

New targets in cardiovascular disease and risk management

As it has been for the past 6 years, the section on cardiovascular disease and risk management is also endorsed by the American College of Cardiology.

The new definition of hypertension in people with diabetes is ≥ 130 mm Hg systolic or ≥ 80 mm Hg diastolic blood pressure, repeated on two measurements at different times. Among individuals with established cardiovascular disease, hypertension can be diagnosed with one measurement of ≥ 180/110 mm Hg.

The goal of treatment is now less than 130/80 mm Hg if it can be reached safely.

In 2012, easing of the systolic target to 140 mm Hg by the ADA caused some controversy.

But, as Dr. Gabbay explained: “The evidence wasn’t there 10 years ago. We stuck to the evidence at that time, although there was a belief that lower was better. Over the past decade, a number of studies have made it quite clear that there is benefit to a lower target. That’s why we staked out the ground on this.”

The new Standards of Care also has new lipid targets. For people with diabetes aged 40-75 years at increased cardiovascular risk, including those with one or more atherosclerotic risk factors, high-intensity statin therapy is recommended to reduce LDL cholesterol by 50% or more from baseline and to a target of less than 70 mg/dL, in contrast to the previous target of 100 mg/dL.  

To achieve that goal, the document advises to consider adding ezetimibe or a PCSK9 inhibitor to maximally tolerated statin therapy.

For people with diabetes aged 40-75 who have established cardiovascular disease, treatment with high-intensity statin therapy is recommended with the target of a 50% or greater reduction from baseline and an LDL cholesterol level of 55 mg/dL or lower, in contrast to the previous 70 mg/dL.

“That is a lower goal than previously recommended, and based on strong evidence in the literature,” Dr. Gabbay noted.

Here, a stronger recommendation is made for ezetimibe or a PCSK9 inhibitor added to maximal statins.

And for people with diabetes older than 75 years, those already on statins should continue taking them. For those who aren’t, it may be reasonable to initiate moderate-intensity statin therapy after discussion of the benefits and risks.

Another new recommendation based on recent trial data is use of a sodium–glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitor in people with diabetes and heart failure with preserved, as well as reduced, ejection fraction.
 

Kidney disease guidance updated: SGLT2 inhibitors, finerenone

Another recommendation calls for the addition of finerenone for people with type 2 diabetes who have chronic kidney disease (CKD) with albuminuria and have been treated with the maximum tolerated doses of an angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor or angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB) to improve cardiovascular outcomes as well as reduce the risk of CKD progression.

The threshold for initiating an SGLT2 inhibitor for kidney protection has changed to an estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) ≥ 20 mL/min/1.73 m² and urinary albumin ≥ 200 mg/g creatinine (previously ≥ 25 mL/min/1.73 m² and ≥ 300 mg/g, respectively). An SGLT2 inhibitor may also be beneficial in people with a urinary albumin of normal to ≥ 200 mg/g creatinine, but supporting data have not yet been published.

Referral to a nephrologist is advised for individuals with increasing urinary albumin levels or continued decreasing eGFR or eGFR < 30 mL/min/1.73 m².
 

Weight loss, point-of-care testing, food insecurity assessment 

Other changes for 2023 include fresh emphasis on supporting weight loss of up to 15% with the new twincretin tirzepatide (Mounjaro) – approved in the United States in May for type 2 diabetes – added as a glucose-lowering drug with weight loss potential.

A novel section was added with guidance for peripheral arterial disease screening.

And a new recommendation advises use of point-of-care A1c testing for diabetes screening and diagnosis using only tests approved by the Food and Drug Administration.

Also introduced for 2023 is guidance to use community health workers to support the management of diabetes and cardiovascular risk factors, particularly in underserved areas and health systems.

“Community health workers can be a link to help people navigate and engage with the health system for better outcomes,” said Dr. Gabbay.

He added that these professionals are among those who can also assist with screening for food insecurity, another new recommendation. “We talk about screening for food insecurity and tools to use. That shouldn’t be something only dietitians do.”

Dr. Gabbay said he’d like to see more clinicians partner with community health workers. “We’d like to see more of that ... They should be considered part of the health care team,” he said.

Dr. Gabbay has reported serving on advisory boards for Lark, Health Reveal, Sweetch, StartUp Health, Vida Health, and Onduo.

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

Most of us have two voice changes in our lifetime: First during puberty, as the vocal cords thicken and the voice box migrates down the throat. Then a second time as aging causes structural changes that may weaken the voice.

But for some of us, there’s another voice shift, when a disease begins or when our mental health declines.

This is why more doctors are looking into voice as a biomarker – something that tells you that a disease is present.

Vital signs like blood pressure or heart rate “can give a general idea of how sick we are. But they’re not specific to certain diseases,” says Yael Bensoussan, MD, director of the University of South Florida, Tampa’s Health Voice Center and the coprincipal investigator for the National Institutes of Health’s Voice as a Biomarker of Health project.

“We’re learning that there are patterns” in voice changes that can indicate a range of conditions, including diseases of the nervous system and mental illnesses, she says.

Speaking is complicated, involving everything from the lungs and voice box to the mouth and brain. “A breakdown in any of those parts can affect the voice,” says Maria Powell, PhD, an assistant professor of otolaryngology (the study of diseases of the ear and throat) at Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn., who is working on the NIH project.

You or those around you may not notice the changes. But researchers say voice analysis as a standard part of patient care – akin to blood pressure checks or cholesterol tests – could help identify those who need medical attention earlier.

Often, all it takes is a smartphone – “something that’s cheap, off-the-shelf, and that everyone can use,” says Ariana Anderson, PhD, director of the University of California, Los Angeles, Laboratory of Computational Neuropsychology.

“You can provide voice data in your pajamas, on your couch,” says Frank Rudzicz, PhD, a computer scientist for the NIH project. “It doesn’t require very complicated or expensive equipment, and it doesn’t require a lot of expertise to obtain.” Plus, multiple samples can be collected over time, giving a more accurate picture of health than a single snapshot from, say, a cognitive test.

Over the next 4 years, the Voice as a Biomarker team will receive nearly $18 million to gather a massive amount of voice data. The goal is 20,000-30,000 samples, along with health data about each person being studied. The result will be a sprawling database scientists can use to develop algorithms linking health conditions to the way we speak.

For the first 2 years, new data will be collected exclusively via universities and high-volume clinics to control quality and accuracy. Eventually, people will be invited to submit their own voice recordings, creating a crowdsourced dataset. “Google, Alexa, Amazon – they have access to tons of voice data,” says Dr. Bensoussan. “But it’s not usable in a clinical way, because they don’t have the health information.”

Dr. Bensoussan and her colleagues hope to fill that void with advance voice screening apps, which could prove especially valuable in remote communities that lack access to specialists or as a tool for telemedicine. Down the line, wearable devices with voice analysis could alert people with chronic conditions when they need to see a doctor.

“The watch says, ‘I’ve analyzed your breathing and coughing, and today, you’re really not doing well. You should go to the hospital,’ ” says Dr. Bensoussan, envisioning a wearable for patients with COPD. “It could tell people early that things are declining.”

Artificial intelligence may be better than a brain at pinpointing the right disease. For example, slurred speech could indicate Parkinson’s, a stroke, or ALS, among other things.

“We can hold approximately seven pieces of information in our head at one time,” says Dr. Rudzicz. “It’s really hard for us to get a holistic picture using dozens or hundreds of variables at once.” But a computer can consider a whole range of vocal markers at the same time, piecing them together for a more accurate assessment.

“The goal is not to outperform a ... clinician,” says Dr. Bensoussan. Yet the potential is unmistakably there: In a recent study of patients with cancer of the larynx, an automated voice analysis tool more accurately flagged the disease than laryngologists did. 

“Algorithms have a larger training base,” says Dr. Anderson, who developed an app called ChatterBaby that analyzes infant cries. “We have a million samples at our disposal to train our algorithms. I don’t know if I’ve heard a million different babies crying in my life.”

So which health conditions show the most promise for voice analysis? The Voice as a Biomarker project will focus on five categories.
 

Voice disorders (cancers of the larynx, vocal fold paralysis, benign lesions on the larynx)

Obviously, vocal changes are a hallmark of these conditions, which cause things like breathiness or “roughness,” a type of vocal irregularity. Hoarseness that lasts at least 2 weeks is often one of the earliest signs of laryngeal cancer. Yet it can take months – one study found 16 weeks was the average – for patients to see a doctor after noticing the changes. Even then, laryngologists still misdiagnosed some cases of cancer when relying on vocal cues alone.

Now imagine a different scenario: The patient speaks into a smartphone app. An algorithm compares the vocal sample with the voices of laryngeal cancer patients. The app spits out the estimated odds of laryngeal cancer, helping providers decide whether to offer the patient specialist care.

Or consider spasmodic dysphonia, a neurological voice disorder that triggers spasms in the muscles of the voice box, causing a strained or breathy voice. Doctors who lack experience with vocal disorders may miss the condition. This is why diagnosis takes an average of nearly 4.5 years, according to a study in the Journal of Voice, and may include everything from allergy testing to psychiatric evaluation, says Dr. Powell. Artificial intelligence technology trained to recognize the disorder could help eliminate such unnecessary testing.
 

Neurological and neurodegenerative disorders (Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s, stroke, ALS) 

For Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s, “one of the first changes that’s notable is voice,” usually appearing before a formal diagnosis, says Anais Rameau, MD, an assistant professor of laryngology at Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, and another member of the NIH project. Parkinson’s may soften the voice or make it sound monotone, while Alzheimer’s disease may change the content of speech, leading to an uptick in “umms” and a preference for pronouns over nouns.

With Parkinson’s, vocal changes can occur decades before movement is affected. If doctors could detect the disease at this stage, before tremor emerged, they might be able to flag patients for early intervention, says Max Little, PhD, project director for the Parkinson’s Voice Initiative. “That is the ‘holy grail’ for finding an eventual cure.”

Again, the smartphone shows potential. In a 2022 Australian study, an AI-powered app was able to identify people with Parkinson’s based on brief voice recordings, although the sample size was small. On a larger scale, the Parkinson’s Voice Initiative collected some 17,000 samples from people across the world. “The aim was to remotely detect those with the condition using a telephone call,” says Dr. Little. It did so with about 65% accuracy. “While this is not accurate enough for clinical use, it shows the potential of the idea,” he says.

Dr. Rudzicz worked on the team behind Winterlight, an iPad app that analyzes 550 features of speech to detect dementia and Alzheimer’s (as well as mental illness). “We deployed it in long-term care facilities,” he says, identifying patients who need further review of their mental skills. Stroke is another area of interest, because slurred speech is a highly subjective measure, says Dr. Anderson. AI technology could provide a more objective evaluation.
 

Mood and psychiatric disorders (depression, schizophrenia, bipolar disorders)

No established biomarkers exist for diagnosing depression. Yet if you’re feeling down, there’s a good chance your friends can tell – even over the phone.

“We carry a lot of our mood in our voice,” says Dr. Powell. Bipolar disorder can also alter voice, making it louder and faster during manic periods, then slower and quieter during depressive bouts. The catatonic stage of schizophrenia often comes with “a very monotone, robotic voice,” says Dr. Anderson. “These are all something an algorithm can measure.”

Apps are already being used – often in research settings – to monitor voices during phone calls, analyzing rate, rhythm, volume, and pitch, to predict mood changes. For example, the PRIORI project at the University of Michigan is working on a smartphone app to identify mood changes in people with bipolar disorder, especially shifts that could increase suicide risk.

The content of speech may also offer clues. In a University of California, Los Angeles, study published in the journal PLoS One, people with mental illnesses answered computer-programmed questions (like “How have you been over the past few days?”) over the phone. An app analyzed their word choices, paying attention to how they changed over time. The researchers found that AI analysis of mood aligned well with doctors’ assessments and that some people in the study actually felt more comfortable talking to a computer.
 

Respiratory disorders (pneumonia, COPD)

Beyond talking, respiratory sounds like gasping or coughing may point to specific conditions. “Emphysema cough is different, COPD cough is different,” says Dr. Bensoussan. Researchers are trying to find out if COVID-19 has a distinct cough.

Breathing sounds can also serve as signposts. “There are different sounds when we can’t breathe,” says Dr. Bensoussan. One is called stridor, a high-pitched wheezing often resulting from a blocked airway. “I see tons of people [with stridor] misdiagnosed for years – they’ve been told they have asthma, but they don’t,” says Dr. Bensoussan. AI analysis of these sounds could help doctors more quickly identify respiratory disorders.
 

Pediatric voice and speech disorders (speech and language delays, autism)

Babies who later have autism cry differently as early as 6 months of age, which means an app like ChatterBaby could help flag children for early intervention, says Dr. Anderson. Autism is linked to several other diagnoses, such as epilepsy and sleep disorders. So analyzing an infant’s cry could prompt pediatricians to screen for a range of conditions.

ChatterBaby has been “incredibly accurate” in identifying when babies are in pain, says Dr. Anderson, because pain increases muscle tension, resulting in a louder, more energetic cry. The next goal: “We’re collecting voices from babies around the world,” she says, and then tracking those children for 7 years, looking to see if early vocal signs could predict developmental disorders. Vocal samples from young children could serve a similar purpose.
 

And that’s only the beginning

Eventually, AI technology may pick up disease-related voice changes that we can’t even hear. In a new Mayo Clinic study, certain vocal features detectable by AI – but not by the human ear – were linked to a three-fold increase in the likelihood of having plaque buildup in the arteries.

“Voice is a huge spectrum of vibrations,” explains study author Amir Lerman, MD. “We hear a very narrow range.” 

The researchers aren’t sure why heart disease alters voice, but the autonomic nervous system may play a role, because it regulates the voice box as well as blood pressure and heart rate. Dr. Lerman says other conditions, like diseases of the nerves and gut, may similarly alter the voice. Beyond patient screening, this discovery could help doctors adjust medication doses remotely, in line with these inaudible vocal signals.

“Hopefully, in the next few years, this is going to come to practice,” says Dr. Lerman.

Still, in the face of that hope, privacy concerns remain. Voice is an identifier that’s protected by the federal Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, which requires privacy of personal health information. That is a major reason why no large voice databases exist yet, says Dr. Bensoussan. (This makes collecting samples from children especially challenging.) Perhaps more concerning is the potential for diagnosing disease based on voice alone. “You could use that tool on anyone, including officials like the president,” says Dr. Rameau.

But the primary hurdle is the ethical sourcing of data to ensure a diversity of vocal samples. For the Voice as a Biomarker project, the researchers will establish voice quotas for different races and ethnicities, ensuring algorithms can accurately analyze a range of accents. Data from people with speech impediments will also be gathered.

Despite these challenges, researchers are optimistic. “Vocal analysis is going to be a great equalizer and improve health outcomes,” predicts Dr. Anderson. “I’m really happy that we are beginning to understand the strength of the voice.”

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

Most of us have two voice changes in our lifetime: First during puberty, as the vocal cords thicken and the voice box migrates down the throat. Then a second time as aging causes structural changes that may weaken the voice.

But for some of us, there’s another voice shift, when a disease begins or when our mental health declines.

This is why more doctors are looking into voice as a biomarker – something that tells you that a disease is present.

Vital signs like blood pressure or heart rate “can give a general idea of how sick we are. But they’re not specific to certain diseases,” says Yael Bensoussan, MD, director of the University of South Florida, Tampa’s Health Voice Center and the coprincipal investigator for the National Institutes of Health’s Voice as a Biomarker of Health project.

“We’re learning that there are patterns” in voice changes that can indicate a range of conditions, including diseases of the nervous system and mental illnesses, she says.

Speaking is complicated, involving everything from the lungs and voice box to the mouth and brain. “A breakdown in any of those parts can affect the voice,” says Maria Powell, PhD, an assistant professor of otolaryngology (the study of diseases of the ear and throat) at Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn., who is working on the NIH project.

You or those around you may not notice the changes. But researchers say voice analysis as a standard part of patient care – akin to blood pressure checks or cholesterol tests – could help identify those who need medical attention earlier.

Often, all it takes is a smartphone – “something that’s cheap, off-the-shelf, and that everyone can use,” says Ariana Anderson, PhD, director of the University of California, Los Angeles, Laboratory of Computational Neuropsychology.

“You can provide voice data in your pajamas, on your couch,” says Frank Rudzicz, PhD, a computer scientist for the NIH project. “It doesn’t require very complicated or expensive equipment, and it doesn’t require a lot of expertise to obtain.” Plus, multiple samples can be collected over time, giving a more accurate picture of health than a single snapshot from, say, a cognitive test.

Over the next 4 years, the Voice as a Biomarker team will receive nearly $18 million to gather a massive amount of voice data. The goal is 20,000-30,000 samples, along with health data about each person being studied. The result will be a sprawling database scientists can use to develop algorithms linking health conditions to the way we speak.

For the first 2 years, new data will be collected exclusively via universities and high-volume clinics to control quality and accuracy. Eventually, people will be invited to submit their own voice recordings, creating a crowdsourced dataset. “Google, Alexa, Amazon – they have access to tons of voice data,” says Dr. Bensoussan. “But it’s not usable in a clinical way, because they don’t have the health information.”

Dr. Bensoussan and her colleagues hope to fill that void with advance voice screening apps, which could prove especially valuable in remote communities that lack access to specialists or as a tool for telemedicine. Down the line, wearable devices with voice analysis could alert people with chronic conditions when they need to see a doctor.

“The watch says, ‘I’ve analyzed your breathing and coughing, and today, you’re really not doing well. You should go to the hospital,’ ” says Dr. Bensoussan, envisioning a wearable for patients with COPD. “It could tell people early that things are declining.”

Artificial intelligence may be better than a brain at pinpointing the right disease. For example, slurred speech could indicate Parkinson’s, a stroke, or ALS, among other things.

“We can hold approximately seven pieces of information in our head at one time,” says Dr. Rudzicz. “It’s really hard for us to get a holistic picture using dozens or hundreds of variables at once.” But a computer can consider a whole range of vocal markers at the same time, piecing them together for a more accurate assessment.

“The goal is not to outperform a ... clinician,” says Dr. Bensoussan. Yet the potential is unmistakably there: In a recent study of patients with cancer of the larynx, an automated voice analysis tool more accurately flagged the disease than laryngologists did. 

“Algorithms have a larger training base,” says Dr. Anderson, who developed an app called ChatterBaby that analyzes infant cries. “We have a million samples at our disposal to train our algorithms. I don’t know if I’ve heard a million different babies crying in my life.”

So which health conditions show the most promise for voice analysis? The Voice as a Biomarker project will focus on five categories.
 

Voice disorders (cancers of the larynx, vocal fold paralysis, benign lesions on the larynx)

Obviously, vocal changes are a hallmark of these conditions, which cause things like breathiness or “roughness,” a type of vocal irregularity. Hoarseness that lasts at least 2 weeks is often one of the earliest signs of laryngeal cancer. Yet it can take months – one study found 16 weeks was the average – for patients to see a doctor after noticing the changes. Even then, laryngologists still misdiagnosed some cases of cancer when relying on vocal cues alone.

Now imagine a different scenario: The patient speaks into a smartphone app. An algorithm compares the vocal sample with the voices of laryngeal cancer patients. The app spits out the estimated odds of laryngeal cancer, helping providers decide whether to offer the patient specialist care.

Or consider spasmodic dysphonia, a neurological voice disorder that triggers spasms in the muscles of the voice box, causing a strained or breathy voice. Doctors who lack experience with vocal disorders may miss the condition. This is why diagnosis takes an average of nearly 4.5 years, according to a study in the Journal of Voice, and may include everything from allergy testing to psychiatric evaluation, says Dr. Powell. Artificial intelligence technology trained to recognize the disorder could help eliminate such unnecessary testing.
 

Neurological and neurodegenerative disorders (Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s, stroke, ALS) 

For Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s, “one of the first changes that’s notable is voice,” usually appearing before a formal diagnosis, says Anais Rameau, MD, an assistant professor of laryngology at Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, and another member of the NIH project. Parkinson’s may soften the voice or make it sound monotone, while Alzheimer’s disease may change the content of speech, leading to an uptick in “umms” and a preference for pronouns over nouns.

With Parkinson’s, vocal changes can occur decades before movement is affected. If doctors could detect the disease at this stage, before tremor emerged, they might be able to flag patients for early intervention, says Max Little, PhD, project director for the Parkinson’s Voice Initiative. “That is the ‘holy grail’ for finding an eventual cure.”

Again, the smartphone shows potential. In a 2022 Australian study, an AI-powered app was able to identify people with Parkinson’s based on brief voice recordings, although the sample size was small. On a larger scale, the Parkinson’s Voice Initiative collected some 17,000 samples from people across the world. “The aim was to remotely detect those with the condition using a telephone call,” says Dr. Little. It did so with about 65% accuracy. “While this is not accurate enough for clinical use, it shows the potential of the idea,” he says.

Dr. Rudzicz worked on the team behind Winterlight, an iPad app that analyzes 550 features of speech to detect dementia and Alzheimer’s (as well as mental illness). “We deployed it in long-term care facilities,” he says, identifying patients who need further review of their mental skills. Stroke is another area of interest, because slurred speech is a highly subjective measure, says Dr. Anderson. AI technology could provide a more objective evaluation.
 

Mood and psychiatric disorders (depression, schizophrenia, bipolar disorders)

No established biomarkers exist for diagnosing depression. Yet if you’re feeling down, there’s a good chance your friends can tell – even over the phone.

“We carry a lot of our mood in our voice,” says Dr. Powell. Bipolar disorder can also alter voice, making it louder and faster during manic periods, then slower and quieter during depressive bouts. The catatonic stage of schizophrenia often comes with “a very monotone, robotic voice,” says Dr. Anderson. “These are all something an algorithm can measure.”

Apps are already being used – often in research settings – to monitor voices during phone calls, analyzing rate, rhythm, volume, and pitch, to predict mood changes. For example, the PRIORI project at the University of Michigan is working on a smartphone app to identify mood changes in people with bipolar disorder, especially shifts that could increase suicide risk.

The content of speech may also offer clues. In a University of California, Los Angeles, study published in the journal PLoS One, people with mental illnesses answered computer-programmed questions (like “How have you been over the past few days?”) over the phone. An app analyzed their word choices, paying attention to how they changed over time. The researchers found that AI analysis of mood aligned well with doctors’ assessments and that some people in the study actually felt more comfortable talking to a computer.
 

Respiratory disorders (pneumonia, COPD)

Beyond talking, respiratory sounds like gasping or coughing may point to specific conditions. “Emphysema cough is different, COPD cough is different,” says Dr. Bensoussan. Researchers are trying to find out if COVID-19 has a distinct cough.

Breathing sounds can also serve as signposts. “There are different sounds when we can’t breathe,” says Dr. Bensoussan. One is called stridor, a high-pitched wheezing often resulting from a blocked airway. “I see tons of people [with stridor] misdiagnosed for years – they’ve been told they have asthma, but they don’t,” says Dr. Bensoussan. AI analysis of these sounds could help doctors more quickly identify respiratory disorders.
 

Pediatric voice and speech disorders (speech and language delays, autism)

Babies who later have autism cry differently as early as 6 months of age, which means an app like ChatterBaby could help flag children for early intervention, says Dr. Anderson. Autism is linked to several other diagnoses, such as epilepsy and sleep disorders. So analyzing an infant’s cry could prompt pediatricians to screen for a range of conditions.

ChatterBaby has been “incredibly accurate” in identifying when babies are in pain, says Dr. Anderson, because pain increases muscle tension, resulting in a louder, more energetic cry. The next goal: “We’re collecting voices from babies around the world,” she says, and then tracking those children for 7 years, looking to see if early vocal signs could predict developmental disorders. Vocal samples from young children could serve a similar purpose.
 

And that’s only the beginning

Eventually, AI technology may pick up disease-related voice changes that we can’t even hear. In a new Mayo Clinic study, certain vocal features detectable by AI – but not by the human ear – were linked to a three-fold increase in the likelihood of having plaque buildup in the arteries.

“Voice is a huge spectrum of vibrations,” explains study author Amir Lerman, MD. “We hear a very narrow range.” 

The researchers aren’t sure why heart disease alters voice, but the autonomic nervous system may play a role, because it regulates the voice box as well as blood pressure and heart rate. Dr. Lerman says other conditions, like diseases of the nerves and gut, may similarly alter the voice. Beyond patient screening, this discovery could help doctors adjust medication doses remotely, in line with these inaudible vocal signals.

“Hopefully, in the next few years, this is going to come to practice,” says Dr. Lerman.

Still, in the face of that hope, privacy concerns remain. Voice is an identifier that’s protected by the federal Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, which requires privacy of personal health information. That is a major reason why no large voice databases exist yet, says Dr. Bensoussan. (This makes collecting samples from children especially challenging.) Perhaps more concerning is the potential for diagnosing disease based on voice alone. “You could use that tool on anyone, including officials like the president,” says Dr. Rameau.

But the primary hurdle is the ethical sourcing of data to ensure a diversity of vocal samples. For the Voice as a Biomarker project, the researchers will establish voice quotas for different races and ethnicities, ensuring algorithms can accurately analyze a range of accents. Data from people with speech impediments will also be gathered.

Despite these challenges, researchers are optimistic. “Vocal analysis is going to be a great equalizer and improve health outcomes,” predicts Dr. Anderson. “I’m really happy that we are beginning to understand the strength of the voice.”

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

Most of us have two voice changes in our lifetime: First during puberty, as the vocal cords thicken and the voice box migrates down the throat. Then a second time as aging causes structural changes that may weaken the voice.

But for some of us, there’s another voice shift, when a disease begins or when our mental health declines.

This is why more doctors are looking into voice as a biomarker – something that tells you that a disease is present.

Vital signs like blood pressure or heart rate “can give a general idea of how sick we are. But they’re not specific to certain diseases,” says Yael Bensoussan, MD, director of the University of South Florida, Tampa’s Health Voice Center and the coprincipal investigator for the National Institutes of Health’s Voice as a Biomarker of Health project.

“We’re learning that there are patterns” in voice changes that can indicate a range of conditions, including diseases of the nervous system and mental illnesses, she says.

Speaking is complicated, involving everything from the lungs and voice box to the mouth and brain. “A breakdown in any of those parts can affect the voice,” says Maria Powell, PhD, an assistant professor of otolaryngology (the study of diseases of the ear and throat) at Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn., who is working on the NIH project.

You or those around you may not notice the changes. But researchers say voice analysis as a standard part of patient care – akin to blood pressure checks or cholesterol tests – could help identify those who need medical attention earlier.

Often, all it takes is a smartphone – “something that’s cheap, off-the-shelf, and that everyone can use,” says Ariana Anderson, PhD, director of the University of California, Los Angeles, Laboratory of Computational Neuropsychology.

“You can provide voice data in your pajamas, on your couch,” says Frank Rudzicz, PhD, a computer scientist for the NIH project. “It doesn’t require very complicated or expensive equipment, and it doesn’t require a lot of expertise to obtain.” Plus, multiple samples can be collected over time, giving a more accurate picture of health than a single snapshot from, say, a cognitive test.

Over the next 4 years, the Voice as a Biomarker team will receive nearly $18 million to gather a massive amount of voice data. The goal is 20,000-30,000 samples, along with health data about each person being studied. The result will be a sprawling database scientists can use to develop algorithms linking health conditions to the way we speak.

For the first 2 years, new data will be collected exclusively via universities and high-volume clinics to control quality and accuracy. Eventually, people will be invited to submit their own voice recordings, creating a crowdsourced dataset. “Google, Alexa, Amazon – they have access to tons of voice data,” says Dr. Bensoussan. “But it’s not usable in a clinical way, because they don’t have the health information.”

Dr. Bensoussan and her colleagues hope to fill that void with advance voice screening apps, which could prove especially valuable in remote communities that lack access to specialists or as a tool for telemedicine. Down the line, wearable devices with voice analysis could alert people with chronic conditions when they need to see a doctor.

“The watch says, ‘I’ve analyzed your breathing and coughing, and today, you’re really not doing well. You should go to the hospital,’ ” says Dr. Bensoussan, envisioning a wearable for patients with COPD. “It could tell people early that things are declining.”

Artificial intelligence may be better than a brain at pinpointing the right disease. For example, slurred speech could indicate Parkinson’s, a stroke, or ALS, among other things.

“We can hold approximately seven pieces of information in our head at one time,” says Dr. Rudzicz. “It’s really hard for us to get a holistic picture using dozens or hundreds of variables at once.” But a computer can consider a whole range of vocal markers at the same time, piecing them together for a more accurate assessment.

“The goal is not to outperform a ... clinician,” says Dr. Bensoussan. Yet the potential is unmistakably there: In a recent study of patients with cancer of the larynx, an automated voice analysis tool more accurately flagged the disease than laryngologists did. 

“Algorithms have a larger training base,” says Dr. Anderson, who developed an app called ChatterBaby that analyzes infant cries. “We have a million samples at our disposal to train our algorithms. I don’t know if I’ve heard a million different babies crying in my life.”

So which health conditions show the most promise for voice analysis? The Voice as a Biomarker project will focus on five categories.
 

Voice disorders (cancers of the larynx, vocal fold paralysis, benign lesions on the larynx)

Obviously, vocal changes are a hallmark of these conditions, which cause things like breathiness or “roughness,” a type of vocal irregularity. Hoarseness that lasts at least 2 weeks is often one of the earliest signs of laryngeal cancer. Yet it can take months – one study found 16 weeks was the average – for patients to see a doctor after noticing the changes. Even then, laryngologists still misdiagnosed some cases of cancer when relying on vocal cues alone.

Now imagine a different scenario: The patient speaks into a smartphone app. An algorithm compares the vocal sample with the voices of laryngeal cancer patients. The app spits out the estimated odds of laryngeal cancer, helping providers decide whether to offer the patient specialist care.

Or consider spasmodic dysphonia, a neurological voice disorder that triggers spasms in the muscles of the voice box, causing a strained or breathy voice. Doctors who lack experience with vocal disorders may miss the condition. This is why diagnosis takes an average of nearly 4.5 years, according to a study in the Journal of Voice, and may include everything from allergy testing to psychiatric evaluation, says Dr. Powell. Artificial intelligence technology trained to recognize the disorder could help eliminate such unnecessary testing.
 

Neurological and neurodegenerative disorders (Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s, stroke, ALS) 

For Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s, “one of the first changes that’s notable is voice,” usually appearing before a formal diagnosis, says Anais Rameau, MD, an assistant professor of laryngology at Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, and another member of the NIH project. Parkinson’s may soften the voice or make it sound monotone, while Alzheimer’s disease may change the content of speech, leading to an uptick in “umms” and a preference for pronouns over nouns.

With Parkinson’s, vocal changes can occur decades before movement is affected. If doctors could detect the disease at this stage, before tremor emerged, they might be able to flag patients for early intervention, says Max Little, PhD, project director for the Parkinson’s Voice Initiative. “That is the ‘holy grail’ for finding an eventual cure.”

Again, the smartphone shows potential. In a 2022 Australian study, an AI-powered app was able to identify people with Parkinson’s based on brief voice recordings, although the sample size was small. On a larger scale, the Parkinson’s Voice Initiative collected some 17,000 samples from people across the world. “The aim was to remotely detect those with the condition using a telephone call,” says Dr. Little. It did so with about 65% accuracy. “While this is not accurate enough for clinical use, it shows the potential of the idea,” he says.

Dr. Rudzicz worked on the team behind Winterlight, an iPad app that analyzes 550 features of speech to detect dementia and Alzheimer’s (as well as mental illness). “We deployed it in long-term care facilities,” he says, identifying patients who need further review of their mental skills. Stroke is another area of interest, because slurred speech is a highly subjective measure, says Dr. Anderson. AI technology could provide a more objective evaluation.
 

Mood and psychiatric disorders (depression, schizophrenia, bipolar disorders)

No established biomarkers exist for diagnosing depression. Yet if you’re feeling down, there’s a good chance your friends can tell – even over the phone.

“We carry a lot of our mood in our voice,” says Dr. Powell. Bipolar disorder can also alter voice, making it louder and faster during manic periods, then slower and quieter during depressive bouts. The catatonic stage of schizophrenia often comes with “a very monotone, robotic voice,” says Dr. Anderson. “These are all something an algorithm can measure.”

Apps are already being used – often in research settings – to monitor voices during phone calls, analyzing rate, rhythm, volume, and pitch, to predict mood changes. For example, the PRIORI project at the University of Michigan is working on a smartphone app to identify mood changes in people with bipolar disorder, especially shifts that could increase suicide risk.

The content of speech may also offer clues. In a University of California, Los Angeles, study published in the journal PLoS One, people with mental illnesses answered computer-programmed questions (like “How have you been over the past few days?”) over the phone. An app analyzed their word choices, paying attention to how they changed over time. The researchers found that AI analysis of mood aligned well with doctors’ assessments and that some people in the study actually felt more comfortable talking to a computer.
 

Respiratory disorders (pneumonia, COPD)

Beyond talking, respiratory sounds like gasping or coughing may point to specific conditions. “Emphysema cough is different, COPD cough is different,” says Dr. Bensoussan. Researchers are trying to find out if COVID-19 has a distinct cough.

Breathing sounds can also serve as signposts. “There are different sounds when we can’t breathe,” says Dr. Bensoussan. One is called stridor, a high-pitched wheezing often resulting from a blocked airway. “I see tons of people [with stridor] misdiagnosed for years – they’ve been told they have asthma, but they don’t,” says Dr. Bensoussan. AI analysis of these sounds could help doctors more quickly identify respiratory disorders.
 

Pediatric voice and speech disorders (speech and language delays, autism)

Babies who later have autism cry differently as early as 6 months of age, which means an app like ChatterBaby could help flag children for early intervention, says Dr. Anderson. Autism is linked to several other diagnoses, such as epilepsy and sleep disorders. So analyzing an infant’s cry could prompt pediatricians to screen for a range of conditions.

ChatterBaby has been “incredibly accurate” in identifying when babies are in pain, says Dr. Anderson, because pain increases muscle tension, resulting in a louder, more energetic cry. The next goal: “We’re collecting voices from babies around the world,” she says, and then tracking those children for 7 years, looking to see if early vocal signs could predict developmental disorders. Vocal samples from young children could serve a similar purpose.
 

And that’s only the beginning

Eventually, AI technology may pick up disease-related voice changes that we can’t even hear. In a new Mayo Clinic study, certain vocal features detectable by AI – but not by the human ear – were linked to a three-fold increase in the likelihood of having plaque buildup in the arteries.

“Voice is a huge spectrum of vibrations,” explains study author Amir Lerman, MD. “We hear a very narrow range.” 

The researchers aren’t sure why heart disease alters voice, but the autonomic nervous system may play a role, because it regulates the voice box as well as blood pressure and heart rate. Dr. Lerman says other conditions, like diseases of the nerves and gut, may similarly alter the voice. Beyond patient screening, this discovery could help doctors adjust medication doses remotely, in line with these inaudible vocal signals.

“Hopefully, in the next few years, this is going to come to practice,” says Dr. Lerman.

Still, in the face of that hope, privacy concerns remain. Voice is an identifier that’s protected by the federal Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, which requires privacy of personal health information. That is a major reason why no large voice databases exist yet, says Dr. Bensoussan. (This makes collecting samples from children especially challenging.) Perhaps more concerning is the potential for diagnosing disease based on voice alone. “You could use that tool on anyone, including officials like the president,” says Dr. Rameau.

But the primary hurdle is the ethical sourcing of data to ensure a diversity of vocal samples. For the Voice as a Biomarker project, the researchers will establish voice quotas for different races and ethnicities, ensuring algorithms can accurately analyze a range of accents. Data from people with speech impediments will also be gathered.

Despite these challenges, researchers are optimistic. “Vocal analysis is going to be a great equalizer and improve health outcomes,” predicts Dr. Anderson. “I’m really happy that we are beginning to understand the strength of the voice.”

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

Women who develop transient hypertensive disorders during their pregnancy are at risk for developing subsequent cardiovascular disease (CVD), particularly if this experienced at the same time as gestational diabetes.

In a large population-based study, the adjusted hazard ratios for developing CVD following a gestational hypertensive disorder (GHTD) alone were 1.90 (95% confidence interval, 1.151-2.25) within 5 years and 1.41 (95% CI, 1.12-1.76) after 5 years or more.

Vesnaandjic/E+/Getty Images

When gestational diabetes was added into the mix, however, the risk for CVD after 5 years more than doubled (aHR, 2.43; 95% CI, 1.60-3.67). Risk in the earlier postpartum period was also raised by the combination, but this was not significant (aHR, 1.42; 95% CI, 0.78-2.58).

Having gestational diabetes by itself did not seem to increase the risk for later CVD in the analysis, despite being linked to higher heart disease risk in other studies.

“These are women coming out of a pregnancy – young women of reproductive age – so this is not a group that typically has cardiovascular events,” said Ravi Retnakaran, MD, in an interview, an investigator in the new study, which is published in JAMA Network Open.

“If they are somebody who has both disorders concurrently in their pregnancy, they may be at even greater risk than a woman with one or the other disorder,” added Dr. Retnakaran, who is professor of medicine at the University of Toronto and an endocrinologist at the Leadership Sinai Centre for Diabetes, Mount Sinai Hospital, also in Toronto. “In other words, amongst already high-risk patients. This is identifying a subset at maybe an even higher risk.”

It doesn’t mean that there is a huge absolute risk, Dr. Retnakaran said, but it is showing that there is a heightened risk such that women and their clinicians need to be aware of and potentially the need for greater preventative care in the future.

“It is allowing you to identify future lifetime risk of cardiovascular disease,” he said.
 

Study rationale and design

GHTD is “a forerunner of hypertension,” and gestational diabetes is “a precursor of diabetes” – each associated with a high risk of developing CVD in the years after pregnancy, the investigators said. While studies have looked at their individual contributions to future CVD risk, not many had looked to see what risks having both may confer in the postpregnancy years.

For the analysis, data on 886,295 women with GHTD (43,861), gestational diabetes (54,061), both (4,975), or neither (783,398) were obtained from several Canadian administrative health databases.

The mean age was around 30 years across the groups, with those with both conditions or gestational diabetes alone more likely to be older than those with GTHD alone or neither condition (32 vs. 29 years, respectively, P < .001).

After a total follow-up period of 12 years, 1,999 CVD events were recorded, most of them (1,162) 5 years after the pregnancy.
 

Pregnancy is a stress test for the heart

“We know that what we call adverse pregnancy outcomes – things like gestational hypertension, and gestational diabetes, and preeclampsia – are on the rise globally,” Natalie A. Bello, MD, director of hypertension research at the Smidt Heart Institute, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, commented in an interview.

Women who develop transient hypertensive disorders during their pregnancy are at risk for developing subsequent cardiovascular disease (CVD), particularly if this experienced at the same time as gestational diabetes.

In a large population-based study, the adjusted hazard ratios for developing CVD following a gestational hypertensive disorder (GHTD) alone were 1.90 (95% confidence interval, 1.151-2.25) within 5 years and 1.41 (95% CI, 1.12-1.76) after 5 years or more.

Vesnaandjic/E+/Getty Images

When gestational diabetes was added into the mix, however, the risk for CVD after 5 years more than doubled (aHR, 2.43; 95% CI, 1.60-3.67). Risk in the earlier postpartum period was also raised by the combination, but this was not significant (aHR, 1.42; 95% CI, 0.78-2.58).

Having gestational diabetes by itself did not seem to increase the risk for later CVD in the analysis, despite being linked to higher heart disease risk in other studies.

“These are women coming out of a pregnancy – young women of reproductive age – so this is not a group that typically has cardiovascular events,” said Ravi Retnakaran, MD, in an interview, an investigator in the new study, which is published in JAMA Network Open.

“If they are somebody who has both disorders concurrently in their pregnancy, they may be at even greater risk than a woman with one or the other disorder,” added Dr. Retnakaran, who is professor of medicine at the University of Toronto and an endocrinologist at the Leadership Sinai Centre for Diabetes, Mount Sinai Hospital, also in Toronto. “In other words, amongst already high-risk patients. This is identifying a subset at maybe an even higher risk.”

It doesn’t mean that there is a huge absolute risk, Dr. Retnakaran said, but it is showing that there is a heightened risk such that women and their clinicians need to be aware of and potentially the need for greater preventative care in the future.

“It is allowing you to identify future lifetime risk of cardiovascular disease,” he said.
 

Study rationale and design

GHTD is “a forerunner of hypertension,” and gestational diabetes is “a precursor of diabetes” – each associated with a high risk of developing CVD in the years after pregnancy, the investigators said. While studies have looked at their individual contributions to future CVD risk, not many had looked to see what risks having both may confer in the postpregnancy years.

For the analysis, data on 886,295 women with GHTD (43,861), gestational diabetes (54,061), both (4,975), or neither (783,398) were obtained from several Canadian administrative health databases.

The mean age was around 30 years across the groups, with those with both conditions or gestational diabetes alone more likely to be older than those with GTHD alone or neither condition (32 vs. 29 years, respectively, P < .001).

After a total follow-up period of 12 years, 1,999 CVD events were recorded, most of them (1,162) 5 years after the pregnancy.
 

Pregnancy is a stress test for the heart

“We know that what we call adverse pregnancy outcomes – things like gestational hypertension, and gestational diabetes, and preeclampsia – are on the rise globally,” Natalie A. Bello, MD, director of hypertension research at the Smidt Heart Institute, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, commented in an interview.

Women who develop transient hypertensive disorders during their pregnancy are at risk for developing subsequent cardiovascular disease (CVD), particularly if this experienced at the same time as gestational diabetes.

In a large population-based study, the adjusted hazard ratios for developing CVD following a gestational hypertensive disorder (GHTD) alone were 1.90 (95% confidence interval, 1.151-2.25) within 5 years and 1.41 (95% CI, 1.12-1.76) after 5 years or more.

Vesnaandjic/E+/Getty Images

When gestational diabetes was added into the mix, however, the risk for CVD after 5 years more than doubled (aHR, 2.43; 95% CI, 1.60-3.67). Risk in the earlier postpartum period was also raised by the combination, but this was not significant (aHR, 1.42; 95% CI, 0.78-2.58).

Having gestational diabetes by itself did not seem to increase the risk for later CVD in the analysis, despite being linked to higher heart disease risk in other studies.

“These are women coming out of a pregnancy – young women of reproductive age – so this is not a group that typically has cardiovascular events,” said Ravi Retnakaran, MD, in an interview, an investigator in the new study, which is published in JAMA Network Open.

“If they are somebody who has both disorders concurrently in their pregnancy, they may be at even greater risk than a woman with one or the other disorder,” added Dr. Retnakaran, who is professor of medicine at the University of Toronto and an endocrinologist at the Leadership Sinai Centre for Diabetes, Mount Sinai Hospital, also in Toronto. “In other words, amongst already high-risk patients. This is identifying a subset at maybe an even higher risk.”

It doesn’t mean that there is a huge absolute risk, Dr. Retnakaran said, but it is showing that there is a heightened risk such that women and their clinicians need to be aware of and potentially the need for greater preventative care in the future.

“It is allowing you to identify future lifetime risk of cardiovascular disease,” he said.
 

Study rationale and design

GHTD is “a forerunner of hypertension,” and gestational diabetes is “a precursor of diabetes” – each associated with a high risk of developing CVD in the years after pregnancy, the investigators said. While studies have looked at their individual contributions to future CVD risk, not many had looked to see what risks having both may confer in the postpregnancy years.

For the analysis, data on 886,295 women with GHTD (43,861), gestational diabetes (54,061), both (4,975), or neither (783,398) were obtained from several Canadian administrative health databases.

The mean age was around 30 years across the groups, with those with both conditions or gestational diabetes alone more likely to be older than those with GTHD alone or neither condition (32 vs. 29 years, respectively, P < .001).

After a total follow-up period of 12 years, 1,999 CVD events were recorded, most of them (1,162) 5 years after the pregnancy.
 

Pregnancy is a stress test for the heart

“We know that what we call adverse pregnancy outcomes – things like gestational hypertension, and gestational diabetes, and preeclampsia – are on the rise globally,” Natalie A. Bello, MD, director of hypertension research at the Smidt Heart Institute, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, commented in an interview.

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Recently, there have been a series of published studies in the realm of cardiovascular disease that have changed certain beliefs we’ve held in the past. I’m going to review a few of these.

The first is the TIME study. The TIME study looked at whether it matters if you give antihypertensive agents in the morning or the evening. This was a prospective, pragmatic, parallel-group study that was performed in the U.K. and published in The Lancet.

Their question was whether evening dosing of antihypertensives has benefit in cardiovascular outcomes in adults. They enrolled over 21,000 people with hypertension who were taking at least one antihypertensive medication. Patients were randomized to morning or evening dosing.

The primary outcome was death or hospitalization due to myocardial infarction or stroke. There was no difference. It doesn’t matter if you take your antihypertensive agent in the morning or the evening. I think this is important because, clinically, the simpler the regimen for the patient, the greater the adherence, leading to better outcomes.

I know I can safely ask a patient when they would rather take their medicine. For many people, that may be the morning because they’re brushing their teeth and they remember. If they want to take it in the evening, that’s fine, too. We’re no longer slave to telling a patient to take their antihypertensive medications in the evening.

At the meeting of the American Society of Nephrology, results from a study on the use of renin-angiotensin system (RAS) inhibitors in advanced CKD was presented, called the STOP ACEi trial. Again, another interesting trial asking a simple question. This was a randomized controlled trial (RCT) in patients who had an estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) less than 30, and they were randomized to stop or continue therapy with their RAS inhibitors.

The primary outcome was the eGFR at 3 years. They enrolled 411 patients with a median baseline eGFR of 18. At 3 years, there was no difference in the eGFR between the groups. In the discontinuation group, the eGFR was 12.6 versus 13.3 in the continuation group. There were no differences in complications or anything else. Their conclusion was that among patients with advanced and progressive CKD, the discontinuation of a RAS inhibitor was not associated with a significant difference in the long-term rate of decrease in eGFR.

I think this is important because it changes our paradigm a bit. You can stop the RAS inhibitor; reduce the need for excessive medication in these patients; and, hopefully, focus on some newer medications that have been shown to prevent the decline in eGFR that are now available.

Next is from a letter published in JAMA, which asks the following question: Is diabetes itself an equivalent cardiovascular risk factor to those who have had a prior cardiovascular event?

We used to put having diabetes in that same high-risk category as people who’d already had a cardiovascular disease event. Well, have we made that any different? These authors are from Canada, and they did a retrospective population-based study looking at administrative health claims from Ontario, Canada, to assess the association of diabetes and prior cardiovascular disease with cardiovascular events from 1994 to 2014.

What I think is kind of cool, because I’m a diabetologist, is that over time the magnitude of the association between diabetes and cardiovascular event rates decreased. In somebody with diabetes, they don’t have the same high risk that a person who’s already had a cardiovascular event rate does. Diabetes is less of a risk factor for cardiovascular disease than having established cardiovascular disease, which means we’re treating diabetes better and reducing the risk for cardiovascular disease.

If you look at people with diabetes and a prior cardiovascular event, that’s still the very highest risk. The risk of people having another event who have established cardiovascular disease is pretty flat. Those people didn’t get better and the people with preexisting diabetes and cardiovascular events at baseline didn’t get much better, but those who had diabetes alone did improve in terms of looking at cardiovascular event rates.

I think this is good news because diabetes itself isn’t as high a cardiovascular risk factor as we once thought. It doesn’t mean that it isn’t a cardiovascular risk factor, but I think we’ve done better at mitigating the risk.

Finally, there is a relatively small study that was presented at the American Heart Association and published in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology, which asks whether supplements that are often used to lower LDL cholesterol are equivalent to a statin.

They compared six supplements with a placebo and with rosuvastatin, and looked to see what happened. This is not an outcome study, but a very short study, at 28 days, that used a placebo. They included 190 people with no history of cardiovascular disease but an increased 10-year risk for sclerotic cardiovascular disease.

The agents studied were rosuvastatin, placebo, fish oil, cinnamon, garlic, turmeric, plant sterols, and red yeast rice. Well, not surprisingly, rosuvastatin worked. It showed a 35% reduction in LDL cholesterol, and there was no significant impact on cholesterol levels with any of the other agents. The supplements yielded a similar response, as did the placebo. Side effects were similar, but they were most common with plant sterols and red yeast rice.

Clearly, a statin is better if you want to lower cholesterol levels. My approach, when patients want to take supplements, is to tell them what I know factually, which basically is that they don’t really cause much in the way of LDL cholesterol lowering. If I think the supplement isn’t going to hurt someone, I don’t tell them not to use it. I certainly tell them that they need to use agents that we know can actually reduce cardiovascular risk.

I think these studies really go through the gamut of asking questions. When can we stop an agent? What time of day do we need to give an agent? What, really, is the risk for type 2 diabetes with regard to cardiovascular events? What’s the value of supplements?

I think this is interesting, because I really encourage researchers to ask and answer these kinds of questions because it helps us clinically decide what’s best for treating our patients.

Thank you.

Dr. Peters is a professor of medicine at the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, and director of the USC clinical diabetes programs. She reported conflicts of interest with numerous pharmaceutical companies.

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

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Recently, there have been a series of published studies in the realm of cardiovascular disease that have changed certain beliefs we’ve held in the past. I’m going to review a few of these.

The first is the TIME study. The TIME study looked at whether it matters if you give antihypertensive agents in the morning or the evening. This was a prospective, pragmatic, parallel-group study that was performed in the U.K. and published in The Lancet.

Their question was whether evening dosing of antihypertensives has benefit in cardiovascular outcomes in adults. They enrolled over 21,000 people with hypertension who were taking at least one antihypertensive medication. Patients were randomized to morning or evening dosing.

The primary outcome was death or hospitalization due to myocardial infarction or stroke. There was no difference. It doesn’t matter if you take your antihypertensive agent in the morning or the evening. I think this is important because, clinically, the simpler the regimen for the patient, the greater the adherence, leading to better outcomes.

I know I can safely ask a patient when they would rather take their medicine. For many people, that may be the morning because they’re brushing their teeth and they remember. If they want to take it in the evening, that’s fine, too. We’re no longer slave to telling a patient to take their antihypertensive medications in the evening.

At the meeting of the American Society of Nephrology, results from a study on the use of renin-angiotensin system (RAS) inhibitors in advanced CKD was presented, called the STOP ACEi trial. Again, another interesting trial asking a simple question. This was a randomized controlled trial (RCT) in patients who had an estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) less than 30, and they were randomized to stop or continue therapy with their RAS inhibitors.

The primary outcome was the eGFR at 3 years. They enrolled 411 patients with a median baseline eGFR of 18. At 3 years, there was no difference in the eGFR between the groups. In the discontinuation group, the eGFR was 12.6 versus 13.3 in the continuation group. There were no differences in complications or anything else. Their conclusion was that among patients with advanced and progressive CKD, the discontinuation of a RAS inhibitor was not associated with a significant difference in the long-term rate of decrease in eGFR.

I think this is important because it changes our paradigm a bit. You can stop the RAS inhibitor; reduce the need for excessive medication in these patients; and, hopefully, focus on some newer medications that have been shown to prevent the decline in eGFR that are now available.

Next is from a letter published in JAMA, which asks the following question: Is diabetes itself an equivalent cardiovascular risk factor to those who have had a prior cardiovascular event?

We used to put having diabetes in that same high-risk category as people who’d already had a cardiovascular disease event. Well, have we made that any different? These authors are from Canada, and they did a retrospective population-based study looking at administrative health claims from Ontario, Canada, to assess the association of diabetes and prior cardiovascular disease with cardiovascular events from 1994 to 2014.

What I think is kind of cool, because I’m a diabetologist, is that over time the magnitude of the association between diabetes and cardiovascular event rates decreased. In somebody with diabetes, they don’t have the same high risk that a person who’s already had a cardiovascular event rate does. Diabetes is less of a risk factor for cardiovascular disease than having established cardiovascular disease, which means we’re treating diabetes better and reducing the risk for cardiovascular disease.

If you look at people with diabetes and a prior cardiovascular event, that’s still the very highest risk. The risk of people having another event who have established cardiovascular disease is pretty flat. Those people didn’t get better and the people with preexisting diabetes and cardiovascular events at baseline didn’t get much better, but those who had diabetes alone did improve in terms of looking at cardiovascular event rates.

I think this is good news because diabetes itself isn’t as high a cardiovascular risk factor as we once thought. It doesn’t mean that it isn’t a cardiovascular risk factor, but I think we’ve done better at mitigating the risk.

Finally, there is a relatively small study that was presented at the American Heart Association and published in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology, which asks whether supplements that are often used to lower LDL cholesterol are equivalent to a statin.

They compared six supplements with a placebo and with rosuvastatin, and looked to see what happened. This is not an outcome study, but a very short study, at 28 days, that used a placebo. They included 190 people with no history of cardiovascular disease but an increased 10-year risk for sclerotic cardiovascular disease.

The agents studied were rosuvastatin, placebo, fish oil, cinnamon, garlic, turmeric, plant sterols, and red yeast rice. Well, not surprisingly, rosuvastatin worked. It showed a 35% reduction in LDL cholesterol, and there was no significant impact on cholesterol levels with any of the other agents. The supplements yielded a similar response, as did the placebo. Side effects were similar, but they were most common with plant sterols and red yeast rice.

Clearly, a statin is better if you want to lower cholesterol levels. My approach, when patients want to take supplements, is to tell them what I know factually, which basically is that they don’t really cause much in the way of LDL cholesterol lowering. If I think the supplement isn’t going to hurt someone, I don’t tell them not to use it. I certainly tell them that they need to use agents that we know can actually reduce cardiovascular risk.

I think these studies really go through the gamut of asking questions. When can we stop an agent? What time of day do we need to give an agent? What, really, is the risk for type 2 diabetes with regard to cardiovascular events? What’s the value of supplements?

I think this is interesting, because I really encourage researchers to ask and answer these kinds of questions because it helps us clinically decide what’s best for treating our patients.

Thank you.

Dr. Peters is a professor of medicine at the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, and director of the USC clinical diabetes programs. She reported conflicts of interest with numerous pharmaceutical companies.

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

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Recently, there have been a series of published studies in the realm of cardiovascular disease that have changed certain beliefs we’ve held in the past. I’m going to review a few of these.

The first is the TIME study. The TIME study looked at whether it matters if you give antihypertensive agents in the morning or the evening. This was a prospective, pragmatic, parallel-group study that was performed in the U.K. and published in The Lancet.

Their question was whether evening dosing of antihypertensives has benefit in cardiovascular outcomes in adults. They enrolled over 21,000 people with hypertension who were taking at least one antihypertensive medication. Patients were randomized to morning or evening dosing.

The primary outcome was death or hospitalization due to myocardial infarction or stroke. There was no difference. It doesn’t matter if you take your antihypertensive agent in the morning or the evening. I think this is important because, clinically, the simpler the regimen for the patient, the greater the adherence, leading to better outcomes.

I know I can safely ask a patient when they would rather take their medicine. For many people, that may be the morning because they’re brushing their teeth and they remember. If they want to take it in the evening, that’s fine, too. We’re no longer slave to telling a patient to take their antihypertensive medications in the evening.

At the meeting of the American Society of Nephrology, results from a study on the use of renin-angiotensin system (RAS) inhibitors in advanced CKD was presented, called the STOP ACEi trial. Again, another interesting trial asking a simple question. This was a randomized controlled trial (RCT) in patients who had an estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) less than 30, and they were randomized to stop or continue therapy with their RAS inhibitors.

The primary outcome was the eGFR at 3 years. They enrolled 411 patients with a median baseline eGFR of 18. At 3 years, there was no difference in the eGFR between the groups. In the discontinuation group, the eGFR was 12.6 versus 13.3 in the continuation group. There were no differences in complications or anything else. Their conclusion was that among patients with advanced and progressive CKD, the discontinuation of a RAS inhibitor was not associated with a significant difference in the long-term rate of decrease in eGFR.

I think this is important because it changes our paradigm a bit. You can stop the RAS inhibitor; reduce the need for excessive medication in these patients; and, hopefully, focus on some newer medications that have been shown to prevent the decline in eGFR that are now available.

Next is from a letter published in JAMA, which asks the following question: Is diabetes itself an equivalent cardiovascular risk factor to those who have had a prior cardiovascular event?

We used to put having diabetes in that same high-risk category as people who’d already had a cardiovascular disease event. Well, have we made that any different? These authors are from Canada, and they did a retrospective population-based study looking at administrative health claims from Ontario, Canada, to assess the association of diabetes and prior cardiovascular disease with cardiovascular events from 1994 to 2014.

What I think is kind of cool, because I’m a diabetologist, is that over time the magnitude of the association between diabetes and cardiovascular event rates decreased. In somebody with diabetes, they don’t have the same high risk that a person who’s already had a cardiovascular event rate does. Diabetes is less of a risk factor for cardiovascular disease than having established cardiovascular disease, which means we’re treating diabetes better and reducing the risk for cardiovascular disease.

If you look at people with diabetes and a prior cardiovascular event, that’s still the very highest risk. The risk of people having another event who have established cardiovascular disease is pretty flat. Those people didn’t get better and the people with preexisting diabetes and cardiovascular events at baseline didn’t get much better, but those who had diabetes alone did improve in terms of looking at cardiovascular event rates.

I think this is good news because diabetes itself isn’t as high a cardiovascular risk factor as we once thought. It doesn’t mean that it isn’t a cardiovascular risk factor, but I think we’ve done better at mitigating the risk.

Finally, there is a relatively small study that was presented at the American Heart Association and published in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology, which asks whether supplements that are often used to lower LDL cholesterol are equivalent to a statin.

They compared six supplements with a placebo and with rosuvastatin, and looked to see what happened. This is not an outcome study, but a very short study, at 28 days, that used a placebo. They included 190 people with no history of cardiovascular disease but an increased 10-year risk for sclerotic cardiovascular disease.

The agents studied were rosuvastatin, placebo, fish oil, cinnamon, garlic, turmeric, plant sterols, and red yeast rice. Well, not surprisingly, rosuvastatin worked. It showed a 35% reduction in LDL cholesterol, and there was no significant impact on cholesterol levels with any of the other agents. The supplements yielded a similar response, as did the placebo. Side effects were similar, but they were most common with plant sterols and red yeast rice.

Clearly, a statin is better if you want to lower cholesterol levels. My approach, when patients want to take supplements, is to tell them what I know factually, which basically is that they don’t really cause much in the way of LDL cholesterol lowering. If I think the supplement isn’t going to hurt someone, I don’t tell them not to use it. I certainly tell them that they need to use agents that we know can actually reduce cardiovascular risk.

I think these studies really go through the gamut of asking questions. When can we stop an agent? What time of day do we need to give an agent? What, really, is the risk for type 2 diabetes with regard to cardiovascular events? What’s the value of supplements?

I think this is interesting, because I really encourage researchers to ask and answer these kinds of questions because it helps us clinically decide what’s best for treating our patients.

Thank you.

Dr. Peters is a professor of medicine at the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, and director of the USC clinical diabetes programs. She reported conflicts of interest with numerous pharmaceutical companies.

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