User login
Is outpatient care as safe as inpatient for TIA, minor stroke?
In a meta-analysis of more than 200,000 patients with TIA or mIS, risk for subsequent stroke within 90 days was 2.1% for those treated in a TIA clinic versus 2.8% for patients treated in inpatient settings, which was not significantly different. The risk for patients treated in an emergency department was higher, at 3.5%.
“The message is that if you do the correct risk stratification and then triage patients based on their risk profile, you can safely discharge and have a timely follow-up for the patients who have low risk for a subsequent event,” said coinvestigator Ramin Zand, MD, vascular neurologist and stroke attending physician at Geisinger Health System, Danville, Pennsylvania.
The findings were published online Jan. 5 in JAMA Network Open.
Higher risk in EDs
There is currently no consensus on the care protocol for patients with TIA or mIS, and the rate at which these patients are hospitalized varies by region, hospital, and practitioner, the investigators noted.
Previous studies have indicated that outpatient management of certain individuals with TIA can be safe and cost-effective.
The current researchers searched for retrospective and prospective studies of adult patients that provided information about ischemic stroke after TIA or mIS. Studies that used time- and tissue-based definitions of TIA were included, as well as studies that used various definitions of mIS.
The investigators examined care provided at TIA clinics, inpatient settings (such as medical-surgical units, stroke units, or observation units), EDs, and unspecified settings. Their main aim was to compare outcomes between TIA clinics and inpatient settings.
In all, 226,683 patients (recruited between 1981 and 2018) from 71 studies were included in the meta-analysis. The studies examined 101 cohorts, 24 of which were studied prospectively. Among the 5,636 patients who received care in TIA clinics, the mean age was 65.7 years, and 50.8% of this group were men. Among the 130,139 inpatients, the mean age was 78.3 years, and 61.6% of the group were women.
Results showed no significant difference in risk for subsequent stroke between patients treated in the inpatient and outpatient settings.
Among patients treated in a TIA clinic, risk for subsequent stroke following a TIA or mIS was 0.3% within 2 days, 1.0% within 7 days, 1.3% within 30 days, and 2.1% within 90 days. Among those treated as inpatients, risk for subsequent stroke was 0.5% within 2 days, 1.2% within 7 days, 1.6% within 30 days, and 2.8% within 90 days.
Risk for subsequent stroke was higher among patients treated in the ED and in unspecified settings. At the EDs, the risk was 1.9% within 2 days, 3.4% within 7 days, 3.5% within 30 days, and 3.5% within 90 days. Among those treated in unspecified settings, the risk was 2.2% within 2 days, 3.4% within 7 days, 4.2% within 30 days, and 6.0% within 90 days.
Patients treated in the ED also had a significantly higher risk for subsequent stroke at 2 and 7 days, compared with those treated in inpatient settings and a significantly higher risk for subsequent stroke at 2, 7, and 90 days, compared with those treated in TIA clinics.
‘Most comprehensive look’
“This is the most comprehensive look at all the studies to try and answer this research question,” said Dr. Zand. The results were similar to what was expected, he added.
The infrastructure and resources differed among the sites at which the various studies were conducted, and the investigators adjusted for these differences as much as possible, Dr. Zand noted. A certain amount of selection bias may remain, but it does not affect the overall conclusion, he added.
“Timely outpatient care among low-risk TIA patients is both feasible and safe,” he said.
Dr. Zand noted that the findings have implications not only for patient management but also for the management of the health system. “It’s not feasible nor desirable to admit all the TIA patients, especially with the lessons that we learned from COVID, the burden on the health systems, and the fact that many hospitals are operating at full capacity right now,” he said.
The recommendation is to hospitalize high-risk patients and provide outpatient evaluation and workup to low-risk patients, he added. “This is exactly what we saw in this study,” Dr. Zand said.
Selection bias?
Commenting on the research, Louis R. Caplan, MD, professor of neurology at Harvard Medical School, Boston, noted that evaluation of patients with TIA or mIS “can be done very well as an outpatient” if clinicians have experienced personnel, the outpatient facilities to do the studies necessary, and criteria in place for deciding who to admit or not admit.
However, the decision on whether to choose an inpatient or outpatient approach for a particular patient is complicated, said Dr. Caplan, who was not involved with the research.
Clinicians must consider factors such as whether the patient is mobile, has a car, or has a significant other. The patient’s symptoms and past illnesses also influence the decision, he added.
Dr. Caplan noted that in the meta-analysis, far fewer patients were seen in the TIA clinics than were seen in the inpatient setting. In addition, none of the studies used uniform criteria to determine which patients should undergo workup as outpatients and which as inpatients. “There was a lot of selection bias that may have had nothing to do with how sick the person was,” Dr. Caplan said.
In addition, few hospitals in the United States have an outpatient TIA clinic, he noted. Most of the studies of TIA clinics that the researchers examined were conducted in Europe. “It’s easier to do [that] in Europe because of their socialized medicine,” said Dr. Caplan.
But TIA clinics should be more widespread in the U.S., he added. “Insurance companies should be willing to pay for comparable facilities, inpatient and outpatient,” he said.
The study was conducted without external funding. Dr. Zand reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Caplan was an investigator for TIAregistry.org, which analyzed the outcomes of treatment in TIA clinics in Europe.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
In a meta-analysis of more than 200,000 patients with TIA or mIS, risk for subsequent stroke within 90 days was 2.1% for those treated in a TIA clinic versus 2.8% for patients treated in inpatient settings, which was not significantly different. The risk for patients treated in an emergency department was higher, at 3.5%.
“The message is that if you do the correct risk stratification and then triage patients based on their risk profile, you can safely discharge and have a timely follow-up for the patients who have low risk for a subsequent event,” said coinvestigator Ramin Zand, MD, vascular neurologist and stroke attending physician at Geisinger Health System, Danville, Pennsylvania.
The findings were published online Jan. 5 in JAMA Network Open.
Higher risk in EDs
There is currently no consensus on the care protocol for patients with TIA or mIS, and the rate at which these patients are hospitalized varies by region, hospital, and practitioner, the investigators noted.
Previous studies have indicated that outpatient management of certain individuals with TIA can be safe and cost-effective.
The current researchers searched for retrospective and prospective studies of adult patients that provided information about ischemic stroke after TIA or mIS. Studies that used time- and tissue-based definitions of TIA were included, as well as studies that used various definitions of mIS.
The investigators examined care provided at TIA clinics, inpatient settings (such as medical-surgical units, stroke units, or observation units), EDs, and unspecified settings. Their main aim was to compare outcomes between TIA clinics and inpatient settings.
In all, 226,683 patients (recruited between 1981 and 2018) from 71 studies were included in the meta-analysis. The studies examined 101 cohorts, 24 of which were studied prospectively. Among the 5,636 patients who received care in TIA clinics, the mean age was 65.7 years, and 50.8% of this group were men. Among the 130,139 inpatients, the mean age was 78.3 years, and 61.6% of the group were women.
Results showed no significant difference in risk for subsequent stroke between patients treated in the inpatient and outpatient settings.
Among patients treated in a TIA clinic, risk for subsequent stroke following a TIA or mIS was 0.3% within 2 days, 1.0% within 7 days, 1.3% within 30 days, and 2.1% within 90 days. Among those treated as inpatients, risk for subsequent stroke was 0.5% within 2 days, 1.2% within 7 days, 1.6% within 30 days, and 2.8% within 90 days.
Risk for subsequent stroke was higher among patients treated in the ED and in unspecified settings. At the EDs, the risk was 1.9% within 2 days, 3.4% within 7 days, 3.5% within 30 days, and 3.5% within 90 days. Among those treated in unspecified settings, the risk was 2.2% within 2 days, 3.4% within 7 days, 4.2% within 30 days, and 6.0% within 90 days.
Patients treated in the ED also had a significantly higher risk for subsequent stroke at 2 and 7 days, compared with those treated in inpatient settings and a significantly higher risk for subsequent stroke at 2, 7, and 90 days, compared with those treated in TIA clinics.
‘Most comprehensive look’
“This is the most comprehensive look at all the studies to try and answer this research question,” said Dr. Zand. The results were similar to what was expected, he added.
The infrastructure and resources differed among the sites at which the various studies were conducted, and the investigators adjusted for these differences as much as possible, Dr. Zand noted. A certain amount of selection bias may remain, but it does not affect the overall conclusion, he added.
“Timely outpatient care among low-risk TIA patients is both feasible and safe,” he said.
Dr. Zand noted that the findings have implications not only for patient management but also for the management of the health system. “It’s not feasible nor desirable to admit all the TIA patients, especially with the lessons that we learned from COVID, the burden on the health systems, and the fact that many hospitals are operating at full capacity right now,” he said.
The recommendation is to hospitalize high-risk patients and provide outpatient evaluation and workup to low-risk patients, he added. “This is exactly what we saw in this study,” Dr. Zand said.
Selection bias?
Commenting on the research, Louis R. Caplan, MD, professor of neurology at Harvard Medical School, Boston, noted that evaluation of patients with TIA or mIS “can be done very well as an outpatient” if clinicians have experienced personnel, the outpatient facilities to do the studies necessary, and criteria in place for deciding who to admit or not admit.
However, the decision on whether to choose an inpatient or outpatient approach for a particular patient is complicated, said Dr. Caplan, who was not involved with the research.
Clinicians must consider factors such as whether the patient is mobile, has a car, or has a significant other. The patient’s symptoms and past illnesses also influence the decision, he added.
Dr. Caplan noted that in the meta-analysis, far fewer patients were seen in the TIA clinics than were seen in the inpatient setting. In addition, none of the studies used uniform criteria to determine which patients should undergo workup as outpatients and which as inpatients. “There was a lot of selection bias that may have had nothing to do with how sick the person was,” Dr. Caplan said.
In addition, few hospitals in the United States have an outpatient TIA clinic, he noted. Most of the studies of TIA clinics that the researchers examined were conducted in Europe. “It’s easier to do [that] in Europe because of their socialized medicine,” said Dr. Caplan.
But TIA clinics should be more widespread in the U.S., he added. “Insurance companies should be willing to pay for comparable facilities, inpatient and outpatient,” he said.
The study was conducted without external funding. Dr. Zand reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Caplan was an investigator for TIAregistry.org, which analyzed the outcomes of treatment in TIA clinics in Europe.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
In a meta-analysis of more than 200,000 patients with TIA or mIS, risk for subsequent stroke within 90 days was 2.1% for those treated in a TIA clinic versus 2.8% for patients treated in inpatient settings, which was not significantly different. The risk for patients treated in an emergency department was higher, at 3.5%.
“The message is that if you do the correct risk stratification and then triage patients based on their risk profile, you can safely discharge and have a timely follow-up for the patients who have low risk for a subsequent event,” said coinvestigator Ramin Zand, MD, vascular neurologist and stroke attending physician at Geisinger Health System, Danville, Pennsylvania.
The findings were published online Jan. 5 in JAMA Network Open.
Higher risk in EDs
There is currently no consensus on the care protocol for patients with TIA or mIS, and the rate at which these patients are hospitalized varies by region, hospital, and practitioner, the investigators noted.
Previous studies have indicated that outpatient management of certain individuals with TIA can be safe and cost-effective.
The current researchers searched for retrospective and prospective studies of adult patients that provided information about ischemic stroke after TIA or mIS. Studies that used time- and tissue-based definitions of TIA were included, as well as studies that used various definitions of mIS.
The investigators examined care provided at TIA clinics, inpatient settings (such as medical-surgical units, stroke units, or observation units), EDs, and unspecified settings. Their main aim was to compare outcomes between TIA clinics and inpatient settings.
In all, 226,683 patients (recruited between 1981 and 2018) from 71 studies were included in the meta-analysis. The studies examined 101 cohorts, 24 of which were studied prospectively. Among the 5,636 patients who received care in TIA clinics, the mean age was 65.7 years, and 50.8% of this group were men. Among the 130,139 inpatients, the mean age was 78.3 years, and 61.6% of the group were women.
Results showed no significant difference in risk for subsequent stroke between patients treated in the inpatient and outpatient settings.
Among patients treated in a TIA clinic, risk for subsequent stroke following a TIA or mIS was 0.3% within 2 days, 1.0% within 7 days, 1.3% within 30 days, and 2.1% within 90 days. Among those treated as inpatients, risk for subsequent stroke was 0.5% within 2 days, 1.2% within 7 days, 1.6% within 30 days, and 2.8% within 90 days.
Risk for subsequent stroke was higher among patients treated in the ED and in unspecified settings. At the EDs, the risk was 1.9% within 2 days, 3.4% within 7 days, 3.5% within 30 days, and 3.5% within 90 days. Among those treated in unspecified settings, the risk was 2.2% within 2 days, 3.4% within 7 days, 4.2% within 30 days, and 6.0% within 90 days.
Patients treated in the ED also had a significantly higher risk for subsequent stroke at 2 and 7 days, compared with those treated in inpatient settings and a significantly higher risk for subsequent stroke at 2, 7, and 90 days, compared with those treated in TIA clinics.
‘Most comprehensive look’
“This is the most comprehensive look at all the studies to try and answer this research question,” said Dr. Zand. The results were similar to what was expected, he added.
The infrastructure and resources differed among the sites at which the various studies were conducted, and the investigators adjusted for these differences as much as possible, Dr. Zand noted. A certain amount of selection bias may remain, but it does not affect the overall conclusion, he added.
“Timely outpatient care among low-risk TIA patients is both feasible and safe,” he said.
Dr. Zand noted that the findings have implications not only for patient management but also for the management of the health system. “It’s not feasible nor desirable to admit all the TIA patients, especially with the lessons that we learned from COVID, the burden on the health systems, and the fact that many hospitals are operating at full capacity right now,” he said.
The recommendation is to hospitalize high-risk patients and provide outpatient evaluation and workup to low-risk patients, he added. “This is exactly what we saw in this study,” Dr. Zand said.
Selection bias?
Commenting on the research, Louis R. Caplan, MD, professor of neurology at Harvard Medical School, Boston, noted that evaluation of patients with TIA or mIS “can be done very well as an outpatient” if clinicians have experienced personnel, the outpatient facilities to do the studies necessary, and criteria in place for deciding who to admit or not admit.
However, the decision on whether to choose an inpatient or outpatient approach for a particular patient is complicated, said Dr. Caplan, who was not involved with the research.
Clinicians must consider factors such as whether the patient is mobile, has a car, or has a significant other. The patient’s symptoms and past illnesses also influence the decision, he added.
Dr. Caplan noted that in the meta-analysis, far fewer patients were seen in the TIA clinics than were seen in the inpatient setting. In addition, none of the studies used uniform criteria to determine which patients should undergo workup as outpatients and which as inpatients. “There was a lot of selection bias that may have had nothing to do with how sick the person was,” Dr. Caplan said.
In addition, few hospitals in the United States have an outpatient TIA clinic, he noted. Most of the studies of TIA clinics that the researchers examined were conducted in Europe. “It’s easier to do [that] in Europe because of their socialized medicine,” said Dr. Caplan.
But TIA clinics should be more widespread in the U.S., he added. “Insurance companies should be willing to pay for comparable facilities, inpatient and outpatient,” he said.
The study was conducted without external funding. Dr. Zand reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Caplan was an investigator for TIAregistry.org, which analyzed the outcomes of treatment in TIA clinics in Europe.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM JAMA NETWORK OPEN
SGLT2 inhibitors improve cardiovascular outcomes across groups
Sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors show “remarkable consistency of class benefit” for improving cardiovascular outcomes in high-risk people across age, sex, and race/ethnicity categories.
The findings, from a meta-analysis of 10 major randomized clinical trials, were published online Jan. 5, 2021, in JAMA Network Open by Mukul Bhattarai, MD, a cardiology fellow at Southern Illinois University, Springfield, and colleagues.
“Our meta-analysis evaluated a wide spectrum of efficacy outcomes, further characterizing the primary outcome in different subgroups from several well-designed large clinical trials. It supports that SGLT2 inhibitors have emerged as an effective class of drugs for improving cardiovascular morbidity and mortality, including the prevention of [hospitalization for heart failure] and reducing all-cause mortality in selected patients,” Dr. Bhattarai and colleagues wrote.
The cardiovascular outcomes of SGLT2 inhibitor therapy, they noted, “can be compared across all trials, and it demonstrates remarkable consistency of class benefit, despite the variations in populations enrolled.”
However, they also noted that SGLT inhibitors did not reduce the risk of acute MIn overall, and that most of the trials were short term, with a mean follow-up of just 2.3 years.
Ten trials, consistent cardiovascular benefits
Dr. Bhattarai and colleagues searched the literature through Jan. 10, 2021, as well as meeting presentations and other sources. They identified 10 placebo-controlled, randomized clinical trials in which participants had atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease or ASCVD risk factors, diabetes, or heart failure. Among a total of 71,553 high-risk patients, 39,053 received an SGLT2 inhibitor and 32,500 received a placebo.
The primary outcome of cardiovascular death or hospitalization for heart failure occurred in 8.10% randomized to SGLT2 inhibitors, compared with 11.56% in the placebo group, a significant difference with odds ratio 0.67 (P < .001). Both individual outcomes were lower in the SGLT2-inhibitor group, with a number needed to treat of 5.7 (P < .001).
Patients receiving SGLT2 inhibitors also had significantly lower rates of major adverse cardiovascular events, defined as death due to cardiovascular causes, nonfatal MI, or nonfatal stroke. Those events occurred in 9.82% versus 10.22%(OR, 0.90; P = .03).
Hospitalizations and ED visits with heart failure were also reduced with SGLT2 inhibitors (4.37% vs. 6.81%; OR, 0.67; P < .001), as was cardiovascular death (4.65% vs. 5.14%; OR, 0.87; P = .009). The reduction in heart failure is likely caused by a combination of a natriuretic effect and reduced interstitial fluid, along with inhibition of cardiac fibrosis, the authors said.
On the other hand, no reductions were seen in acute MI, evaluated in five of the studies. That event occurred in 4.66% taking SGLT2 inhibitors, compared with 4.70% of the placebo group, a nonsignificant difference with an OR of 0.95 (P = 0.22). This is likely because of the fact that SGLT2 inhibitors don’t have known antianginal properties or vasodilatory effects, they don’t reduce myocardial oxygen consumption, and they don’t prevent cardiac muscle remodeling, they noted.
All-cause mortality was significantly lower with SGLT2 inhibitors, though, at 7.09% versus 7.86% (odds ratio, 0.87; P = .004).
Benefits seen across age, sex, and race/ethnicity subgroups
While no differences in benefit were found between men and women when compared with placebo groups, the rates of cardiovascular death or heart failure hospitalizations were slightly higher in men than in women (9.01% [OR, 0.75; P < .001] vs. 5.34% [OR, 0.78; P = .002]).
By age, SGLT2 inhibitors benefited people both those younger than 65 years and those aged 65 years and older, although the primary outcome was slightly lower in the younger group (6.94% [OR, 0.79; P < 0.001] vs. 10.47% [OR, 0.78; P < .001]).
And by race, similar benefits from SGLT2 inhibitors were seen among individuals who were White, compared with those who were Asian, Black, or of other race/ethnicity, with event rates of 8.77% (OR, 0.82; P < .001) and 8.75% (OR, 0.66; P = .06), respectively.
“Owing to the short-term trial durations, future long-term prospective studies and postmarketing surveillance studies are warranted to discover the rate of cardiovascular outcomes,” Dr. Bhattarai and colleagues concluded.
The authors have no disclosures.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors show “remarkable consistency of class benefit” for improving cardiovascular outcomes in high-risk people across age, sex, and race/ethnicity categories.
The findings, from a meta-analysis of 10 major randomized clinical trials, were published online Jan. 5, 2021, in JAMA Network Open by Mukul Bhattarai, MD, a cardiology fellow at Southern Illinois University, Springfield, and colleagues.
“Our meta-analysis evaluated a wide spectrum of efficacy outcomes, further characterizing the primary outcome in different subgroups from several well-designed large clinical trials. It supports that SGLT2 inhibitors have emerged as an effective class of drugs for improving cardiovascular morbidity and mortality, including the prevention of [hospitalization for heart failure] and reducing all-cause mortality in selected patients,” Dr. Bhattarai and colleagues wrote.
The cardiovascular outcomes of SGLT2 inhibitor therapy, they noted, “can be compared across all trials, and it demonstrates remarkable consistency of class benefit, despite the variations in populations enrolled.”
However, they also noted that SGLT inhibitors did not reduce the risk of acute MIn overall, and that most of the trials were short term, with a mean follow-up of just 2.3 years.
Ten trials, consistent cardiovascular benefits
Dr. Bhattarai and colleagues searched the literature through Jan. 10, 2021, as well as meeting presentations and other sources. They identified 10 placebo-controlled, randomized clinical trials in which participants had atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease or ASCVD risk factors, diabetes, or heart failure. Among a total of 71,553 high-risk patients, 39,053 received an SGLT2 inhibitor and 32,500 received a placebo.
The primary outcome of cardiovascular death or hospitalization for heart failure occurred in 8.10% randomized to SGLT2 inhibitors, compared with 11.56% in the placebo group, a significant difference with odds ratio 0.67 (P < .001). Both individual outcomes were lower in the SGLT2-inhibitor group, with a number needed to treat of 5.7 (P < .001).
Patients receiving SGLT2 inhibitors also had significantly lower rates of major adverse cardiovascular events, defined as death due to cardiovascular causes, nonfatal MI, or nonfatal stroke. Those events occurred in 9.82% versus 10.22%(OR, 0.90; P = .03).
Hospitalizations and ED visits with heart failure were also reduced with SGLT2 inhibitors (4.37% vs. 6.81%; OR, 0.67; P < .001), as was cardiovascular death (4.65% vs. 5.14%; OR, 0.87; P = .009). The reduction in heart failure is likely caused by a combination of a natriuretic effect and reduced interstitial fluid, along with inhibition of cardiac fibrosis, the authors said.
On the other hand, no reductions were seen in acute MI, evaluated in five of the studies. That event occurred in 4.66% taking SGLT2 inhibitors, compared with 4.70% of the placebo group, a nonsignificant difference with an OR of 0.95 (P = 0.22). This is likely because of the fact that SGLT2 inhibitors don’t have known antianginal properties or vasodilatory effects, they don’t reduce myocardial oxygen consumption, and they don’t prevent cardiac muscle remodeling, they noted.
All-cause mortality was significantly lower with SGLT2 inhibitors, though, at 7.09% versus 7.86% (odds ratio, 0.87; P = .004).
Benefits seen across age, sex, and race/ethnicity subgroups
While no differences in benefit were found between men and women when compared with placebo groups, the rates of cardiovascular death or heart failure hospitalizations were slightly higher in men than in women (9.01% [OR, 0.75; P < .001] vs. 5.34% [OR, 0.78; P = .002]).
By age, SGLT2 inhibitors benefited people both those younger than 65 years and those aged 65 years and older, although the primary outcome was slightly lower in the younger group (6.94% [OR, 0.79; P < 0.001] vs. 10.47% [OR, 0.78; P < .001]).
And by race, similar benefits from SGLT2 inhibitors were seen among individuals who were White, compared with those who were Asian, Black, or of other race/ethnicity, with event rates of 8.77% (OR, 0.82; P < .001) and 8.75% (OR, 0.66; P = .06), respectively.
“Owing to the short-term trial durations, future long-term prospective studies and postmarketing surveillance studies are warranted to discover the rate of cardiovascular outcomes,” Dr. Bhattarai and colleagues concluded.
The authors have no disclosures.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors show “remarkable consistency of class benefit” for improving cardiovascular outcomes in high-risk people across age, sex, and race/ethnicity categories.
The findings, from a meta-analysis of 10 major randomized clinical trials, were published online Jan. 5, 2021, in JAMA Network Open by Mukul Bhattarai, MD, a cardiology fellow at Southern Illinois University, Springfield, and colleagues.
“Our meta-analysis evaluated a wide spectrum of efficacy outcomes, further characterizing the primary outcome in different subgroups from several well-designed large clinical trials. It supports that SGLT2 inhibitors have emerged as an effective class of drugs for improving cardiovascular morbidity and mortality, including the prevention of [hospitalization for heart failure] and reducing all-cause mortality in selected patients,” Dr. Bhattarai and colleagues wrote.
The cardiovascular outcomes of SGLT2 inhibitor therapy, they noted, “can be compared across all trials, and it demonstrates remarkable consistency of class benefit, despite the variations in populations enrolled.”
However, they also noted that SGLT inhibitors did not reduce the risk of acute MIn overall, and that most of the trials were short term, with a mean follow-up of just 2.3 years.
Ten trials, consistent cardiovascular benefits
Dr. Bhattarai and colleagues searched the literature through Jan. 10, 2021, as well as meeting presentations and other sources. They identified 10 placebo-controlled, randomized clinical trials in which participants had atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease or ASCVD risk factors, diabetes, or heart failure. Among a total of 71,553 high-risk patients, 39,053 received an SGLT2 inhibitor and 32,500 received a placebo.
The primary outcome of cardiovascular death or hospitalization for heart failure occurred in 8.10% randomized to SGLT2 inhibitors, compared with 11.56% in the placebo group, a significant difference with odds ratio 0.67 (P < .001). Both individual outcomes were lower in the SGLT2-inhibitor group, with a number needed to treat of 5.7 (P < .001).
Patients receiving SGLT2 inhibitors also had significantly lower rates of major adverse cardiovascular events, defined as death due to cardiovascular causes, nonfatal MI, or nonfatal stroke. Those events occurred in 9.82% versus 10.22%(OR, 0.90; P = .03).
Hospitalizations and ED visits with heart failure were also reduced with SGLT2 inhibitors (4.37% vs. 6.81%; OR, 0.67; P < .001), as was cardiovascular death (4.65% vs. 5.14%; OR, 0.87; P = .009). The reduction in heart failure is likely caused by a combination of a natriuretic effect and reduced interstitial fluid, along with inhibition of cardiac fibrosis, the authors said.
On the other hand, no reductions were seen in acute MI, evaluated in five of the studies. That event occurred in 4.66% taking SGLT2 inhibitors, compared with 4.70% of the placebo group, a nonsignificant difference with an OR of 0.95 (P = 0.22). This is likely because of the fact that SGLT2 inhibitors don’t have known antianginal properties or vasodilatory effects, they don’t reduce myocardial oxygen consumption, and they don’t prevent cardiac muscle remodeling, they noted.
All-cause mortality was significantly lower with SGLT2 inhibitors, though, at 7.09% versus 7.86% (odds ratio, 0.87; P = .004).
Benefits seen across age, sex, and race/ethnicity subgroups
While no differences in benefit were found between men and women when compared with placebo groups, the rates of cardiovascular death or heart failure hospitalizations were slightly higher in men than in women (9.01% [OR, 0.75; P < .001] vs. 5.34% [OR, 0.78; P = .002]).
By age, SGLT2 inhibitors benefited people both those younger than 65 years and those aged 65 years and older, although the primary outcome was slightly lower in the younger group (6.94% [OR, 0.79; P < 0.001] vs. 10.47% [OR, 0.78; P < .001]).
And by race, similar benefits from SGLT2 inhibitors were seen among individuals who were White, compared with those who were Asian, Black, or of other race/ethnicity, with event rates of 8.77% (OR, 0.82; P < .001) and 8.75% (OR, 0.66; P = .06), respectively.
“Owing to the short-term trial durations, future long-term prospective studies and postmarketing surveillance studies are warranted to discover the rate of cardiovascular outcomes,” Dr. Bhattarai and colleagues concluded.
The authors have no disclosures.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM JAMA NETWORK OPEN
Who benefits most from device PFO closure after a stroke?
It has been well established that device closure has, on average, prevented stroke recurrence in people who’ve had patent foramen ovale–associated stroke, but a meta-analysis has drilled down into clinical trials to advance a potentially practice-changing principle: that, while device closure shows an overall benefit, not all patients derive a benefit and some may actually be harmed by the procedure.
What’s more, the researchers developed a scoring system that helps determine which patients are likely to benefit from device closure.
“What was unknown was how to treat individual patients because the decision to close the patent foramen ovale (PFO) is still preference sensitive because the risk of a recurrent stroke is low, and most of the strokes that recur are not terribly severe,” lead study author David M. Kent, MD, MS, said in an interview.
“On top of this,” he said, “it was still suspected that some of the PFOs, even in trials of well-selected patients, may not be causally related to stroke; the stroke may still have another occult cause, such as paroxysmal atrial fibrillation or aortic arch atheroma.” Dr. Kent is a professor of medicine at Tufts University in Boston and director of the Predictive Analytics and Comparative Effectiveness Center there.
The meta-analysis, conducted by the Systematic, Collaborative, PFO Closure Evaluation (SCOPE) consortium, analyzed data from six randomized clinical trials that compared device closure and medical therapy to medical therapy alone in 3,740 patients who had PFO-associated stroke from 2000 to 2017. It was published in JAMA.
Overall, the rate of recurrent ischemic stroke was less than half that in patients who had device closure, compared with those who were on medical therapy: 0.47% (n = 39 of 1,889) vs. 1.09% (n = 82 of 1,851).
The researchers also applied two tools designed to calculate the probability of recurrent stroke in individual patients: Risk of Paradoxical Embolism (RoPE), an index that assigns a score of 0-10 to stratify cryptogenic stroke patients with PFO by the likelihood that the stroke was associated with their PFO; and the PFO-Associated Stroke Causal Likelihood (PASCAL) classification system, which integrates the RoPE score with physiological and anatomical features – namely, the size of the PFO shunt and the presence of an atrial septal aneurysm.
“We came up with a way to more accurately identify those patients who are likely to get the most benefit from PFO closure based on mathematic modeling that estimates an individual’s probability that the PFO is causally related to the stroke,” Dr. Kent said.
Multivariate analysis determines risk
The study used a multivariate classification system that Dr. Kent had been developing to perform subgroup analyses of the clinical trials. It assigned patients to three different risk groups based on the likelihood that the PFO was causally related to their stroke: PASCAL categories of unlikely, possible, and probable.
The PASCAL unlikely group had a risk of stroke recurrence in the first 2 years of 3.4% (95% confidence interval, 1.1%-5.7%) if they were on medical therapy, and 4.1% (95% CI, 1.7%-6.4%) if they had device closure. In the PASCAL possible group, those risks were 3.6% (95% CI, 2.4%-4.9%) and 1.5% (95% CI, 0.7-2.3%), respectively. For the probable group, device closure represents “a near perfect therapy” with a 90% risk reduction, Dr. Kent said. “Moreover,” he said, “adverse events of device closure, such as atrial fibrillation, appear to be concentrated in those patients who fall into the unlikely classification, who appear to get no benefit.”
The ideal patient for device closure is age 60 years or younger and without vascular risk factors such as hypertension, diabetes, a history of smoking, or a prior stroke, but has high-risk PFO features such as a large shunt or atrial septal aneurysm, Dr. Kent said.
“We think these findings should be practice changing now,” Dr. Kent said.
Faisal M. Merchant, MD, director of cardiac electrophysiology at Emory Healthcare in Atlanta, concurred with that statement. “This is in my mind probably as good as any data we’re going to get on this,” he said in an interview. “The results support what’s been a general gestalt in the clinical world, but [also] really provide an evidence base on how to make decisions.”
He noted that guidelines, including those of the American Academy of Neurology, recommend medical therapy or device closure to prevent recurrent stroke in people who’ve had PFO-associated ischemic stroke. “But they hedge a bit,” he said of the guidelines. “We haven’t had data that’s as robust as this. I think this really solidifies those recommendations.”
He also credited the “unique” study design to extract findings from clinical trials and apply them to personalized medicine. “Clinical trial results give you an average treatment effect of the patients included, but who are ones who really benefit? Who are the ones that don’t benefit? Who are the ones who are harmed?” Dr. Merchant said. “It’s rare that you can parse out this nicely between the people who both benefit and are less likely to be harmed and the people who don’t benefit and are more likely to be harmed.”
The study received funding from the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute. Dr. Kent disclosed relationships with PCORI, W.L. Gore and the Canadian Stroke Consortium. Dr. Merchant has no relevant disclosures.
It has been well established that device closure has, on average, prevented stroke recurrence in people who’ve had patent foramen ovale–associated stroke, but a meta-analysis has drilled down into clinical trials to advance a potentially practice-changing principle: that, while device closure shows an overall benefit, not all patients derive a benefit and some may actually be harmed by the procedure.
What’s more, the researchers developed a scoring system that helps determine which patients are likely to benefit from device closure.
“What was unknown was how to treat individual patients because the decision to close the patent foramen ovale (PFO) is still preference sensitive because the risk of a recurrent stroke is low, and most of the strokes that recur are not terribly severe,” lead study author David M. Kent, MD, MS, said in an interview.
“On top of this,” he said, “it was still suspected that some of the PFOs, even in trials of well-selected patients, may not be causally related to stroke; the stroke may still have another occult cause, such as paroxysmal atrial fibrillation or aortic arch atheroma.” Dr. Kent is a professor of medicine at Tufts University in Boston and director of the Predictive Analytics and Comparative Effectiveness Center there.
The meta-analysis, conducted by the Systematic, Collaborative, PFO Closure Evaluation (SCOPE) consortium, analyzed data from six randomized clinical trials that compared device closure and medical therapy to medical therapy alone in 3,740 patients who had PFO-associated stroke from 2000 to 2017. It was published in JAMA.
Overall, the rate of recurrent ischemic stroke was less than half that in patients who had device closure, compared with those who were on medical therapy: 0.47% (n = 39 of 1,889) vs. 1.09% (n = 82 of 1,851).
The researchers also applied two tools designed to calculate the probability of recurrent stroke in individual patients: Risk of Paradoxical Embolism (RoPE), an index that assigns a score of 0-10 to stratify cryptogenic stroke patients with PFO by the likelihood that the stroke was associated with their PFO; and the PFO-Associated Stroke Causal Likelihood (PASCAL) classification system, which integrates the RoPE score with physiological and anatomical features – namely, the size of the PFO shunt and the presence of an atrial septal aneurysm.
“We came up with a way to more accurately identify those patients who are likely to get the most benefit from PFO closure based on mathematic modeling that estimates an individual’s probability that the PFO is causally related to the stroke,” Dr. Kent said.
Multivariate analysis determines risk
The study used a multivariate classification system that Dr. Kent had been developing to perform subgroup analyses of the clinical trials. It assigned patients to three different risk groups based on the likelihood that the PFO was causally related to their stroke: PASCAL categories of unlikely, possible, and probable.
The PASCAL unlikely group had a risk of stroke recurrence in the first 2 years of 3.4% (95% confidence interval, 1.1%-5.7%) if they were on medical therapy, and 4.1% (95% CI, 1.7%-6.4%) if they had device closure. In the PASCAL possible group, those risks were 3.6% (95% CI, 2.4%-4.9%) and 1.5% (95% CI, 0.7-2.3%), respectively. For the probable group, device closure represents “a near perfect therapy” with a 90% risk reduction, Dr. Kent said. “Moreover,” he said, “adverse events of device closure, such as atrial fibrillation, appear to be concentrated in those patients who fall into the unlikely classification, who appear to get no benefit.”
The ideal patient for device closure is age 60 years or younger and without vascular risk factors such as hypertension, diabetes, a history of smoking, or a prior stroke, but has high-risk PFO features such as a large shunt or atrial septal aneurysm, Dr. Kent said.
“We think these findings should be practice changing now,” Dr. Kent said.
Faisal M. Merchant, MD, director of cardiac electrophysiology at Emory Healthcare in Atlanta, concurred with that statement. “This is in my mind probably as good as any data we’re going to get on this,” he said in an interview. “The results support what’s been a general gestalt in the clinical world, but [also] really provide an evidence base on how to make decisions.”
He noted that guidelines, including those of the American Academy of Neurology, recommend medical therapy or device closure to prevent recurrent stroke in people who’ve had PFO-associated ischemic stroke. “But they hedge a bit,” he said of the guidelines. “We haven’t had data that’s as robust as this. I think this really solidifies those recommendations.”
He also credited the “unique” study design to extract findings from clinical trials and apply them to personalized medicine. “Clinical trial results give you an average treatment effect of the patients included, but who are ones who really benefit? Who are the ones that don’t benefit? Who are the ones who are harmed?” Dr. Merchant said. “It’s rare that you can parse out this nicely between the people who both benefit and are less likely to be harmed and the people who don’t benefit and are more likely to be harmed.”
The study received funding from the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute. Dr. Kent disclosed relationships with PCORI, W.L. Gore and the Canadian Stroke Consortium. Dr. Merchant has no relevant disclosures.
It has been well established that device closure has, on average, prevented stroke recurrence in people who’ve had patent foramen ovale–associated stroke, but a meta-analysis has drilled down into clinical trials to advance a potentially practice-changing principle: that, while device closure shows an overall benefit, not all patients derive a benefit and some may actually be harmed by the procedure.
What’s more, the researchers developed a scoring system that helps determine which patients are likely to benefit from device closure.
“What was unknown was how to treat individual patients because the decision to close the patent foramen ovale (PFO) is still preference sensitive because the risk of a recurrent stroke is low, and most of the strokes that recur are not terribly severe,” lead study author David M. Kent, MD, MS, said in an interview.
“On top of this,” he said, “it was still suspected that some of the PFOs, even in trials of well-selected patients, may not be causally related to stroke; the stroke may still have another occult cause, such as paroxysmal atrial fibrillation or aortic arch atheroma.” Dr. Kent is a professor of medicine at Tufts University in Boston and director of the Predictive Analytics and Comparative Effectiveness Center there.
The meta-analysis, conducted by the Systematic, Collaborative, PFO Closure Evaluation (SCOPE) consortium, analyzed data from six randomized clinical trials that compared device closure and medical therapy to medical therapy alone in 3,740 patients who had PFO-associated stroke from 2000 to 2017. It was published in JAMA.
Overall, the rate of recurrent ischemic stroke was less than half that in patients who had device closure, compared with those who were on medical therapy: 0.47% (n = 39 of 1,889) vs. 1.09% (n = 82 of 1,851).
The researchers also applied two tools designed to calculate the probability of recurrent stroke in individual patients: Risk of Paradoxical Embolism (RoPE), an index that assigns a score of 0-10 to stratify cryptogenic stroke patients with PFO by the likelihood that the stroke was associated with their PFO; and the PFO-Associated Stroke Causal Likelihood (PASCAL) classification system, which integrates the RoPE score with physiological and anatomical features – namely, the size of the PFO shunt and the presence of an atrial septal aneurysm.
“We came up with a way to more accurately identify those patients who are likely to get the most benefit from PFO closure based on mathematic modeling that estimates an individual’s probability that the PFO is causally related to the stroke,” Dr. Kent said.
Multivariate analysis determines risk
The study used a multivariate classification system that Dr. Kent had been developing to perform subgroup analyses of the clinical trials. It assigned patients to three different risk groups based on the likelihood that the PFO was causally related to their stroke: PASCAL categories of unlikely, possible, and probable.
The PASCAL unlikely group had a risk of stroke recurrence in the first 2 years of 3.4% (95% confidence interval, 1.1%-5.7%) if they were on medical therapy, and 4.1% (95% CI, 1.7%-6.4%) if they had device closure. In the PASCAL possible group, those risks were 3.6% (95% CI, 2.4%-4.9%) and 1.5% (95% CI, 0.7-2.3%), respectively. For the probable group, device closure represents “a near perfect therapy” with a 90% risk reduction, Dr. Kent said. “Moreover,” he said, “adverse events of device closure, such as atrial fibrillation, appear to be concentrated in those patients who fall into the unlikely classification, who appear to get no benefit.”
The ideal patient for device closure is age 60 years or younger and without vascular risk factors such as hypertension, diabetes, a history of smoking, or a prior stroke, but has high-risk PFO features such as a large shunt or atrial septal aneurysm, Dr. Kent said.
“We think these findings should be practice changing now,” Dr. Kent said.
Faisal M. Merchant, MD, director of cardiac electrophysiology at Emory Healthcare in Atlanta, concurred with that statement. “This is in my mind probably as good as any data we’re going to get on this,” he said in an interview. “The results support what’s been a general gestalt in the clinical world, but [also] really provide an evidence base on how to make decisions.”
He noted that guidelines, including those of the American Academy of Neurology, recommend medical therapy or device closure to prevent recurrent stroke in people who’ve had PFO-associated ischemic stroke. “But they hedge a bit,” he said of the guidelines. “We haven’t had data that’s as robust as this. I think this really solidifies those recommendations.”
He also credited the “unique” study design to extract findings from clinical trials and apply them to personalized medicine. “Clinical trial results give you an average treatment effect of the patients included, but who are ones who really benefit? Who are the ones that don’t benefit? Who are the ones who are harmed?” Dr. Merchant said. “It’s rare that you can parse out this nicely between the people who both benefit and are less likely to be harmed and the people who don’t benefit and are more likely to be harmed.”
The study received funding from the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute. Dr. Kent disclosed relationships with PCORI, W.L. Gore and the Canadian Stroke Consortium. Dr. Merchant has no relevant disclosures.
FROM JAMA
CRP elevated in adults with AD and sleep disturbance
and mortality, results from a large cohort analysis showed.
“The implications of these findings are vast,” presenting author Varsha Parthasarathy said during a late-breaking abstract session at the Revolutionizing Atopic Dermatitis virtual symposium. “Poor sleep quality is known to be associated with increased inflammatory markers such as IL-6, IL-17, and CRP, so it is interesting to see this reflected in AD patients with versus without sleep disturbance. Additionally, we know that CRP is a driver of inflammation and is strongly associated with cardiovascular complications such as heart attack and stroke. Therefore, CRP may be a useful prognostic marker in AD patients with sleep disturbances.”
To examine the comorbidity burden of sleep disorders in AD patients and associate findings with inflammatory CRP and cardiovascular comorbidities, Mr. Parthasarathy, a medical student and itch fellow in the department of dermatology at the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, and colleagues drew from TriNetX, a health care network of approximately 73 million de-identified medical records in 53 organizations. The years of study were 2015 to 2021. The researchers limited the analysis to adults with at least two instances of International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision (ICD-10) code L28 for AD, to capture a population with true AD. Controls were adults without AD who presented for general checkup and were matched to AD patients by age, race, and sex.
The study population consisted of 120,480 AD patients and matched controls. Their mean age was 36 years, 61% were female, and 26% were Black. Compared with controls, AD patients had an increased risk of developing general sleep disorders over the 6-year period (relative risk, 1.10), as well as obstructive sleep apnea (RR, 1.13), insomnia (RR, 1.10), hypersomnia (RR, 1.24), sleep-related movement disorders (RR, 1.36), restless legs syndrome (RR, 1.25), sleep deprivation (RR, 1.36), and unspecified sleep disorders (RR, 1.22).
To examine the association of sleep disturbance with the inflammatory biomarker CRP, the researchers measured CRP levels between these patient groups. They found a substantially higher CRP in AD patients compared with controls (21.2 mg/L vs. 7.6 mg/L, respectively; P < .0001). This finding “is suggestive of a higher level of inflammation in these patients,” Mr. Parthasarathy said. Interestingly, he added, they also found a higher CRP level in AD patients with sleep disturbances compared to AD patients without sleep disturbances (23.3 vs. 20.6 mg/L; P = .02), “also pointing to a higher inflammatory burden in AD patients whose sleep was affected.”
Compared to matched AD patients without sleep disorders, AD patients with sleep disorders were more likely to develop obesity (RR, 2.65), hyperlipidemia (RR, 2.18), type 2 diabetes (RR, 2.45), metabolic syndrome (RR, 4.16), atherosclerosis (RR, 2.42), peripheral vascular disease (RR, 2.47), stroke (RR, 2.37), venous thromboembolism (RR, 2.93), and mortality (hazard ratio, 1.24).
“There is a consequence of not treating patients with atopic dermatitis, especially those patients with sleep disturbance,” the study’s primary author, Shawn G. Kwatra, MD, associate professor of dermatology at Johns Hopkins, told this news organization. “Chronic inflammation can lead to the development of comorbidities, so it is important to offer patients early treatment to reduce their overall inflammation.” He said that he was most surprised by the degree of increased inflammation in the blood of AD as compared to healthy controls. “This likely plays a part in the development of several comorbidities,” he said.
Mr. Parthasarathy acknowledged certain limitations of the study, including the inability to infer causal relationships, as uncontrolled factors may be present. “Additionally, sampling of only patients that have had medical encounters limits the generalizability of the findings,” she said. “However, findings in this large cohort study suggest that clinicians should seek to identify sleep disorders in AD patients and screen for cardiac comorbidities secondary to inflammation in this patient population.”
“There is increased data to suggest that adults with AD, particularly those with more severe disease, may be at an increased risk of cardiovascular disease and the results from [this study] further support the concept of AD as systemic disease,” said Zelma C. Chiesa Fuxench, MD, MSCE, assistant professor of dermatology at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, who was asked to comment on the study. She cited the large population-based, retrospective design and use of two instances of ICD codes for AD to confirm diagnosis as key strengths of the research. “However, it is unclear if for each patient CRP levels were measured at one single timepoint,” Dr. Chiesa Fuxench said. “For future studies, it would be interesting to see if these levels fluctuate with time and if persistently elevated levels are associated with worse cardiovascular outcomes in this population. More data is needed to better understand the relationship better atopic dermatitis disease severity, impact on sleep, and how this relates to increased systemic inflammation and worse cardiovascular outcomes in this population.”
Dr. Kwatra disclosed support by the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases of the National Institutes of Health under Award Number K23AR077073-01A1 and previous funding by the Dermatology Foundation and Skin of Color Society. Dr. Kwatra is also an advisory board member/consultant for AbbVie, Celldex Therapeutics, Galderma, Incyte Corporation, Johnson & Johnson, Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation, Pfizer, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Sanofi, and Kiniksa Pharmaceuticals and has served as an investigator for Galderma, Pfizer, and Sanofi. Dr. Chiesa Fuxench disclosed research grants from several pharmaceutical companies for work related to AD. She has also served as a consultant for the Asthma and Allergy Foundation of America, National Eczema Association, AbbVie, Incyte Corporation, and Pfizer.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
and mortality, results from a large cohort analysis showed.
“The implications of these findings are vast,” presenting author Varsha Parthasarathy said during a late-breaking abstract session at the Revolutionizing Atopic Dermatitis virtual symposium. “Poor sleep quality is known to be associated with increased inflammatory markers such as IL-6, IL-17, and CRP, so it is interesting to see this reflected in AD patients with versus without sleep disturbance. Additionally, we know that CRP is a driver of inflammation and is strongly associated with cardiovascular complications such as heart attack and stroke. Therefore, CRP may be a useful prognostic marker in AD patients with sleep disturbances.”
To examine the comorbidity burden of sleep disorders in AD patients and associate findings with inflammatory CRP and cardiovascular comorbidities, Mr. Parthasarathy, a medical student and itch fellow in the department of dermatology at the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, and colleagues drew from TriNetX, a health care network of approximately 73 million de-identified medical records in 53 organizations. The years of study were 2015 to 2021. The researchers limited the analysis to adults with at least two instances of International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision (ICD-10) code L28 for AD, to capture a population with true AD. Controls were adults without AD who presented for general checkup and were matched to AD patients by age, race, and sex.
The study population consisted of 120,480 AD patients and matched controls. Their mean age was 36 years, 61% were female, and 26% were Black. Compared with controls, AD patients had an increased risk of developing general sleep disorders over the 6-year period (relative risk, 1.10), as well as obstructive sleep apnea (RR, 1.13), insomnia (RR, 1.10), hypersomnia (RR, 1.24), sleep-related movement disorders (RR, 1.36), restless legs syndrome (RR, 1.25), sleep deprivation (RR, 1.36), and unspecified sleep disorders (RR, 1.22).
To examine the association of sleep disturbance with the inflammatory biomarker CRP, the researchers measured CRP levels between these patient groups. They found a substantially higher CRP in AD patients compared with controls (21.2 mg/L vs. 7.6 mg/L, respectively; P < .0001). This finding “is suggestive of a higher level of inflammation in these patients,” Mr. Parthasarathy said. Interestingly, he added, they also found a higher CRP level in AD patients with sleep disturbances compared to AD patients without sleep disturbances (23.3 vs. 20.6 mg/L; P = .02), “also pointing to a higher inflammatory burden in AD patients whose sleep was affected.”
Compared to matched AD patients without sleep disorders, AD patients with sleep disorders were more likely to develop obesity (RR, 2.65), hyperlipidemia (RR, 2.18), type 2 diabetes (RR, 2.45), metabolic syndrome (RR, 4.16), atherosclerosis (RR, 2.42), peripheral vascular disease (RR, 2.47), stroke (RR, 2.37), venous thromboembolism (RR, 2.93), and mortality (hazard ratio, 1.24).
“There is a consequence of not treating patients with atopic dermatitis, especially those patients with sleep disturbance,” the study’s primary author, Shawn G. Kwatra, MD, associate professor of dermatology at Johns Hopkins, told this news organization. “Chronic inflammation can lead to the development of comorbidities, so it is important to offer patients early treatment to reduce their overall inflammation.” He said that he was most surprised by the degree of increased inflammation in the blood of AD as compared to healthy controls. “This likely plays a part in the development of several comorbidities,” he said.
Mr. Parthasarathy acknowledged certain limitations of the study, including the inability to infer causal relationships, as uncontrolled factors may be present. “Additionally, sampling of only patients that have had medical encounters limits the generalizability of the findings,” she said. “However, findings in this large cohort study suggest that clinicians should seek to identify sleep disorders in AD patients and screen for cardiac comorbidities secondary to inflammation in this patient population.”
“There is increased data to suggest that adults with AD, particularly those with more severe disease, may be at an increased risk of cardiovascular disease and the results from [this study] further support the concept of AD as systemic disease,” said Zelma C. Chiesa Fuxench, MD, MSCE, assistant professor of dermatology at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, who was asked to comment on the study. She cited the large population-based, retrospective design and use of two instances of ICD codes for AD to confirm diagnosis as key strengths of the research. “However, it is unclear if for each patient CRP levels were measured at one single timepoint,” Dr. Chiesa Fuxench said. “For future studies, it would be interesting to see if these levels fluctuate with time and if persistently elevated levels are associated with worse cardiovascular outcomes in this population. More data is needed to better understand the relationship better atopic dermatitis disease severity, impact on sleep, and how this relates to increased systemic inflammation and worse cardiovascular outcomes in this population.”
Dr. Kwatra disclosed support by the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases of the National Institutes of Health under Award Number K23AR077073-01A1 and previous funding by the Dermatology Foundation and Skin of Color Society. Dr. Kwatra is also an advisory board member/consultant for AbbVie, Celldex Therapeutics, Galderma, Incyte Corporation, Johnson & Johnson, Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation, Pfizer, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Sanofi, and Kiniksa Pharmaceuticals and has served as an investigator for Galderma, Pfizer, and Sanofi. Dr. Chiesa Fuxench disclosed research grants from several pharmaceutical companies for work related to AD. She has also served as a consultant for the Asthma and Allergy Foundation of America, National Eczema Association, AbbVie, Incyte Corporation, and Pfizer.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
and mortality, results from a large cohort analysis showed.
“The implications of these findings are vast,” presenting author Varsha Parthasarathy said during a late-breaking abstract session at the Revolutionizing Atopic Dermatitis virtual symposium. “Poor sleep quality is known to be associated with increased inflammatory markers such as IL-6, IL-17, and CRP, so it is interesting to see this reflected in AD patients with versus without sleep disturbance. Additionally, we know that CRP is a driver of inflammation and is strongly associated with cardiovascular complications such as heart attack and stroke. Therefore, CRP may be a useful prognostic marker in AD patients with sleep disturbances.”
To examine the comorbidity burden of sleep disorders in AD patients and associate findings with inflammatory CRP and cardiovascular comorbidities, Mr. Parthasarathy, a medical student and itch fellow in the department of dermatology at the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, and colleagues drew from TriNetX, a health care network of approximately 73 million de-identified medical records in 53 organizations. The years of study were 2015 to 2021. The researchers limited the analysis to adults with at least two instances of International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision (ICD-10) code L28 for AD, to capture a population with true AD. Controls were adults without AD who presented for general checkup and were matched to AD patients by age, race, and sex.
The study population consisted of 120,480 AD patients and matched controls. Their mean age was 36 years, 61% were female, and 26% were Black. Compared with controls, AD patients had an increased risk of developing general sleep disorders over the 6-year period (relative risk, 1.10), as well as obstructive sleep apnea (RR, 1.13), insomnia (RR, 1.10), hypersomnia (RR, 1.24), sleep-related movement disorders (RR, 1.36), restless legs syndrome (RR, 1.25), sleep deprivation (RR, 1.36), and unspecified sleep disorders (RR, 1.22).
To examine the association of sleep disturbance with the inflammatory biomarker CRP, the researchers measured CRP levels between these patient groups. They found a substantially higher CRP in AD patients compared with controls (21.2 mg/L vs. 7.6 mg/L, respectively; P < .0001). This finding “is suggestive of a higher level of inflammation in these patients,” Mr. Parthasarathy said. Interestingly, he added, they also found a higher CRP level in AD patients with sleep disturbances compared to AD patients without sleep disturbances (23.3 vs. 20.6 mg/L; P = .02), “also pointing to a higher inflammatory burden in AD patients whose sleep was affected.”
Compared to matched AD patients without sleep disorders, AD patients with sleep disorders were more likely to develop obesity (RR, 2.65), hyperlipidemia (RR, 2.18), type 2 diabetes (RR, 2.45), metabolic syndrome (RR, 4.16), atherosclerosis (RR, 2.42), peripheral vascular disease (RR, 2.47), stroke (RR, 2.37), venous thromboembolism (RR, 2.93), and mortality (hazard ratio, 1.24).
“There is a consequence of not treating patients with atopic dermatitis, especially those patients with sleep disturbance,” the study’s primary author, Shawn G. Kwatra, MD, associate professor of dermatology at Johns Hopkins, told this news organization. “Chronic inflammation can lead to the development of comorbidities, so it is important to offer patients early treatment to reduce their overall inflammation.” He said that he was most surprised by the degree of increased inflammation in the blood of AD as compared to healthy controls. “This likely plays a part in the development of several comorbidities,” he said.
Mr. Parthasarathy acknowledged certain limitations of the study, including the inability to infer causal relationships, as uncontrolled factors may be present. “Additionally, sampling of only patients that have had medical encounters limits the generalizability of the findings,” she said. “However, findings in this large cohort study suggest that clinicians should seek to identify sleep disorders in AD patients and screen for cardiac comorbidities secondary to inflammation in this patient population.”
“There is increased data to suggest that adults with AD, particularly those with more severe disease, may be at an increased risk of cardiovascular disease and the results from [this study] further support the concept of AD as systemic disease,” said Zelma C. Chiesa Fuxench, MD, MSCE, assistant professor of dermatology at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, who was asked to comment on the study. She cited the large population-based, retrospective design and use of two instances of ICD codes for AD to confirm diagnosis as key strengths of the research. “However, it is unclear if for each patient CRP levels were measured at one single timepoint,” Dr. Chiesa Fuxench said. “For future studies, it would be interesting to see if these levels fluctuate with time and if persistently elevated levels are associated with worse cardiovascular outcomes in this population. More data is needed to better understand the relationship better atopic dermatitis disease severity, impact on sleep, and how this relates to increased systemic inflammation and worse cardiovascular outcomes in this population.”
Dr. Kwatra disclosed support by the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases of the National Institutes of Health under Award Number K23AR077073-01A1 and previous funding by the Dermatology Foundation and Skin of Color Society. Dr. Kwatra is also an advisory board member/consultant for AbbVie, Celldex Therapeutics, Galderma, Incyte Corporation, Johnson & Johnson, Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation, Pfizer, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Sanofi, and Kiniksa Pharmaceuticals and has served as an investigator for Galderma, Pfizer, and Sanofi. Dr. Chiesa Fuxench disclosed research grants from several pharmaceutical companies for work related to AD. She has also served as a consultant for the Asthma and Allergy Foundation of America, National Eczema Association, AbbVie, Incyte Corporation, and Pfizer.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Blood pressure control worsened during COVID pandemic
Blood pressure control declined in both men and women with the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic in the United States in 2020, especially among women and older adults, according to a new analysis.
“We know that even small rises in blood pressure increase one’s risk of stroke and other adverse cardiovascular disease events,” lead author Luke J. Laffin, MD, codirector, Center for Blood Pressure Disorders, Cleveland Clinic, Ohio, said in a news release.
The researchers say increases in systolic BP among U.S. adults during the COVID-19 pandemic “could signal a forthcoming increase in incident cardiovascular disease mortality.”
Their study was published online Dec. 6 in Circulation.
Dr. Laffin and colleagues analyzed BP data from 464,585 U.S. adults (mean age, 46, 54% women) who had their BP measured as part of employee health screening annually from 2018 through 2020.
They found that BP levels went up between April and Dec. of 2020 – around the same time stay-at-home orders and other restrictions were put in place.
During this pandemic period, average monthly increases in BP ranged from 1.10 to 2.50 mm Hg higher for systolic BP and 0.14 to 0.53 mm Hg higher for diastolic BP, compared with the prepandemic period of April to Dec. 2019.
Increases in systolic and diastolic BP were seen among men and women and across age groups. Larger increases were evident in women for both systolic and diastolic BP: in older individuals for systolic BP and in younger individuals for diastolic BP (all P < .0001).
Dr. Laffin and colleagues also assessed changes in BP category based on current American Heart Association blood pressure guidelines (normal, elevated, stage 1, or stage 2 hypertension).
During the pandemic, more adults (26.8%) were recategorized to a higher BP category, whereas only 22% moved to a lower BP category, compared with before the pandemic.
“At the start of the pandemic, most people were not taking good care of themselves. Increases in blood pressure were likely related to changes in eating habits, increased alcohol consumption, less physical activity, decreased medication adherence, more emotional stress, and poor sleep,” Dr. Laffin said.
However, the increases in BP during the pandemic could not be explained by weight gain, the researchers note, because the observed changes in weight during the pandemic were similar to the prepandemic period among 86% of adults completing weight data.
The study authors are following up on these results to determine if this trend continued in 2021.
“Unfortunately, this research confirms what is being seen across the country – the COVID-19 pandemic has had and will continue to have long-reaching health impacts across the country and particularly related to uncontrolled hypertension,” Eduardo Sanchez, MD, MPH, the AHA’s chief medical officer for prevention, said in the news release.
“These results validate why the American Heart Association’s National Hypertension Control Initiative (NHCI) is critically important,” he said.
“With a particular emphasis on historically under-resourced communities in the United States, the comprehensive program supports health care teams at community health centers through regular blood pressure management training; technical assistance and resources that include the proper blood pressure measurement technique; self-measured blood pressure monitoring and management; medication adherence; and healthy lifestyle services,” Dr. Sanchez noted.
The study had no specific funding. Dr. Laffin is a paid consultant for Medtronic and medical advisor for LucidAct Health.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Blood pressure control declined in both men and women with the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic in the United States in 2020, especially among women and older adults, according to a new analysis.
“We know that even small rises in blood pressure increase one’s risk of stroke and other adverse cardiovascular disease events,” lead author Luke J. Laffin, MD, codirector, Center for Blood Pressure Disorders, Cleveland Clinic, Ohio, said in a news release.
The researchers say increases in systolic BP among U.S. adults during the COVID-19 pandemic “could signal a forthcoming increase in incident cardiovascular disease mortality.”
Their study was published online Dec. 6 in Circulation.
Dr. Laffin and colleagues analyzed BP data from 464,585 U.S. adults (mean age, 46, 54% women) who had their BP measured as part of employee health screening annually from 2018 through 2020.
They found that BP levels went up between April and Dec. of 2020 – around the same time stay-at-home orders and other restrictions were put in place.
During this pandemic period, average monthly increases in BP ranged from 1.10 to 2.50 mm Hg higher for systolic BP and 0.14 to 0.53 mm Hg higher for diastolic BP, compared with the prepandemic period of April to Dec. 2019.
Increases in systolic and diastolic BP were seen among men and women and across age groups. Larger increases were evident in women for both systolic and diastolic BP: in older individuals for systolic BP and in younger individuals for diastolic BP (all P < .0001).
Dr. Laffin and colleagues also assessed changes in BP category based on current American Heart Association blood pressure guidelines (normal, elevated, stage 1, or stage 2 hypertension).
During the pandemic, more adults (26.8%) were recategorized to a higher BP category, whereas only 22% moved to a lower BP category, compared with before the pandemic.
“At the start of the pandemic, most people were not taking good care of themselves. Increases in blood pressure were likely related to changes in eating habits, increased alcohol consumption, less physical activity, decreased medication adherence, more emotional stress, and poor sleep,” Dr. Laffin said.
However, the increases in BP during the pandemic could not be explained by weight gain, the researchers note, because the observed changes in weight during the pandemic were similar to the prepandemic period among 86% of adults completing weight data.
The study authors are following up on these results to determine if this trend continued in 2021.
“Unfortunately, this research confirms what is being seen across the country – the COVID-19 pandemic has had and will continue to have long-reaching health impacts across the country and particularly related to uncontrolled hypertension,” Eduardo Sanchez, MD, MPH, the AHA’s chief medical officer for prevention, said in the news release.
“These results validate why the American Heart Association’s National Hypertension Control Initiative (NHCI) is critically important,” he said.
“With a particular emphasis on historically under-resourced communities in the United States, the comprehensive program supports health care teams at community health centers through regular blood pressure management training; technical assistance and resources that include the proper blood pressure measurement technique; self-measured blood pressure monitoring and management; medication adherence; and healthy lifestyle services,” Dr. Sanchez noted.
The study had no specific funding. Dr. Laffin is a paid consultant for Medtronic and medical advisor for LucidAct Health.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Blood pressure control declined in both men and women with the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic in the United States in 2020, especially among women and older adults, according to a new analysis.
“We know that even small rises in blood pressure increase one’s risk of stroke and other adverse cardiovascular disease events,” lead author Luke J. Laffin, MD, codirector, Center for Blood Pressure Disorders, Cleveland Clinic, Ohio, said in a news release.
The researchers say increases in systolic BP among U.S. adults during the COVID-19 pandemic “could signal a forthcoming increase in incident cardiovascular disease mortality.”
Their study was published online Dec. 6 in Circulation.
Dr. Laffin and colleagues analyzed BP data from 464,585 U.S. adults (mean age, 46, 54% women) who had their BP measured as part of employee health screening annually from 2018 through 2020.
They found that BP levels went up between April and Dec. of 2020 – around the same time stay-at-home orders and other restrictions were put in place.
During this pandemic period, average monthly increases in BP ranged from 1.10 to 2.50 mm Hg higher for systolic BP and 0.14 to 0.53 mm Hg higher for diastolic BP, compared with the prepandemic period of April to Dec. 2019.
Increases in systolic and diastolic BP were seen among men and women and across age groups. Larger increases were evident in women for both systolic and diastolic BP: in older individuals for systolic BP and in younger individuals for diastolic BP (all P < .0001).
Dr. Laffin and colleagues also assessed changes in BP category based on current American Heart Association blood pressure guidelines (normal, elevated, stage 1, or stage 2 hypertension).
During the pandemic, more adults (26.8%) were recategorized to a higher BP category, whereas only 22% moved to a lower BP category, compared with before the pandemic.
“At the start of the pandemic, most people were not taking good care of themselves. Increases in blood pressure were likely related to changes in eating habits, increased alcohol consumption, less physical activity, decreased medication adherence, more emotional stress, and poor sleep,” Dr. Laffin said.
However, the increases in BP during the pandemic could not be explained by weight gain, the researchers note, because the observed changes in weight during the pandemic were similar to the prepandemic period among 86% of adults completing weight data.
The study authors are following up on these results to determine if this trend continued in 2021.
“Unfortunately, this research confirms what is being seen across the country – the COVID-19 pandemic has had and will continue to have long-reaching health impacts across the country and particularly related to uncontrolled hypertension,” Eduardo Sanchez, MD, MPH, the AHA’s chief medical officer for prevention, said in the news release.
“These results validate why the American Heart Association’s National Hypertension Control Initiative (NHCI) is critically important,” he said.
“With a particular emphasis on historically under-resourced communities in the United States, the comprehensive program supports health care teams at community health centers through regular blood pressure management training; technical assistance and resources that include the proper blood pressure measurement technique; self-measured blood pressure monitoring and management; medication adherence; and healthy lifestyle services,” Dr. Sanchez noted.
The study had no specific funding. Dr. Laffin is a paid consultant for Medtronic and medical advisor for LucidAct Health.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
No serious CV risks for elderly after Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine
A French population-based study provides further evidence that the BNT162b2 Pfizer-BioNTech mRNA COVID-19 vaccine does not increase the short-term risk for serious cardiovascular adverse events in older people.
The study showed no increased risk of myocardial infarction (MI), stroke, or pulmonary embolism (PE) following vaccination in adults aged 75 years or older in the 14 days following vaccination.
“These findings regarding the BNT162b2 vaccine’s short-term cardiovascular safety profile in older people are reassuring. They should be taken into account by doctors when considering implementing a third dose of the vaccine in older people,” Marie Joelle Jabagi, PharmD, PhD, with the French National Agency for Medicines and Health Products Safety, Saint-Denis, France, said in an interview.
The study was published as a research letter online Nov. 22 in JAMA.
The Pfizer-BioNTech mRNA vaccine was the first SARS-CoV-2 vaccine authorized in France and has been widely used in older people. The phase 3 trials of the vaccine showed no increase in cardiovascular events, but older people were underrepresented in the trials.
As of April 30, 2021, nearly 3.9 million French adults aged 75 or older had received at least one dose of the Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine and 3.2 million had received two doses.
Using the French National Health Data System linked to the national COVID-19 vaccination database, Dr. Jabagi and her colleagues identified all unvaccinated or vaccinated adults aged 75 and older who were hospitalized between Dec. 15, 2020, and April 30, 2021, for acute MI, hemorrhagic or ischemic stroke, or PE.
During the 4.5-month study period, 11,113 elderly were hospitalized for acute MI, 17,014 for ischemic stroke, 4,804 for hemorrhagic stroke, and 7,221 for PE. Of these, 58.6%, 54.0%, 42.7%, and 55.3%, respectively, had received at least one dose of vaccine.
In the 14 days following receipt of either dose, no significant increased risk was found for any outcome, the investigators report.
The relative incidence (RI) for MI after the first and second dose was 0.97 (95% CI, 0.88-1.06) and 1.04 (95% CI, 0.93-1.16), respectively.
For ischemic stroke, the RI was 0.90 after the first dose (95% CI, 0.84-0.98) and 0.92 (95% CI, 0.84-1.02) after the second; for hemorrhagic stroke, the RI was 0.90 (95% CI, 0.78-1.04) and 0.97 (95% CI, 0.81-1.15), respectively.
For PE, the RI was 0.85 (95% CI, 0.75-0.96) after the first dose and 1.10 (95% CI, 0.95-1.26) after the second dose.
There was also no significant increase for any of the cardiovascular events when the exposure risk window was subdivided into 1 to 7 days and 8 to 14 days.
“Evaluating the short-term risk of hospitalization for severe cardiovascular events after the BNT162b2 mRNA vaccine in older people was a priority, especially after signals for hypertension and cardiovascular, thromboembolic, and hemorrhagic events have been issued from spontaneous notification data,” Dr. Jabagi said in an interview.
“The results of this nationwide study provide further solid evidence regarding the lack of increase of serious cardiovascular adverse events in older people in the 14 days following both doses of the vaccine,” Dr. Jabagi said.
The French study supports a recent U.S. study of more than 6 million people demonstrating that serious health risks were no more common in the first 3 weeks after Pfizer/BioNTech or Moderna COVID-19 vaccination compared with 22 to 42 days later.
As previously reported by this news organization, mRNA vaccination was not associated with greater risks for Guillain-Barré syndrome, myocarditis/pericarditis, stroke, or 20 other serious outcomes.
The current study had no specific funding. Dr. Jabagi and colleagues have declared no relevant conflicts of interest.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
A French population-based study provides further evidence that the BNT162b2 Pfizer-BioNTech mRNA COVID-19 vaccine does not increase the short-term risk for serious cardiovascular adverse events in older people.
The study showed no increased risk of myocardial infarction (MI), stroke, or pulmonary embolism (PE) following vaccination in adults aged 75 years or older in the 14 days following vaccination.
“These findings regarding the BNT162b2 vaccine’s short-term cardiovascular safety profile in older people are reassuring. They should be taken into account by doctors when considering implementing a third dose of the vaccine in older people,” Marie Joelle Jabagi, PharmD, PhD, with the French National Agency for Medicines and Health Products Safety, Saint-Denis, France, said in an interview.
The study was published as a research letter online Nov. 22 in JAMA.
The Pfizer-BioNTech mRNA vaccine was the first SARS-CoV-2 vaccine authorized in France and has been widely used in older people. The phase 3 trials of the vaccine showed no increase in cardiovascular events, but older people were underrepresented in the trials.
As of April 30, 2021, nearly 3.9 million French adults aged 75 or older had received at least one dose of the Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine and 3.2 million had received two doses.
Using the French National Health Data System linked to the national COVID-19 vaccination database, Dr. Jabagi and her colleagues identified all unvaccinated or vaccinated adults aged 75 and older who were hospitalized between Dec. 15, 2020, and April 30, 2021, for acute MI, hemorrhagic or ischemic stroke, or PE.
During the 4.5-month study period, 11,113 elderly were hospitalized for acute MI, 17,014 for ischemic stroke, 4,804 for hemorrhagic stroke, and 7,221 for PE. Of these, 58.6%, 54.0%, 42.7%, and 55.3%, respectively, had received at least one dose of vaccine.
In the 14 days following receipt of either dose, no significant increased risk was found for any outcome, the investigators report.
The relative incidence (RI) for MI after the first and second dose was 0.97 (95% CI, 0.88-1.06) and 1.04 (95% CI, 0.93-1.16), respectively.
For ischemic stroke, the RI was 0.90 after the first dose (95% CI, 0.84-0.98) and 0.92 (95% CI, 0.84-1.02) after the second; for hemorrhagic stroke, the RI was 0.90 (95% CI, 0.78-1.04) and 0.97 (95% CI, 0.81-1.15), respectively.
For PE, the RI was 0.85 (95% CI, 0.75-0.96) after the first dose and 1.10 (95% CI, 0.95-1.26) after the second dose.
There was also no significant increase for any of the cardiovascular events when the exposure risk window was subdivided into 1 to 7 days and 8 to 14 days.
“Evaluating the short-term risk of hospitalization for severe cardiovascular events after the BNT162b2 mRNA vaccine in older people was a priority, especially after signals for hypertension and cardiovascular, thromboembolic, and hemorrhagic events have been issued from spontaneous notification data,” Dr. Jabagi said in an interview.
“The results of this nationwide study provide further solid evidence regarding the lack of increase of serious cardiovascular adverse events in older people in the 14 days following both doses of the vaccine,” Dr. Jabagi said.
The French study supports a recent U.S. study of more than 6 million people demonstrating that serious health risks were no more common in the first 3 weeks after Pfizer/BioNTech or Moderna COVID-19 vaccination compared with 22 to 42 days later.
As previously reported by this news organization, mRNA vaccination was not associated with greater risks for Guillain-Barré syndrome, myocarditis/pericarditis, stroke, or 20 other serious outcomes.
The current study had no specific funding. Dr. Jabagi and colleagues have declared no relevant conflicts of interest.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
A French population-based study provides further evidence that the BNT162b2 Pfizer-BioNTech mRNA COVID-19 vaccine does not increase the short-term risk for serious cardiovascular adverse events in older people.
The study showed no increased risk of myocardial infarction (MI), stroke, or pulmonary embolism (PE) following vaccination in adults aged 75 years or older in the 14 days following vaccination.
“These findings regarding the BNT162b2 vaccine’s short-term cardiovascular safety profile in older people are reassuring. They should be taken into account by doctors when considering implementing a third dose of the vaccine in older people,” Marie Joelle Jabagi, PharmD, PhD, with the French National Agency for Medicines and Health Products Safety, Saint-Denis, France, said in an interview.
The study was published as a research letter online Nov. 22 in JAMA.
The Pfizer-BioNTech mRNA vaccine was the first SARS-CoV-2 vaccine authorized in France and has been widely used in older people. The phase 3 trials of the vaccine showed no increase in cardiovascular events, but older people were underrepresented in the trials.
As of April 30, 2021, nearly 3.9 million French adults aged 75 or older had received at least one dose of the Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine and 3.2 million had received two doses.
Using the French National Health Data System linked to the national COVID-19 vaccination database, Dr. Jabagi and her colleagues identified all unvaccinated or vaccinated adults aged 75 and older who were hospitalized between Dec. 15, 2020, and April 30, 2021, for acute MI, hemorrhagic or ischemic stroke, or PE.
During the 4.5-month study period, 11,113 elderly were hospitalized for acute MI, 17,014 for ischemic stroke, 4,804 for hemorrhagic stroke, and 7,221 for PE. Of these, 58.6%, 54.0%, 42.7%, and 55.3%, respectively, had received at least one dose of vaccine.
In the 14 days following receipt of either dose, no significant increased risk was found for any outcome, the investigators report.
The relative incidence (RI) for MI after the first and second dose was 0.97 (95% CI, 0.88-1.06) and 1.04 (95% CI, 0.93-1.16), respectively.
For ischemic stroke, the RI was 0.90 after the first dose (95% CI, 0.84-0.98) and 0.92 (95% CI, 0.84-1.02) after the second; for hemorrhagic stroke, the RI was 0.90 (95% CI, 0.78-1.04) and 0.97 (95% CI, 0.81-1.15), respectively.
For PE, the RI was 0.85 (95% CI, 0.75-0.96) after the first dose and 1.10 (95% CI, 0.95-1.26) after the second dose.
There was also no significant increase for any of the cardiovascular events when the exposure risk window was subdivided into 1 to 7 days and 8 to 14 days.
“Evaluating the short-term risk of hospitalization for severe cardiovascular events after the BNT162b2 mRNA vaccine in older people was a priority, especially after signals for hypertension and cardiovascular, thromboembolic, and hemorrhagic events have been issued from spontaneous notification data,” Dr. Jabagi said in an interview.
“The results of this nationwide study provide further solid evidence regarding the lack of increase of serious cardiovascular adverse events in older people in the 14 days following both doses of the vaccine,” Dr. Jabagi said.
The French study supports a recent U.S. study of more than 6 million people demonstrating that serious health risks were no more common in the first 3 weeks after Pfizer/BioNTech or Moderna COVID-19 vaccination compared with 22 to 42 days later.
As previously reported by this news organization, mRNA vaccination was not associated with greater risks for Guillain-Barré syndrome, myocarditis/pericarditis, stroke, or 20 other serious outcomes.
The current study had no specific funding. Dr. Jabagi and colleagues have declared no relevant conflicts of interest.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Coffee or tea? Drinking both tied to lower stroke, dementia risk
Drinking coffee or tea is associated with reduced risk for stroke and dementia, with the biggest benefit associated with consuming both beverages, new research suggests.
Investigators found that individuals who drank two to three cups of coffee and two to three cups of tea per day had a 30% decrease in incidence of stroke and a 28% lower risk for dementia compared with those who did not.
“From a public health perspective, because regular tea and coffee drinkers comprise such a large proportion of the population and because these beverages tend to be consumed habitually throughout adult life, even small potential health benefits or risks associated with tea and coffee intake may have important public health implications,” the investigators wrote.
The study was published online Nov. 16 in PLOS Medicine.
Synergistic effect?
Whereas earlier studies have shown significant health benefits from moderate coffee and tea intake separately, few have examined the effect of drinking both.
Researchers enrolled 365,682 participants from the UK Biobank for the analysis of coffee and tea consumption and stroke and dementia risk and 13,352 participants for the analysis of poststroke dementia.
During a median follow-up of 11.4 years, 2.8% of participants experienced a stroke and 1.4% developed dementia.
After adjustment for confounders, stroke risk was 10% lower in those who drank a half-cup to a cup of coffee per day (P < .001) and 8% lower in those who had more than two cups a day (P = .009). Tea drinkers who had more than two cups a day saw a 16% reduction in stroke (P < .001).
Those who drank both coffee and tea during the day saw the greatest benefit. Drinking two to three cups of coffee and two to three cups of tea lowered stroke risk by 32% (P < .001) and dementia risk by 28% (P = .002).
Drinking both beverages offered significantly greater benefits than drinking just coffee or tea alone, with an 11% lower risk for stroke (P < .001), an 8% lower risk for dementia (P = .001), and 18% lower risk for vascular dementia (P = .001).
Among those participants who experienced a stroke during the follow-up period, drinking two to three cups of coffee was associated with 20% lower risk for poststroke dementia (P = .044), and for those who drank both coffee and tea (half to one cup of coffee and two to three cups of tea per day) the risk for poststroke dementia was lowered by 50% (P =.006).
There was no significant association between coffee and tea consumption and risk for hemorrhagic stroke or Alzheimer’s disease.
The study was funded by the National Natural Science Foundation of China. The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Drinking coffee or tea is associated with reduced risk for stroke and dementia, with the biggest benefit associated with consuming both beverages, new research suggests.
Investigators found that individuals who drank two to three cups of coffee and two to three cups of tea per day had a 30% decrease in incidence of stroke and a 28% lower risk for dementia compared with those who did not.
“From a public health perspective, because regular tea and coffee drinkers comprise such a large proportion of the population and because these beverages tend to be consumed habitually throughout adult life, even small potential health benefits or risks associated with tea and coffee intake may have important public health implications,” the investigators wrote.
The study was published online Nov. 16 in PLOS Medicine.
Synergistic effect?
Whereas earlier studies have shown significant health benefits from moderate coffee and tea intake separately, few have examined the effect of drinking both.
Researchers enrolled 365,682 participants from the UK Biobank for the analysis of coffee and tea consumption and stroke and dementia risk and 13,352 participants for the analysis of poststroke dementia.
During a median follow-up of 11.4 years, 2.8% of participants experienced a stroke and 1.4% developed dementia.
After adjustment for confounders, stroke risk was 10% lower in those who drank a half-cup to a cup of coffee per day (P < .001) and 8% lower in those who had more than two cups a day (P = .009). Tea drinkers who had more than two cups a day saw a 16% reduction in stroke (P < .001).
Those who drank both coffee and tea during the day saw the greatest benefit. Drinking two to three cups of coffee and two to three cups of tea lowered stroke risk by 32% (P < .001) and dementia risk by 28% (P = .002).
Drinking both beverages offered significantly greater benefits than drinking just coffee or tea alone, with an 11% lower risk for stroke (P < .001), an 8% lower risk for dementia (P = .001), and 18% lower risk for vascular dementia (P = .001).
Among those participants who experienced a stroke during the follow-up period, drinking two to three cups of coffee was associated with 20% lower risk for poststroke dementia (P = .044), and for those who drank both coffee and tea (half to one cup of coffee and two to three cups of tea per day) the risk for poststroke dementia was lowered by 50% (P =.006).
There was no significant association between coffee and tea consumption and risk for hemorrhagic stroke or Alzheimer’s disease.
The study was funded by the National Natural Science Foundation of China. The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Drinking coffee or tea is associated with reduced risk for stroke and dementia, with the biggest benefit associated with consuming both beverages, new research suggests.
Investigators found that individuals who drank two to three cups of coffee and two to three cups of tea per day had a 30% decrease in incidence of stroke and a 28% lower risk for dementia compared with those who did not.
“From a public health perspective, because regular tea and coffee drinkers comprise such a large proportion of the population and because these beverages tend to be consumed habitually throughout adult life, even small potential health benefits or risks associated with tea and coffee intake may have important public health implications,” the investigators wrote.
The study was published online Nov. 16 in PLOS Medicine.
Synergistic effect?
Whereas earlier studies have shown significant health benefits from moderate coffee and tea intake separately, few have examined the effect of drinking both.
Researchers enrolled 365,682 participants from the UK Biobank for the analysis of coffee and tea consumption and stroke and dementia risk and 13,352 participants for the analysis of poststroke dementia.
During a median follow-up of 11.4 years, 2.8% of participants experienced a stroke and 1.4% developed dementia.
After adjustment for confounders, stroke risk was 10% lower in those who drank a half-cup to a cup of coffee per day (P < .001) and 8% lower in those who had more than two cups a day (P = .009). Tea drinkers who had more than two cups a day saw a 16% reduction in stroke (P < .001).
Those who drank both coffee and tea during the day saw the greatest benefit. Drinking two to three cups of coffee and two to three cups of tea lowered stroke risk by 32% (P < .001) and dementia risk by 28% (P = .002).
Drinking both beverages offered significantly greater benefits than drinking just coffee or tea alone, with an 11% lower risk for stroke (P < .001), an 8% lower risk for dementia (P = .001), and 18% lower risk for vascular dementia (P = .001).
Among those participants who experienced a stroke during the follow-up period, drinking two to three cups of coffee was associated with 20% lower risk for poststroke dementia (P = .044), and for those who drank both coffee and tea (half to one cup of coffee and two to three cups of tea per day) the risk for poststroke dementia was lowered by 50% (P =.006).
There was no significant association between coffee and tea consumption and risk for hemorrhagic stroke or Alzheimer’s disease.
The study was funded by the National Natural Science Foundation of China. The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Ticagrelor reversal agent achieves quick hemostasis: REVERSE-IT
The experimental monoclonal antibody bentracimab, which reverses the antiplatelet effects of ticagrelor, appears to be heading toward regulatory approval, on the basis of an interim analysis of the phase 3 REVERSE-IT trial.
“Rates of effective hemostasis were adjudicated as good or excellent in more than 90% of cases with no drug-related serious adverse events or allergic or infusion-related reactions,” reported Deepak L. Bhatt, MD, at the American Heart Association scientific sessions.
The interim analysis of this nonrandomized, single-arm study was requested by the Food and Drug Administration, which is considering a conditional accelerated approval of bentracimab (formerly PB2452) if efficacy and safety are established.
Upon administration, bentracimab binds to free ticagrelor so that ticagrelor cannot bind to the P2Y12 platelet receptor. This interrupts one of the key steps in the pathway of platelet aggregation.
REVERSE-IT is still enrolling patients. This interim analysis was conducted with the first 150 patients who met eligibility criteria and were treated. Of these, 142 patients were enrolled for an urgent surgical indication and 8 for a major bleeding indication. After some exclusions for lack of urgency and reclassifications following adjudication, there were 113 surgical cases and 9 major bleeding patients evaluable for hemostasis.
Platelet function assays test reversal
On the primary reversal endpoint, which was restoration of activity on the proprietary platelet function assays Verify Now and PRUTest, a rapid restoration of platelet function was achieved in both surgical and major-bleeding patients. Platelet reactivity climbed to near normal levels within 10 minutes of administration, and peak effects were sustained through the first 24 hours after administration.
On the basis of the platelet function assays, the pattern of response to bentracimab was “very similar in the surgical and bleeding patients,” reported Dr. Bhatt, executive director of interventional cardiovascular programs at Brigham and Women’s Health, Boston.
The effect was also consistent across a broad array of prespecified subgroups, including stratifications by age, renal function, time from last dose of ticagrelor, race, and the presence of comorbidities, such as diabetes, renal dysfunction, hypertension, and history of MI.
Hemostasis documented in all but one patient
Adjudicated hemostasis was achieved in 100% of the 113 urgent surgical patients evaluated. In the nine major bleeding patients, six achieved excellent hemostasis and one achieved good hemostasis. One had poor hemostasis, and one was unevaluable.
Platelet rebound following bentracimab administration, measured by mean platelet volume, was not observed.
There were no serious adverse events, allergic reactions, or serious infusion-related reactions associated with the administration of bentracimab, Dr. Bhatt said.
While Dr. Bhatt acknowledged that the number of patients in the major-bleeding subgroup was small, he noted that the reduction in platelet reactivity relative to baseline was still significant. In addition, he characterized urgent surgery as “an excellent model of bleeding” and pointed out the consistency of results in the surgical and major-bleeding groups.
The interim results are also consistent with phase 1 data published 2 years ago, and with the subsequent phase 2 studies. All of these data are now under regulatory review both in the United States and in Europe, according to Dr. Bhatt.
No good current options for reversal
Evidence of efficacy and safety is encouraging, because current options for urgently reversing ticagrelor are “disappointing,” according to the invited discussant Gilles Montalescot, MD, PhD, professor of cardiology, Pitié-Salpêtrière Hôpital, Paris.
“Platelet transfusion has some value for clopidogrel and prasugrel, but it does not work for ticagrelor,” said Dr. Montalescot, referring to two other P2Y12 inhibitors. Substantiating the need for a reversal agent, he identified several other strategies that have proven ineffective, such as desmopressin and sorbent hemadsorption.
Overall, Dr. Montalescot acknowledged the need for a highly effective ticagrelor reversal agent, but he did have some criticisms of REVERSE-IT. For one, he was not convinced about the design.
“What was unethical in having a control group?” he asked, suggesting that it was feasible and would have addressed issues of relative efficacy and safety.
For example, the authors concluded that none of the thrombotic events were likely to be treatment related, but “four events occurred immediately after reversal without an alternate explanation,” Dr. Montalescot pointed out. “Was this a signal or background noise?”
Nevertheless, he agreed that the interim phase 3 data are consistent with the previously reported phase 2 studies, and he reiterated that a strategy to reverse ticagrelor’s effects is an important unmet need.
Dr. Bhatt has a financial relationship with a large number of pharmaceutical companies, including PhaseBio, which provided funding for the REVERSE-IT trial. Dr. Montalescot reported financial relationships with Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Boston Scientific, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Cell-Prothera, CSL-Behring, Europa, Idorsia, Servicer, Medtronic, Merck Sharpe & Dohme, Novartis, Pfizer, Quantum Genomics, and Sanofi-Aventis.
The experimental monoclonal antibody bentracimab, which reverses the antiplatelet effects of ticagrelor, appears to be heading toward regulatory approval, on the basis of an interim analysis of the phase 3 REVERSE-IT trial.
“Rates of effective hemostasis were adjudicated as good or excellent in more than 90% of cases with no drug-related serious adverse events or allergic or infusion-related reactions,” reported Deepak L. Bhatt, MD, at the American Heart Association scientific sessions.
The interim analysis of this nonrandomized, single-arm study was requested by the Food and Drug Administration, which is considering a conditional accelerated approval of bentracimab (formerly PB2452) if efficacy and safety are established.
Upon administration, bentracimab binds to free ticagrelor so that ticagrelor cannot bind to the P2Y12 platelet receptor. This interrupts one of the key steps in the pathway of platelet aggregation.
REVERSE-IT is still enrolling patients. This interim analysis was conducted with the first 150 patients who met eligibility criteria and were treated. Of these, 142 patients were enrolled for an urgent surgical indication and 8 for a major bleeding indication. After some exclusions for lack of urgency and reclassifications following adjudication, there were 113 surgical cases and 9 major bleeding patients evaluable for hemostasis.
Platelet function assays test reversal
On the primary reversal endpoint, which was restoration of activity on the proprietary platelet function assays Verify Now and PRUTest, a rapid restoration of platelet function was achieved in both surgical and major-bleeding patients. Platelet reactivity climbed to near normal levels within 10 minutes of administration, and peak effects were sustained through the first 24 hours after administration.
On the basis of the platelet function assays, the pattern of response to bentracimab was “very similar in the surgical and bleeding patients,” reported Dr. Bhatt, executive director of interventional cardiovascular programs at Brigham and Women’s Health, Boston.
The effect was also consistent across a broad array of prespecified subgroups, including stratifications by age, renal function, time from last dose of ticagrelor, race, and the presence of comorbidities, such as diabetes, renal dysfunction, hypertension, and history of MI.
Hemostasis documented in all but one patient
Adjudicated hemostasis was achieved in 100% of the 113 urgent surgical patients evaluated. In the nine major bleeding patients, six achieved excellent hemostasis and one achieved good hemostasis. One had poor hemostasis, and one was unevaluable.
Platelet rebound following bentracimab administration, measured by mean platelet volume, was not observed.
There were no serious adverse events, allergic reactions, or serious infusion-related reactions associated with the administration of bentracimab, Dr. Bhatt said.
While Dr. Bhatt acknowledged that the number of patients in the major-bleeding subgroup was small, he noted that the reduction in platelet reactivity relative to baseline was still significant. In addition, he characterized urgent surgery as “an excellent model of bleeding” and pointed out the consistency of results in the surgical and major-bleeding groups.
The interim results are also consistent with phase 1 data published 2 years ago, and with the subsequent phase 2 studies. All of these data are now under regulatory review both in the United States and in Europe, according to Dr. Bhatt.
No good current options for reversal
Evidence of efficacy and safety is encouraging, because current options for urgently reversing ticagrelor are “disappointing,” according to the invited discussant Gilles Montalescot, MD, PhD, professor of cardiology, Pitié-Salpêtrière Hôpital, Paris.
“Platelet transfusion has some value for clopidogrel and prasugrel, but it does not work for ticagrelor,” said Dr. Montalescot, referring to two other P2Y12 inhibitors. Substantiating the need for a reversal agent, he identified several other strategies that have proven ineffective, such as desmopressin and sorbent hemadsorption.
Overall, Dr. Montalescot acknowledged the need for a highly effective ticagrelor reversal agent, but he did have some criticisms of REVERSE-IT. For one, he was not convinced about the design.
“What was unethical in having a control group?” he asked, suggesting that it was feasible and would have addressed issues of relative efficacy and safety.
For example, the authors concluded that none of the thrombotic events were likely to be treatment related, but “four events occurred immediately after reversal without an alternate explanation,” Dr. Montalescot pointed out. “Was this a signal or background noise?”
Nevertheless, he agreed that the interim phase 3 data are consistent with the previously reported phase 2 studies, and he reiterated that a strategy to reverse ticagrelor’s effects is an important unmet need.
Dr. Bhatt has a financial relationship with a large number of pharmaceutical companies, including PhaseBio, which provided funding for the REVERSE-IT trial. Dr. Montalescot reported financial relationships with Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Boston Scientific, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Cell-Prothera, CSL-Behring, Europa, Idorsia, Servicer, Medtronic, Merck Sharpe & Dohme, Novartis, Pfizer, Quantum Genomics, and Sanofi-Aventis.
The experimental monoclonal antibody bentracimab, which reverses the antiplatelet effects of ticagrelor, appears to be heading toward regulatory approval, on the basis of an interim analysis of the phase 3 REVERSE-IT trial.
“Rates of effective hemostasis were adjudicated as good or excellent in more than 90% of cases with no drug-related serious adverse events or allergic or infusion-related reactions,” reported Deepak L. Bhatt, MD, at the American Heart Association scientific sessions.
The interim analysis of this nonrandomized, single-arm study was requested by the Food and Drug Administration, which is considering a conditional accelerated approval of bentracimab (formerly PB2452) if efficacy and safety are established.
Upon administration, bentracimab binds to free ticagrelor so that ticagrelor cannot bind to the P2Y12 platelet receptor. This interrupts one of the key steps in the pathway of platelet aggregation.
REVERSE-IT is still enrolling patients. This interim analysis was conducted with the first 150 patients who met eligibility criteria and were treated. Of these, 142 patients were enrolled for an urgent surgical indication and 8 for a major bleeding indication. After some exclusions for lack of urgency and reclassifications following adjudication, there were 113 surgical cases and 9 major bleeding patients evaluable for hemostasis.
Platelet function assays test reversal
On the primary reversal endpoint, which was restoration of activity on the proprietary platelet function assays Verify Now and PRUTest, a rapid restoration of platelet function was achieved in both surgical and major-bleeding patients. Platelet reactivity climbed to near normal levels within 10 minutes of administration, and peak effects were sustained through the first 24 hours after administration.
On the basis of the platelet function assays, the pattern of response to bentracimab was “very similar in the surgical and bleeding patients,” reported Dr. Bhatt, executive director of interventional cardiovascular programs at Brigham and Women’s Health, Boston.
The effect was also consistent across a broad array of prespecified subgroups, including stratifications by age, renal function, time from last dose of ticagrelor, race, and the presence of comorbidities, such as diabetes, renal dysfunction, hypertension, and history of MI.
Hemostasis documented in all but one patient
Adjudicated hemostasis was achieved in 100% of the 113 urgent surgical patients evaluated. In the nine major bleeding patients, six achieved excellent hemostasis and one achieved good hemostasis. One had poor hemostasis, and one was unevaluable.
Platelet rebound following bentracimab administration, measured by mean platelet volume, was not observed.
There were no serious adverse events, allergic reactions, or serious infusion-related reactions associated with the administration of bentracimab, Dr. Bhatt said.
While Dr. Bhatt acknowledged that the number of patients in the major-bleeding subgroup was small, he noted that the reduction in platelet reactivity relative to baseline was still significant. In addition, he characterized urgent surgery as “an excellent model of bleeding” and pointed out the consistency of results in the surgical and major-bleeding groups.
The interim results are also consistent with phase 1 data published 2 years ago, and with the subsequent phase 2 studies. All of these data are now under regulatory review both in the United States and in Europe, according to Dr. Bhatt.
No good current options for reversal
Evidence of efficacy and safety is encouraging, because current options for urgently reversing ticagrelor are “disappointing,” according to the invited discussant Gilles Montalescot, MD, PhD, professor of cardiology, Pitié-Salpêtrière Hôpital, Paris.
“Platelet transfusion has some value for clopidogrel and prasugrel, but it does not work for ticagrelor,” said Dr. Montalescot, referring to two other P2Y12 inhibitors. Substantiating the need for a reversal agent, he identified several other strategies that have proven ineffective, such as desmopressin and sorbent hemadsorption.
Overall, Dr. Montalescot acknowledged the need for a highly effective ticagrelor reversal agent, but he did have some criticisms of REVERSE-IT. For one, he was not convinced about the design.
“What was unethical in having a control group?” he asked, suggesting that it was feasible and would have addressed issues of relative efficacy and safety.
For example, the authors concluded that none of the thrombotic events were likely to be treatment related, but “four events occurred immediately after reversal without an alternate explanation,” Dr. Montalescot pointed out. “Was this a signal or background noise?”
Nevertheless, he agreed that the interim phase 3 data are consistent with the previously reported phase 2 studies, and he reiterated that a strategy to reverse ticagrelor’s effects is an important unmet need.
Dr. Bhatt has a financial relationship with a large number of pharmaceutical companies, including PhaseBio, which provided funding for the REVERSE-IT trial. Dr. Montalescot reported financial relationships with Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Boston Scientific, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Cell-Prothera, CSL-Behring, Europa, Idorsia, Servicer, Medtronic, Merck Sharpe & Dohme, Novartis, Pfizer, Quantum Genomics, and Sanofi-Aventis.
FROM AHA 2021
Exercise reduces arm and shoulder problems after breast cancer surgery
However, according to a U.K. study published by The BMJ on Nov. 10, women who exercised shortly after having nonreconstructive breast cancer surgery experienced less pain and regained better shoulder and arm mobility at 1 year than those who did not exercise.
“Hospitals should consider training physiotherapists in the PROSPER program to offer this structured, prescribed exercise program to women undergoing axillary clearance surgery and those having radiotherapy to the axilla,” said lead author Julie Bruce, PhD, a specialist in surgical epidemiology with the University of Warwick, Coventry, England.
Up to one-third of women experience adverse effects to their lymphatic and musculoskeletal systems after breast cancer surgery and radiotherapy targeting the axilla. A study of 2,411 women in Denmark found that pain remained for up to 7 years after breast cancer treatment. U.K. guidelines for the management of breast cancer recommend referral to physical therapy if such problems develop, but the best timing and intensity along with the safety of postoperative exercise remain uncertain. A review of the literature in 2019 found a lack of adequate evidence to support the use of postoperative exercise after breast cancer surgery. Moreover, concerns with such exercise have been reported, such as increased risks of postoperative wound complications and lymphedema.
“The study was conducted to address uncertainty whether early postoperative exercise after women at high risk of shoulder and arm problems after nonreconstructive surgery was safe, clinically, and cost-effective. Previous studies were small, and no large high-quality randomized controlled trials had been undertaken with this patient population in the U.K.,” Dr. Bruce said.
In UK PROSPER, a multicenter, randomized controlled trial, researchers investigated the effects of an exercise program compared with usual care for 392 women (mean age 58) undergoing breast cancer surgery at 17 National Health Service (NHS) cancer centers. The women were randomly assigned to usual care with structured exercise or usual care alone. Structured exercise, introduced 7-10 days postoperatively, consisted of a physical therapy–led exercise program comprising stretching, strengthening, and physical activity, along with behavioral change techniques to support exercise adherence. Two further appointments were offered 1 and 3 months later. Outcomes included upper limb function, as measured by the Disability of Arm, Hand, and Shoulder (DASH) questionnaire at 12 months, complications, health related quality of life, and cost effectiveness.
At 12 months, women in the exercise group showed improved upper limb function compared with those who received usual care (mean DASH 16.3 for exercise, 23.7 for usual care; adjusted mean difference 7.81, 95% confidence interval, 3.17-12.44; P = .001). Compared with the usual care group, women in the exercise group reported lower pain intensity, fewer arm disability symptoms, and better health related quality of life.
“We found that arm function, measured using the DASH scale, improved over time and found surprisingly, these differences between treatment groups persisted at 12 months,” Dr. Bruce said. “There was no increased risk of neuropathic pain or lymphedema, so we concluded that the structured exercise program introduced from the seventh postoperative day was safe. Strengthening exercises were introduced from 1 month postoperatively.”
While the authors noted that the study was limited as participants and physical therapists knew which treatment they were receiving, they stressed that the study included a larger sample size than that of previous trials, along with a long follow-up period.
“We know that some women develop late lymphedema. Our findings are based on follow-up at 12 months. We hope to undertake longer-term follow up of our patient sample in the future,” Dr. Bruce said.
The authors declared support from the UK National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Technology Assessment Programme.
However, according to a U.K. study published by The BMJ on Nov. 10, women who exercised shortly after having nonreconstructive breast cancer surgery experienced less pain and regained better shoulder and arm mobility at 1 year than those who did not exercise.
“Hospitals should consider training physiotherapists in the PROSPER program to offer this structured, prescribed exercise program to women undergoing axillary clearance surgery and those having radiotherapy to the axilla,” said lead author Julie Bruce, PhD, a specialist in surgical epidemiology with the University of Warwick, Coventry, England.
Up to one-third of women experience adverse effects to their lymphatic and musculoskeletal systems after breast cancer surgery and radiotherapy targeting the axilla. A study of 2,411 women in Denmark found that pain remained for up to 7 years after breast cancer treatment. U.K. guidelines for the management of breast cancer recommend referral to physical therapy if such problems develop, but the best timing and intensity along with the safety of postoperative exercise remain uncertain. A review of the literature in 2019 found a lack of adequate evidence to support the use of postoperative exercise after breast cancer surgery. Moreover, concerns with such exercise have been reported, such as increased risks of postoperative wound complications and lymphedema.
“The study was conducted to address uncertainty whether early postoperative exercise after women at high risk of shoulder and arm problems after nonreconstructive surgery was safe, clinically, and cost-effective. Previous studies were small, and no large high-quality randomized controlled trials had been undertaken with this patient population in the U.K.,” Dr. Bruce said.
In UK PROSPER, a multicenter, randomized controlled trial, researchers investigated the effects of an exercise program compared with usual care for 392 women (mean age 58) undergoing breast cancer surgery at 17 National Health Service (NHS) cancer centers. The women were randomly assigned to usual care with structured exercise or usual care alone. Structured exercise, introduced 7-10 days postoperatively, consisted of a physical therapy–led exercise program comprising stretching, strengthening, and physical activity, along with behavioral change techniques to support exercise adherence. Two further appointments were offered 1 and 3 months later. Outcomes included upper limb function, as measured by the Disability of Arm, Hand, and Shoulder (DASH) questionnaire at 12 months, complications, health related quality of life, and cost effectiveness.
At 12 months, women in the exercise group showed improved upper limb function compared with those who received usual care (mean DASH 16.3 for exercise, 23.7 for usual care; adjusted mean difference 7.81, 95% confidence interval, 3.17-12.44; P = .001). Compared with the usual care group, women in the exercise group reported lower pain intensity, fewer arm disability symptoms, and better health related quality of life.
“We found that arm function, measured using the DASH scale, improved over time and found surprisingly, these differences between treatment groups persisted at 12 months,” Dr. Bruce said. “There was no increased risk of neuropathic pain or lymphedema, so we concluded that the structured exercise program introduced from the seventh postoperative day was safe. Strengthening exercises were introduced from 1 month postoperatively.”
While the authors noted that the study was limited as participants and physical therapists knew which treatment they were receiving, they stressed that the study included a larger sample size than that of previous trials, along with a long follow-up period.
“We know that some women develop late lymphedema. Our findings are based on follow-up at 12 months. We hope to undertake longer-term follow up of our patient sample in the future,” Dr. Bruce said.
The authors declared support from the UK National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Technology Assessment Programme.
However, according to a U.K. study published by The BMJ on Nov. 10, women who exercised shortly after having nonreconstructive breast cancer surgery experienced less pain and regained better shoulder and arm mobility at 1 year than those who did not exercise.
“Hospitals should consider training physiotherapists in the PROSPER program to offer this structured, prescribed exercise program to women undergoing axillary clearance surgery and those having radiotherapy to the axilla,” said lead author Julie Bruce, PhD, a specialist in surgical epidemiology with the University of Warwick, Coventry, England.
Up to one-third of women experience adverse effects to their lymphatic and musculoskeletal systems after breast cancer surgery and radiotherapy targeting the axilla. A study of 2,411 women in Denmark found that pain remained for up to 7 years after breast cancer treatment. U.K. guidelines for the management of breast cancer recommend referral to physical therapy if such problems develop, but the best timing and intensity along with the safety of postoperative exercise remain uncertain. A review of the literature in 2019 found a lack of adequate evidence to support the use of postoperative exercise after breast cancer surgery. Moreover, concerns with such exercise have been reported, such as increased risks of postoperative wound complications and lymphedema.
“The study was conducted to address uncertainty whether early postoperative exercise after women at high risk of shoulder and arm problems after nonreconstructive surgery was safe, clinically, and cost-effective. Previous studies were small, and no large high-quality randomized controlled trials had been undertaken with this patient population in the U.K.,” Dr. Bruce said.
In UK PROSPER, a multicenter, randomized controlled trial, researchers investigated the effects of an exercise program compared with usual care for 392 women (mean age 58) undergoing breast cancer surgery at 17 National Health Service (NHS) cancer centers. The women were randomly assigned to usual care with structured exercise or usual care alone. Structured exercise, introduced 7-10 days postoperatively, consisted of a physical therapy–led exercise program comprising stretching, strengthening, and physical activity, along with behavioral change techniques to support exercise adherence. Two further appointments were offered 1 and 3 months later. Outcomes included upper limb function, as measured by the Disability of Arm, Hand, and Shoulder (DASH) questionnaire at 12 months, complications, health related quality of life, and cost effectiveness.
At 12 months, women in the exercise group showed improved upper limb function compared with those who received usual care (mean DASH 16.3 for exercise, 23.7 for usual care; adjusted mean difference 7.81, 95% confidence interval, 3.17-12.44; P = .001). Compared with the usual care group, women in the exercise group reported lower pain intensity, fewer arm disability symptoms, and better health related quality of life.
“We found that arm function, measured using the DASH scale, improved over time and found surprisingly, these differences between treatment groups persisted at 12 months,” Dr. Bruce said. “There was no increased risk of neuropathic pain or lymphedema, so we concluded that the structured exercise program introduced from the seventh postoperative day was safe. Strengthening exercises were introduced from 1 month postoperatively.”
While the authors noted that the study was limited as participants and physical therapists knew which treatment they were receiving, they stressed that the study included a larger sample size than that of previous trials, along with a long follow-up period.
“We know that some women develop late lymphedema. Our findings are based on follow-up at 12 months. We hope to undertake longer-term follow up of our patient sample in the future,” Dr. Bruce said.
The authors declared support from the UK National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Technology Assessment Programme.
FROM THE BMJ
ASCEND: Aspirin shows hint of dementia protection in T2D
A regimen of daily, low-dose aspirin failed to produce a significant reduction in the incidence of dementia or cognitive impairment in ASCEND, a randomized, multicenter trial with more than 15,000 people with diabetes followed for an average of more than 9 years, but the results hinted at enough of a benefit to warrant further study, some experts said.
“The question remains open,” said Jane Armitage, MBBS, FRCP, as she presented the findings at the American Heart Association scientific sessions. “The rate ratios suggest some benefit. It’s encouraging,” added Dr. Armitage, professor of clinical trials and epidemiology at Oxford (England) University.
The study tallied dementia outcomes three different ways: It applied a narrow definition that relied on a specific diagnosis of dementia in a person’s EHR or in their death record. (Dr. Armitage and her associates tracked outcomes for 99% of the enrolled participants by linking to their U.K. national health records and death records.)
A second metric used a broader outcome definition that tracked EHR entries for not only dementia but also diagnoses of cognitive impairment, delirium, confusion, prescription of dementia medications, and referral to a memory clinic or geriatric psychiatry. The third assessment was a cognitive-function test given to participants at the end of follow-up, but only 58% of enrolled participants completed this part of the study, and it’s also possible that some subjects missed this assessment because of dementia onset. These limitations hamper clear interpretation of this third metric, Dr. Armitage said.
The main findings for the other two, more reliable measures of incident dementia or cognitive deterioration showed a nonsignificant 9% relative risk reduction linked with aspirin use compared with placebo for the more inclusive endpoint, and a nonsignificant 11% relative risk reduction with aspirin using the narrow definition for dementia only, she reported. The third method, a directly administered assessment of dementia and cognition, also showed a small, nonsignificant effect from daily aspirin use relative to placebo.
Results can’t rule out modest aspirin effect
Dr. Armitage highlighted that the two more reliable measures both appeared to rule out risk for neurologic harm from aspirin because the upper limit of the 95% confidence interval for relative effect reached only 1.02 using the broad outcomes, and 1.06 for the narrower endpoint of dementia only. On the other hand, focus on the low end of the 95% confidence interval suggested potentially meaningful benefits, with a possible reduction by aspirin in events relative to placebo of as much as 19% by the broad outcome definition and by 25% with the narrow definition.
“Even if it was only a 15% relative risk reduction, that would be important,” given the high dementia incidence worldwide, Dr. Armitage said during a press briefing. “It’s entirely possible, with our results, that a modest benefit exists.”
This take on the findings won some support. Further studies with more people, longer follow-up, and perhaps enrolling a more selected, higher risk cohort may better address potential neurologic benefit from aspirin, suggested Amytis Towfighi, MD, a stroke neurologist and professor of neurology at the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, and a designated discussant for the report.
The result “was rather encouraging. I was a little surprised” by the findings, commented Chrystie M. Ballantyne, MD, professor and director of the Center for Cardiometabolic Disease Prevention at Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, also a discussant.
The results “don’t mean that no one benefits from aspirin. Perhaps certain people at risk would benefit from dementia protection. It’s an open question,” commented Erin D. Michos, MD, director of Women’s Cardiovascular Health at Johns Hopkins Medicine, Baltimore.
But others saw the findings as more unequivocally neutral. “This gives us an early, preliminary answer, that aspirin does not seem to improve dementia,” commented Amit Khera, MD, professor and director of Preventive Cardiology at UT Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, and a third discussant at the meeting.
Evidence against routine, widespread primary prevention with aspirin
ASCEND had the primary goal of assessing a daily, 100-mg aspirin dose for its safety and efficacy for preventing vascular events such as MIs and ischemic strokes in 15,480 people with diabetes who were at least 40 years old at enrollment and had no history of cardiovascular disease. The main results came out in 2018 and showed that while aspirin produced a significant benefit by reducing thrombotic events, it also resulted in significantly more major bleeding events compared with placebo, and overall the magnitude of benefit roughly matched magnitude of risk.
These findings, along with similar results from two other high-profile aspirin studies reported at about the same time (ASPREE, and ARRIVE), led to recommendations from groups like the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force and from the American College of Cardiology and American Heart Association that caution against widespread, routine aspirin use for primary prevention of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease events in most adults.
The groups instead endorsed a tailored strategy of targeting aspirin to people with a higher than average risk for ischemic thrombotic events and a lower than average bleeding risk. (The most recent aspirin recommendations from the USPSTF, currently in draft form, substantially curtail aspirin’s appropriate use, eliminating it in those over age 60 years.)
However, experts and prevailing practice recommendations continue to endorse routine aspirin use for secondary prevention in patients with an established history of cardiovascular disease.
The new findings reported by Dr. Armitage came from additional analyses of dementia and cognitive impairment overlaid on the main ASCEND outcome analyses. ASCEND actively treated and followed study participants for an average of 7.4 years, then researchers tracked further dementia outcomes based on medical-record entries for an average of another 1.8 years.
ASCEND received partial funding or support from Abbott, Bayer, Mylan, and Solvay. Dr. Armitage had no disclosures. Dr. Towfighi, Dr. Khera, and Dr. Michos had no disclosures. Dr. Ballantyne has had financial relationships with numerous companies.
A regimen of daily, low-dose aspirin failed to produce a significant reduction in the incidence of dementia or cognitive impairment in ASCEND, a randomized, multicenter trial with more than 15,000 people with diabetes followed for an average of more than 9 years, but the results hinted at enough of a benefit to warrant further study, some experts said.
“The question remains open,” said Jane Armitage, MBBS, FRCP, as she presented the findings at the American Heart Association scientific sessions. “The rate ratios suggest some benefit. It’s encouraging,” added Dr. Armitage, professor of clinical trials and epidemiology at Oxford (England) University.
The study tallied dementia outcomes three different ways: It applied a narrow definition that relied on a specific diagnosis of dementia in a person’s EHR or in their death record. (Dr. Armitage and her associates tracked outcomes for 99% of the enrolled participants by linking to their U.K. national health records and death records.)
A second metric used a broader outcome definition that tracked EHR entries for not only dementia but also diagnoses of cognitive impairment, delirium, confusion, prescription of dementia medications, and referral to a memory clinic or geriatric psychiatry. The third assessment was a cognitive-function test given to participants at the end of follow-up, but only 58% of enrolled participants completed this part of the study, and it’s also possible that some subjects missed this assessment because of dementia onset. These limitations hamper clear interpretation of this third metric, Dr. Armitage said.
The main findings for the other two, more reliable measures of incident dementia or cognitive deterioration showed a nonsignificant 9% relative risk reduction linked with aspirin use compared with placebo for the more inclusive endpoint, and a nonsignificant 11% relative risk reduction with aspirin using the narrow definition for dementia only, she reported. The third method, a directly administered assessment of dementia and cognition, also showed a small, nonsignificant effect from daily aspirin use relative to placebo.
Results can’t rule out modest aspirin effect
Dr. Armitage highlighted that the two more reliable measures both appeared to rule out risk for neurologic harm from aspirin because the upper limit of the 95% confidence interval for relative effect reached only 1.02 using the broad outcomes, and 1.06 for the narrower endpoint of dementia only. On the other hand, focus on the low end of the 95% confidence interval suggested potentially meaningful benefits, with a possible reduction by aspirin in events relative to placebo of as much as 19% by the broad outcome definition and by 25% with the narrow definition.
“Even if it was only a 15% relative risk reduction, that would be important,” given the high dementia incidence worldwide, Dr. Armitage said during a press briefing. “It’s entirely possible, with our results, that a modest benefit exists.”
This take on the findings won some support. Further studies with more people, longer follow-up, and perhaps enrolling a more selected, higher risk cohort may better address potential neurologic benefit from aspirin, suggested Amytis Towfighi, MD, a stroke neurologist and professor of neurology at the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, and a designated discussant for the report.
The result “was rather encouraging. I was a little surprised” by the findings, commented Chrystie M. Ballantyne, MD, professor and director of the Center for Cardiometabolic Disease Prevention at Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, also a discussant.
The results “don’t mean that no one benefits from aspirin. Perhaps certain people at risk would benefit from dementia protection. It’s an open question,” commented Erin D. Michos, MD, director of Women’s Cardiovascular Health at Johns Hopkins Medicine, Baltimore.
But others saw the findings as more unequivocally neutral. “This gives us an early, preliminary answer, that aspirin does not seem to improve dementia,” commented Amit Khera, MD, professor and director of Preventive Cardiology at UT Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, and a third discussant at the meeting.
Evidence against routine, widespread primary prevention with aspirin
ASCEND had the primary goal of assessing a daily, 100-mg aspirin dose for its safety and efficacy for preventing vascular events such as MIs and ischemic strokes in 15,480 people with diabetes who were at least 40 years old at enrollment and had no history of cardiovascular disease. The main results came out in 2018 and showed that while aspirin produced a significant benefit by reducing thrombotic events, it also resulted in significantly more major bleeding events compared with placebo, and overall the magnitude of benefit roughly matched magnitude of risk.
These findings, along with similar results from two other high-profile aspirin studies reported at about the same time (ASPREE, and ARRIVE), led to recommendations from groups like the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force and from the American College of Cardiology and American Heart Association that caution against widespread, routine aspirin use for primary prevention of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease events in most adults.
The groups instead endorsed a tailored strategy of targeting aspirin to people with a higher than average risk for ischemic thrombotic events and a lower than average bleeding risk. (The most recent aspirin recommendations from the USPSTF, currently in draft form, substantially curtail aspirin’s appropriate use, eliminating it in those over age 60 years.)
However, experts and prevailing practice recommendations continue to endorse routine aspirin use for secondary prevention in patients with an established history of cardiovascular disease.
The new findings reported by Dr. Armitage came from additional analyses of dementia and cognitive impairment overlaid on the main ASCEND outcome analyses. ASCEND actively treated and followed study participants for an average of 7.4 years, then researchers tracked further dementia outcomes based on medical-record entries for an average of another 1.8 years.
ASCEND received partial funding or support from Abbott, Bayer, Mylan, and Solvay. Dr. Armitage had no disclosures. Dr. Towfighi, Dr. Khera, and Dr. Michos had no disclosures. Dr. Ballantyne has had financial relationships with numerous companies.
A regimen of daily, low-dose aspirin failed to produce a significant reduction in the incidence of dementia or cognitive impairment in ASCEND, a randomized, multicenter trial with more than 15,000 people with diabetes followed for an average of more than 9 years, but the results hinted at enough of a benefit to warrant further study, some experts said.
“The question remains open,” said Jane Armitage, MBBS, FRCP, as she presented the findings at the American Heart Association scientific sessions. “The rate ratios suggest some benefit. It’s encouraging,” added Dr. Armitage, professor of clinical trials and epidemiology at Oxford (England) University.
The study tallied dementia outcomes three different ways: It applied a narrow definition that relied on a specific diagnosis of dementia in a person’s EHR or in their death record. (Dr. Armitage and her associates tracked outcomes for 99% of the enrolled participants by linking to their U.K. national health records and death records.)
A second metric used a broader outcome definition that tracked EHR entries for not only dementia but also diagnoses of cognitive impairment, delirium, confusion, prescription of dementia medications, and referral to a memory clinic or geriatric psychiatry. The third assessment was a cognitive-function test given to participants at the end of follow-up, but only 58% of enrolled participants completed this part of the study, and it’s also possible that some subjects missed this assessment because of dementia onset. These limitations hamper clear interpretation of this third metric, Dr. Armitage said.
The main findings for the other two, more reliable measures of incident dementia or cognitive deterioration showed a nonsignificant 9% relative risk reduction linked with aspirin use compared with placebo for the more inclusive endpoint, and a nonsignificant 11% relative risk reduction with aspirin using the narrow definition for dementia only, she reported. The third method, a directly administered assessment of dementia and cognition, also showed a small, nonsignificant effect from daily aspirin use relative to placebo.
Results can’t rule out modest aspirin effect
Dr. Armitage highlighted that the two more reliable measures both appeared to rule out risk for neurologic harm from aspirin because the upper limit of the 95% confidence interval for relative effect reached only 1.02 using the broad outcomes, and 1.06 for the narrower endpoint of dementia only. On the other hand, focus on the low end of the 95% confidence interval suggested potentially meaningful benefits, with a possible reduction by aspirin in events relative to placebo of as much as 19% by the broad outcome definition and by 25% with the narrow definition.
“Even if it was only a 15% relative risk reduction, that would be important,” given the high dementia incidence worldwide, Dr. Armitage said during a press briefing. “It’s entirely possible, with our results, that a modest benefit exists.”
This take on the findings won some support. Further studies with more people, longer follow-up, and perhaps enrolling a more selected, higher risk cohort may better address potential neurologic benefit from aspirin, suggested Amytis Towfighi, MD, a stroke neurologist and professor of neurology at the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, and a designated discussant for the report.
The result “was rather encouraging. I was a little surprised” by the findings, commented Chrystie M. Ballantyne, MD, professor and director of the Center for Cardiometabolic Disease Prevention at Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, also a discussant.
The results “don’t mean that no one benefits from aspirin. Perhaps certain people at risk would benefit from dementia protection. It’s an open question,” commented Erin D. Michos, MD, director of Women’s Cardiovascular Health at Johns Hopkins Medicine, Baltimore.
But others saw the findings as more unequivocally neutral. “This gives us an early, preliminary answer, that aspirin does not seem to improve dementia,” commented Amit Khera, MD, professor and director of Preventive Cardiology at UT Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, and a third discussant at the meeting.
Evidence against routine, widespread primary prevention with aspirin
ASCEND had the primary goal of assessing a daily, 100-mg aspirin dose for its safety and efficacy for preventing vascular events such as MIs and ischemic strokes in 15,480 people with diabetes who were at least 40 years old at enrollment and had no history of cardiovascular disease. The main results came out in 2018 and showed that while aspirin produced a significant benefit by reducing thrombotic events, it also resulted in significantly more major bleeding events compared with placebo, and overall the magnitude of benefit roughly matched magnitude of risk.
These findings, along with similar results from two other high-profile aspirin studies reported at about the same time (ASPREE, and ARRIVE), led to recommendations from groups like the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force and from the American College of Cardiology and American Heart Association that caution against widespread, routine aspirin use for primary prevention of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease events in most adults.
The groups instead endorsed a tailored strategy of targeting aspirin to people with a higher than average risk for ischemic thrombotic events and a lower than average bleeding risk. (The most recent aspirin recommendations from the USPSTF, currently in draft form, substantially curtail aspirin’s appropriate use, eliminating it in those over age 60 years.)
However, experts and prevailing practice recommendations continue to endorse routine aspirin use for secondary prevention in patients with an established history of cardiovascular disease.
The new findings reported by Dr. Armitage came from additional analyses of dementia and cognitive impairment overlaid on the main ASCEND outcome analyses. ASCEND actively treated and followed study participants for an average of 7.4 years, then researchers tracked further dementia outcomes based on medical-record entries for an average of another 1.8 years.
ASCEND received partial funding or support from Abbott, Bayer, Mylan, and Solvay. Dr. Armitage had no disclosures. Dr. Towfighi, Dr. Khera, and Dr. Michos had no disclosures. Dr. Ballantyne has had financial relationships with numerous companies.
FROM AHA 2021