Steve Cimino

Patients with sarcoidosis have an increased risk of heart failure and other adverse outcomes, including all-cause mortality, according to a decade-long nationwide study of Danish patients with the inflammatory disease.

“Although these findings are suggestive of the need for regular monitoring of cardiac manifestations in patients with sarcoidosis, it is important to emphasize that no causal relationships can be established from an observational study. Further studies are therefore needed to confirm our findings,” said first author Adelina Yafasova, MB, of Copenhagen University Hospital in Denmark, in an interview. The study was published in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

To determine the long-term risk of cardiac outcomes, and beyond – including incident heart failure; a composite of implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) implantation, ventricular arrhythmias or cardiac arrest; and all-cause mortality – Dr. Yafasova and her colleagues analyzed data from all Danish residents 18 years or older who were diagnosed with sarcoidosis from 1996 to 2016. Patients with any history of cardiac events were excluded. Of the 12,883 diagnosed patients, 11,834 were matched with subjects from a nationwide background population of more than 47,000 based on age, sex, and comorbidity. The median age of both populations was 42.8 (33.1-55.8) and 54.3% were men.

Median follow-up was 8.2 years for the sarcoidosis population and 8.4 years for the background population. The absolute 10-year risk of heart failure was 3.18% (95% confidence interval, 2.83%-3.57%) for sarcoidosis patients and 1.72% (95% CI, 1.58%-1.86%) for their matched controls. The 10-year risk for the composite of ICD implantation, ventricular arrhythmias and cardiac arrest was 0.96% (95% CI, 0.77%-1.18%) for sarcoidosis patients and 0.45% (95% CI, 0.38%-0.53%) for the background population.

For all-cause mortality, the 10-year risk was 10.88% (95% CI, 10.23%-11.55%) for sarcoidosis patients and 7.43% (95% CI, 7.15%-7.72%) for the background population. In a secondary analysis that compared all-cause mortality between the 364 sarcoidosis patients who developed heart failure and the 1,456 patients with heart failure without a history of sarcoidosis, the sarcoidosis group had a 35% higher rate than the nonsarcoidosis group (adjusted hazard ratio 1.35; 95% CI, 1.10-1.64).

“It’s not necessarily surprising that sarcoidosis patients would have a higher rate of heart failure,” said Melissa A. Lyle, MD, of the Mayo Clinic in Jacksonville, Fla., in an interview. “But the key takeaway is that sarcoidosis was associated with a higher rate of all-cause mortality compared to patients with heart failure and no sarcoidosis. That was more of a surprise.”

“There’s been some discrepancy in previous studies describing the cardiovascular outcomes in sarcoidosis,” Dr. Lyle added, “so I think this study provides excellent information while also highlighting the need for additional large-scale studies. We need to have further data on cardiovascular outcomes, which will allow us to refine the consensus statements and guidelines for management and the diagnosis of cardiac sarcoidosis.”

Dr. Lyle and Leslie T. Cooper Jr., MD, also of the Mayo Clinic, extrapolated on those thoughts in an editorial that accompanied the study. In it, the two authors praised the size and lengthy follow-up of the study, while noting its limitations. Specifically, they stressed that the study’s Danish population “may not be representative of other general populations” because of notable differences in ethnicity, age, and comorbidities.

That said, they reinforced that the study did feature “important takeaways” and that its findings emphasize the “need for monitoring for cardiac manifestations in patients with systemic sarcoidosis.”

In addition to the limitations noted in the editorial, the study’s authors acknowledged that the observational nature limited its “assessment of cause-effect relationships” and that the diagnosis codes for sarcoidosis had not been validated in the Danish National Patient Registry.

The authors of both the study and the editorial reported no conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Yafasova A et al. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2020 Aug 10. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2020.06.038.

Patients with sarcoidosis have an increased risk of heart failure and other adverse outcomes, including all-cause mortality, according to a decade-long nationwide study of Danish patients with the inflammatory disease.

“Although these findings are suggestive of the need for regular monitoring of cardiac manifestations in patients with sarcoidosis, it is important to emphasize that no causal relationships can be established from an observational study. Further studies are therefore needed to confirm our findings,” said first author Adelina Yafasova, MB, of Copenhagen University Hospital in Denmark, in an interview. The study was published in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

To determine the long-term risk of cardiac outcomes, and beyond – including incident heart failure; a composite of implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) implantation, ventricular arrhythmias or cardiac arrest; and all-cause mortality – Dr. Yafasova and her colleagues analyzed data from all Danish residents 18 years or older who were diagnosed with sarcoidosis from 1996 to 2016. Patients with any history of cardiac events were excluded. Of the 12,883 diagnosed patients, 11,834 were matched with subjects from a nationwide background population of more than 47,000 based on age, sex, and comorbidity. The median age of both populations was 42.8 (33.1-55.8) and 54.3% were men.

Median follow-up was 8.2 years for the sarcoidosis population and 8.4 years for the background population. The absolute 10-year risk of heart failure was 3.18% (95% confidence interval, 2.83%-3.57%) for sarcoidosis patients and 1.72% (95% CI, 1.58%-1.86%) for their matched controls. The 10-year risk for the composite of ICD implantation, ventricular arrhythmias and cardiac arrest was 0.96% (95% CI, 0.77%-1.18%) for sarcoidosis patients and 0.45% (95% CI, 0.38%-0.53%) for the background population.

For all-cause mortality, the 10-year risk was 10.88% (95% CI, 10.23%-11.55%) for sarcoidosis patients and 7.43% (95% CI, 7.15%-7.72%) for the background population. In a secondary analysis that compared all-cause mortality between the 364 sarcoidosis patients who developed heart failure and the 1,456 patients with heart failure without a history of sarcoidosis, the sarcoidosis group had a 35% higher rate than the nonsarcoidosis group (adjusted hazard ratio 1.35; 95% CI, 1.10-1.64).

“It’s not necessarily surprising that sarcoidosis patients would have a higher rate of heart failure,” said Melissa A. Lyle, MD, of the Mayo Clinic in Jacksonville, Fla., in an interview. “But the key takeaway is that sarcoidosis was associated with a higher rate of all-cause mortality compared to patients with heart failure and no sarcoidosis. That was more of a surprise.”

“There’s been some discrepancy in previous studies describing the cardiovascular outcomes in sarcoidosis,” Dr. Lyle added, “so I think this study provides excellent information while also highlighting the need for additional large-scale studies. We need to have further data on cardiovascular outcomes, which will allow us to refine the consensus statements and guidelines for management and the diagnosis of cardiac sarcoidosis.”

Dr. Lyle and Leslie T. Cooper Jr., MD, also of the Mayo Clinic, extrapolated on those thoughts in an editorial that accompanied the study. In it, the two authors praised the size and lengthy follow-up of the study, while noting its limitations. Specifically, they stressed that the study’s Danish population “may not be representative of other general populations” because of notable differences in ethnicity, age, and comorbidities.

That said, they reinforced that the study did feature “important takeaways” and that its findings emphasize the “need for monitoring for cardiac manifestations in patients with systemic sarcoidosis.”

In addition to the limitations noted in the editorial, the study’s authors acknowledged that the observational nature limited its “assessment of cause-effect relationships” and that the diagnosis codes for sarcoidosis had not been validated in the Danish National Patient Registry.

The authors of both the study and the editorial reported no conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Yafasova A et al. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2020 Aug 10. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2020.06.038.

Patients with sarcoidosis have an increased risk of heart failure and other adverse outcomes, including all-cause mortality, according to a decade-long nationwide study of Danish patients with the inflammatory disease.

“Although these findings are suggestive of the need for regular monitoring of cardiac manifestations in patients with sarcoidosis, it is important to emphasize that no causal relationships can be established from an observational study. Further studies are therefore needed to confirm our findings,” said first author Adelina Yafasova, MB, of Copenhagen University Hospital in Denmark, in an interview. The study was published in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

To determine the long-term risk of cardiac outcomes, and beyond – including incident heart failure; a composite of implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) implantation, ventricular arrhythmias or cardiac arrest; and all-cause mortality – Dr. Yafasova and her colleagues analyzed data from all Danish residents 18 years or older who were diagnosed with sarcoidosis from 1996 to 2016. Patients with any history of cardiac events were excluded. Of the 12,883 diagnosed patients, 11,834 were matched with subjects from a nationwide background population of more than 47,000 based on age, sex, and comorbidity. The median age of both populations was 42.8 (33.1-55.8) and 54.3% were men.

Median follow-up was 8.2 years for the sarcoidosis population and 8.4 years for the background population. The absolute 10-year risk of heart failure was 3.18% (95% confidence interval, 2.83%-3.57%) for sarcoidosis patients and 1.72% (95% CI, 1.58%-1.86%) for their matched controls. The 10-year risk for the composite of ICD implantation, ventricular arrhythmias and cardiac arrest was 0.96% (95% CI, 0.77%-1.18%) for sarcoidosis patients and 0.45% (95% CI, 0.38%-0.53%) for the background population.

For all-cause mortality, the 10-year risk was 10.88% (95% CI, 10.23%-11.55%) for sarcoidosis patients and 7.43% (95% CI, 7.15%-7.72%) for the background population. In a secondary analysis that compared all-cause mortality between the 364 sarcoidosis patients who developed heart failure and the 1,456 patients with heart failure without a history of sarcoidosis, the sarcoidosis group had a 35% higher rate than the nonsarcoidosis group (adjusted hazard ratio 1.35; 95% CI, 1.10-1.64).

“It’s not necessarily surprising that sarcoidosis patients would have a higher rate of heart failure,” said Melissa A. Lyle, MD, of the Mayo Clinic in Jacksonville, Fla., in an interview. “But the key takeaway is that sarcoidosis was associated with a higher rate of all-cause mortality compared to patients with heart failure and no sarcoidosis. That was more of a surprise.”

“There’s been some discrepancy in previous studies describing the cardiovascular outcomes in sarcoidosis,” Dr. Lyle added, “so I think this study provides excellent information while also highlighting the need for additional large-scale studies. We need to have further data on cardiovascular outcomes, which will allow us to refine the consensus statements and guidelines for management and the diagnosis of cardiac sarcoidosis.”

Dr. Lyle and Leslie T. Cooper Jr., MD, also of the Mayo Clinic, extrapolated on those thoughts in an editorial that accompanied the study. In it, the two authors praised the size and lengthy follow-up of the study, while noting its limitations. Specifically, they stressed that the study’s Danish population “may not be representative of other general populations” because of notable differences in ethnicity, age, and comorbidities.

That said, they reinforced that the study did feature “important takeaways” and that its findings emphasize the “need for monitoring for cardiac manifestations in patients with systemic sarcoidosis.”

In addition to the limitations noted in the editorial, the study’s authors acknowledged that the observational nature limited its “assessment of cause-effect relationships” and that the diagnosis codes for sarcoidosis had not been validated in the Danish National Patient Registry.

The authors of both the study and the editorial reported no conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Yafasova A et al. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2020 Aug 10. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2020.06.038.

A new study of hypertension treatment trends found that uncontrolled high blood pressure along with considerable undertreatment of the condition were prevalent in individuals with a history of both hypertension and stroke. “To our knowledge, the present study is the first to analyze and report national antihypertensive medication trends exclusively among individuals with a history of stroke in the United States,” wrote Daniel Santos, MD, and Mandip S. Dhamoon, MD, DrPH, of the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York. Their study was published in JAMA Neurology.

To examine blood pressure control and treatment trends among stroke survivors, the researchers examined more than a decade of data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES). The cross-sectional survey is conducted in 2-year cycles; the authors analyzed the results from 2005 to 2016 and uncovered a total of 4,971,136 eligible individuals with a history of both stroke and hypertension.

The mean age of the study population was 67.1 (95% confidence interval, 66.1-68.1), and 2,790,518 (56.1%) were women. Their mean blood pressure was 134/68 mm Hg (95% CI, 133/67–136/69), and the average number of antihypertensive medications they were taking was 1.8 (95% CI, 1.7-1.9). Of the 4,971,136 analyzed individuals, 4,721,409 (95%) were aware of their hypertension diagnosis yet more than 10% of that group had not previously been prescribed an antihypertensive medication.

More than 37% (n = 1,846,470) of the participants had uncontrolled high blood pressure upon examination (95% CI, 33.5%-40.8%), and 15.3% (95% CI, 12.5%-18.0%) were not taking any medication for it at all. The most commonly used antihypertensive medications included ACE inhibitors or angiotensin receptor blockers (59.2%; 95% CI, 54.9%-63.4%), beta-blockers (43.8%; 95% CI, 40.3%-47.3%), diuretics (41.6%; 95% CI, 37.3%-45.9%) and calcium-channel blockers (31.5%; 95% CI, 28.2%-34.8%).* Roughly 57% of the sample was taking more than one antihypertensive medication (95% CI, 52.8%-60.6%) while 28% (95% CI, 24.6%-31.5%) were taking only one.
 

Continued surveillance is key

“All the studies that have ever been done show that hypertension is inadequately treated,” Louis Caplan, MD, of Harvard Medical School and Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, both in Boston, said in an interview. “One of the reasons is that it can be hard to get some of the patients to seek treatment, particularly Black Americans. Also, a lot of the medicines to treat high blood pressure have side effects, so many patients don’t want to take the pills.

“Treating hypertension really requires continued surveillance,” he added. “It’s not one visit where the doctor gives you a pill. It’s taking the pill, following your blood pressure, and seeing if it works. If it doesn’t, then maybe you change the dose, get another pill, and are followed once again. That doesn’t happen as often as it should.”

In regard to next steps, Dr. Caplan urged that hypertension “be evaluated more seriously. Even as home blood pressure kits and monitoring become increasingly available, many doctors are still going by a casual blood pressure test in the office, which doesn’t tell you how serious the problem is. There needs to be more use of technology and more conditioning of patients to monitor their own blood pressure as a guide, and then we go from there.”

The authors acknowledged their study’s limitations, including the NHANES’s reliance on self-reporting a history of stroke and the inability to distinguish between subtypes of stroke. In addition, they noted that many antihypertensive medications have uses beyond treating hypertension, which introduces “another confounding factor to medication trends.”

The authors and Dr. Caplan reported no conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Santos D et al. JAMA Neurol. 2020 Jul 27. doi: 10.1001/jamaneurol.2020.2499.

Correction, 8/20/20: An earlier version of this article misstated the confidence interval for diuretics.

A new study of hypertension treatment trends found that uncontrolled high blood pressure along with considerable undertreatment of the condition were prevalent in individuals with a history of both hypertension and stroke. “To our knowledge, the present study is the first to analyze and report national antihypertensive medication trends exclusively among individuals with a history of stroke in the United States,” wrote Daniel Santos, MD, and Mandip S. Dhamoon, MD, DrPH, of the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York. Their study was published in JAMA Neurology.

To examine blood pressure control and treatment trends among stroke survivors, the researchers examined more than a decade of data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES). The cross-sectional survey is conducted in 2-year cycles; the authors analyzed the results from 2005 to 2016 and uncovered a total of 4,971,136 eligible individuals with a history of both stroke and hypertension.

The mean age of the study population was 67.1 (95% confidence interval, 66.1-68.1), and 2,790,518 (56.1%) were women. Their mean blood pressure was 134/68 mm Hg (95% CI, 133/67–136/69), and the average number of antihypertensive medications they were taking was 1.8 (95% CI, 1.7-1.9). Of the 4,971,136 analyzed individuals, 4,721,409 (95%) were aware of their hypertension diagnosis yet more than 10% of that group had not previously been prescribed an antihypertensive medication.

More than 37% (n = 1,846,470) of the participants had uncontrolled high blood pressure upon examination (95% CI, 33.5%-40.8%), and 15.3% (95% CI, 12.5%-18.0%) were not taking any medication for it at all. The most commonly used antihypertensive medications included ACE inhibitors or angiotensin receptor blockers (59.2%; 95% CI, 54.9%-63.4%), beta-blockers (43.8%; 95% CI, 40.3%-47.3%), diuretics (41.6%; 95% CI, 37.3%-45.9%) and calcium-channel blockers (31.5%; 95% CI, 28.2%-34.8%).* Roughly 57% of the sample was taking more than one antihypertensive medication (95% CI, 52.8%-60.6%) while 28% (95% CI, 24.6%-31.5%) were taking only one.
 

Continued surveillance is key

“All the studies that have ever been done show that hypertension is inadequately treated,” Louis Caplan, MD, of Harvard Medical School and Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, both in Boston, said in an interview. “One of the reasons is that it can be hard to get some of the patients to seek treatment, particularly Black Americans. Also, a lot of the medicines to treat high blood pressure have side effects, so many patients don’t want to take the pills.

“Treating hypertension really requires continued surveillance,” he added. “It’s not one visit where the doctor gives you a pill. It’s taking the pill, following your blood pressure, and seeing if it works. If it doesn’t, then maybe you change the dose, get another pill, and are followed once again. That doesn’t happen as often as it should.”

In regard to next steps, Dr. Caplan urged that hypertension “be evaluated more seriously. Even as home blood pressure kits and monitoring become increasingly available, many doctors are still going by a casual blood pressure test in the office, which doesn’t tell you how serious the problem is. There needs to be more use of technology and more conditioning of patients to monitor their own blood pressure as a guide, and then we go from there.”

The authors acknowledged their study’s limitations, including the NHANES’s reliance on self-reporting a history of stroke and the inability to distinguish between subtypes of stroke. In addition, they noted that many antihypertensive medications have uses beyond treating hypertension, which introduces “another confounding factor to medication trends.”

The authors and Dr. Caplan reported no conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Santos D et al. JAMA Neurol. 2020 Jul 27. doi: 10.1001/jamaneurol.2020.2499.

Correction, 8/20/20: An earlier version of this article misstated the confidence interval for diuretics.

A new study of hypertension treatment trends found that uncontrolled high blood pressure along with considerable undertreatment of the condition were prevalent in individuals with a history of both hypertension and stroke. “To our knowledge, the present study is the first to analyze and report national antihypertensive medication trends exclusively among individuals with a history of stroke in the United States,” wrote Daniel Santos, MD, and Mandip S. Dhamoon, MD, DrPH, of the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York. Their study was published in JAMA Neurology.

To examine blood pressure control and treatment trends among stroke survivors, the researchers examined more than a decade of data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES). The cross-sectional survey is conducted in 2-year cycles; the authors analyzed the results from 2005 to 2016 and uncovered a total of 4,971,136 eligible individuals with a history of both stroke and hypertension.

The mean age of the study population was 67.1 (95% confidence interval, 66.1-68.1), and 2,790,518 (56.1%) were women. Their mean blood pressure was 134/68 mm Hg (95% CI, 133/67–136/69), and the average number of antihypertensive medications they were taking was 1.8 (95% CI, 1.7-1.9). Of the 4,971,136 analyzed individuals, 4,721,409 (95%) were aware of their hypertension diagnosis yet more than 10% of that group had not previously been prescribed an antihypertensive medication.

More than 37% (n = 1,846,470) of the participants had uncontrolled high blood pressure upon examination (95% CI, 33.5%-40.8%), and 15.3% (95% CI, 12.5%-18.0%) were not taking any medication for it at all. The most commonly used antihypertensive medications included ACE inhibitors or angiotensin receptor blockers (59.2%; 95% CI, 54.9%-63.4%), beta-blockers (43.8%; 95% CI, 40.3%-47.3%), diuretics (41.6%; 95% CI, 37.3%-45.9%) and calcium-channel blockers (31.5%; 95% CI, 28.2%-34.8%).* Roughly 57% of the sample was taking more than one antihypertensive medication (95% CI, 52.8%-60.6%) while 28% (95% CI, 24.6%-31.5%) were taking only one.
 

Continued surveillance is key

“All the studies that have ever been done show that hypertension is inadequately treated,” Louis Caplan, MD, of Harvard Medical School and Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, both in Boston, said in an interview. “One of the reasons is that it can be hard to get some of the patients to seek treatment, particularly Black Americans. Also, a lot of the medicines to treat high blood pressure have side effects, so many patients don’t want to take the pills.

“Treating hypertension really requires continued surveillance,” he added. “It’s not one visit where the doctor gives you a pill. It’s taking the pill, following your blood pressure, and seeing if it works. If it doesn’t, then maybe you change the dose, get another pill, and are followed once again. That doesn’t happen as often as it should.”

In regard to next steps, Dr. Caplan urged that hypertension “be evaluated more seriously. Even as home blood pressure kits and monitoring become increasingly available, many doctors are still going by a casual blood pressure test in the office, which doesn’t tell you how serious the problem is. There needs to be more use of technology and more conditioning of patients to monitor their own blood pressure as a guide, and then we go from there.”

The authors acknowledged their study’s limitations, including the NHANES’s reliance on self-reporting a history of stroke and the inability to distinguish between subtypes of stroke. In addition, they noted that many antihypertensive medications have uses beyond treating hypertension, which introduces “another confounding factor to medication trends.”

The authors and Dr. Caplan reported no conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Santos D et al. JAMA Neurol. 2020 Jul 27. doi: 10.1001/jamaneurol.2020.2499.

Correction, 8/20/20: An earlier version of this article misstated the confidence interval for diuretics.

A new palliative care intervention for U.S. patients with advanced heart failure did not improve quality of life or mood after 16 weeks of participation in a randomized trial.

“Future analyses and studies will examine both the patient factors and intervention components to find the right palliative care dose, for the right patient, at the right time,” wrote Marie A. Bakitas, DNSc, of the University of Alabama at Birmingham, and coauthors. The study was published in JAMA Internal Medicine.

“My first reaction is disappointment,” Larry Allen, MD, of the University of Colorado in Denver, said in an interview. “We had hoped to see the ENABLE program, which had been successful in cancer, translate to the heart failure setting.”
 

Improvement of palliative care in heart failure patients might rest on who needs it most

“One thing to note,” Dr. Allen added in an interview, “is that, in this population of patients, some of the measures they were trying to improve were already relatively mild to start with. It may not be that the intervention didn’t help but that they picked a patient population that wasn’t particularly in need. If you treat someone who doesn’t have a problem, it’s hard to make them better.”

In a separate interview, Dr. Bakitas acknowledged a similar sentiment. “We were a little surprised until we looked at our sample,” she said. “We realized that we had recruited all these very high-functioning, good quality-of-life patients. What we then did was look at a subsample of patients who had low quality of life at baseline. Low and behold, the intervention had an effect. The patients who started with a poor quality of life had a statistically and clinically significant benefit. Their KCCQ score increased by over 5 points.”

As for next steps. Dr. Bakitas noted that they’re twofold: “One is refining the patient population who can benefit, and the second is working on the intervention and figuring out which pieces are the ones that provide the most benefit.

“Because of logistics and practical issues, not everyone in the study got all the intervention that they should have. Think of it like a drug trial; if someone misses a pill, they don’t get the full dose that we thought would work. We need to make sure our interventions have the right pieces in place. We don’t want to develop a great intervention that’s not practical for patients.”

Study design and outcomes

To determine the benefits of early palliative care for patients with heart failure, the researchers developed the ENABLE CHF-PC (Educate, Nurture, Advise, Before Life Ends Comprehensive Heartcare for Patients and Caregivers) intervention. This nurse-led program includes an in-person consultant followed by six telehealth nurse coaching sessions lasting 30-40 minutes and then monthly follow-up calls through either 48 weeks or the patient’s death.

To test the effectiveness of their intervention after 16 weeks, the researchers launched a two-site, single-blind randomized clinical trial made up of 415 patients who were 50 years or older with advanced heart failure. Among the patients, 53% were men and the mean age was 64 years; 55% were African American, 26% lived in a rural area, and 46% had a high school education or less. The average length of time since heart failure diagnosis was 5.1 years.

Patients were randomized evenly to receive either the ENABLE CHF-PC intervention (208) or usual care. The primary outcomes were quality of life (QOL), which was measured by the heart failure–specific 23-item Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire (KCCQ) and the 14-item Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy–Palliative-14 (FACIT Pal-14), and mood, which was measured by the 14-item Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS). Pain was measured via 3-item pain intensity and 2-item pain interference scales.

Effect size was measured as Cohen d or d-equivalent, where a small effect is 0.2, medium is 0.5, and large is about 0.854.

At baseline, the mean KCCQ score of 52.6 at baseline indicated a “fairly good” QOL across all patients. After 16 weeks, the mean KCCQ score improved 3.9 points in the intervention group, compared with 2.3 points in the usual care group (d = 0.07; [95% confidence interval, –0.09-0.24]). In addition, the mean FACIT-Pal-14 score improved 1.4 points in the intervention group compared to 0.2 points in the usual care group (d = 0.12 [95% CI, –0.03-0.28]). Only small differences were observed between groups regarding anxiety and depression, but pain intensity (difference, –2.8; SE, 0.9; d = –0.26 [95% CI, –0.43-0.09]) and pain interference (difference, –2.3; SE, 1; d = –0.21 [95% CI, –0.40 to –0.02]) demonstrated a statistically significant and clinically important decrease.
 

As heart failure care evolves, so must palliative care

Though the study and intervention developed by Dr. Bakitas and colleagues is commendable, it is only somewhat surprising that it did not drastically improve patients’ quality of life, Nathan E. Goldstein, MD, of the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York, wrote in an accompanying editorial.

He noted several reasons for the lack of improvement, including a large proportion of patients still being in the early stages of the disease. Ultimately, however, he wonders if innovation in heart failure care ultimately impacted the study while it was occurring. Medications and technological advancements evolve rapidly in this field, he said, especially over the course of a 3-year study period.

To continue this work and produce real benefits in patients with advanced heart failure, Dr. Goldstein emphasized the need for “dynamic palliative care interventions that can adapt to the constantly changing landscape of the patient’s needs caused by the underlying nature of the disease, as well as the innovations in the field of cardiology.”

The authors acknowledged their study’s limitations, including data attrition at 16 weeks that was higher than expected – a turn of events they attributed to “unique socioeconomic factors … and lack of regular health care appointments” among some participants. In addition, a minority of patients were unable to stick to the study protocol, which has led the researchers to begin investigating video alternatives to in-person consultation.

The study was supported by the National Institutes of Health/National Institutes of Nursing Research. Four of the authors reported received grants from the National Institutes of Nursing Research outside the submitted work or during the study. Dr. Goldstein reported no conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Bakitas MA et al. JAMA Intern Med. 2020 July 27. doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2020.2861.

A new palliative care intervention for U.S. patients with advanced heart failure did not improve quality of life or mood after 16 weeks of participation in a randomized trial.

“Future analyses and studies will examine both the patient factors and intervention components to find the right palliative care dose, for the right patient, at the right time,” wrote Marie A. Bakitas, DNSc, of the University of Alabama at Birmingham, and coauthors. The study was published in JAMA Internal Medicine.

“My first reaction is disappointment,” Larry Allen, MD, of the University of Colorado in Denver, said in an interview. “We had hoped to see the ENABLE program, which had been successful in cancer, translate to the heart failure setting.”
 

Improvement of palliative care in heart failure patients might rest on who needs it most

“One thing to note,” Dr. Allen added in an interview, “is that, in this population of patients, some of the measures they were trying to improve were already relatively mild to start with. It may not be that the intervention didn’t help but that they picked a patient population that wasn’t particularly in need. If you treat someone who doesn’t have a problem, it’s hard to make them better.”

In a separate interview, Dr. Bakitas acknowledged a similar sentiment. “We were a little surprised until we looked at our sample,” she said. “We realized that we had recruited all these very high-functioning, good quality-of-life patients. What we then did was look at a subsample of patients who had low quality of life at baseline. Low and behold, the intervention had an effect. The patients who started with a poor quality of life had a statistically and clinically significant benefit. Their KCCQ score increased by over 5 points.”

As for next steps. Dr. Bakitas noted that they’re twofold: “One is refining the patient population who can benefit, and the second is working on the intervention and figuring out which pieces are the ones that provide the most benefit.

“Because of logistics and practical issues, not everyone in the study got all the intervention that they should have. Think of it like a drug trial; if someone misses a pill, they don’t get the full dose that we thought would work. We need to make sure our interventions have the right pieces in place. We don’t want to develop a great intervention that’s not practical for patients.”

Study design and outcomes

To determine the benefits of early palliative care for patients with heart failure, the researchers developed the ENABLE CHF-PC (Educate, Nurture, Advise, Before Life Ends Comprehensive Heartcare for Patients and Caregivers) intervention. This nurse-led program includes an in-person consultant followed by six telehealth nurse coaching sessions lasting 30-40 minutes and then monthly follow-up calls through either 48 weeks or the patient’s death.

To test the effectiveness of their intervention after 16 weeks, the researchers launched a two-site, single-blind randomized clinical trial made up of 415 patients who were 50 years or older with advanced heart failure. Among the patients, 53% were men and the mean age was 64 years; 55% were African American, 26% lived in a rural area, and 46% had a high school education or less. The average length of time since heart failure diagnosis was 5.1 years.

Patients were randomized evenly to receive either the ENABLE CHF-PC intervention (208) or usual care. The primary outcomes were quality of life (QOL), which was measured by the heart failure–specific 23-item Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire (KCCQ) and the 14-item Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy–Palliative-14 (FACIT Pal-14), and mood, which was measured by the 14-item Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS). Pain was measured via 3-item pain intensity and 2-item pain interference scales.

Effect size was measured as Cohen d or d-equivalent, where a small effect is 0.2, medium is 0.5, and large is about 0.854.

At baseline, the mean KCCQ score of 52.6 at baseline indicated a “fairly good” QOL across all patients. After 16 weeks, the mean KCCQ score improved 3.9 points in the intervention group, compared with 2.3 points in the usual care group (d = 0.07; [95% confidence interval, –0.09-0.24]). In addition, the mean FACIT-Pal-14 score improved 1.4 points in the intervention group compared to 0.2 points in the usual care group (d = 0.12 [95% CI, –0.03-0.28]). Only small differences were observed between groups regarding anxiety and depression, but pain intensity (difference, –2.8; SE, 0.9; d = –0.26 [95% CI, –0.43-0.09]) and pain interference (difference, –2.3; SE, 1; d = –0.21 [95% CI, –0.40 to –0.02]) demonstrated a statistically significant and clinically important decrease.
 

As heart failure care evolves, so must palliative care

Though the study and intervention developed by Dr. Bakitas and colleagues is commendable, it is only somewhat surprising that it did not drastically improve patients’ quality of life, Nathan E. Goldstein, MD, of the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York, wrote in an accompanying editorial.

He noted several reasons for the lack of improvement, including a large proportion of patients still being in the early stages of the disease. Ultimately, however, he wonders if innovation in heart failure care ultimately impacted the study while it was occurring. Medications and technological advancements evolve rapidly in this field, he said, especially over the course of a 3-year study period.

To continue this work and produce real benefits in patients with advanced heart failure, Dr. Goldstein emphasized the need for “dynamic palliative care interventions that can adapt to the constantly changing landscape of the patient’s needs caused by the underlying nature of the disease, as well as the innovations in the field of cardiology.”

The authors acknowledged their study’s limitations, including data attrition at 16 weeks that was higher than expected – a turn of events they attributed to “unique socioeconomic factors … and lack of regular health care appointments” among some participants. In addition, a minority of patients were unable to stick to the study protocol, which has led the researchers to begin investigating video alternatives to in-person consultation.

The study was supported by the National Institutes of Health/National Institutes of Nursing Research. Four of the authors reported received grants from the National Institutes of Nursing Research outside the submitted work or during the study. Dr. Goldstein reported no conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Bakitas MA et al. JAMA Intern Med. 2020 July 27. doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2020.2861.

A new palliative care intervention for U.S. patients with advanced heart failure did not improve quality of life or mood after 16 weeks of participation in a randomized trial.

“Future analyses and studies will examine both the patient factors and intervention components to find the right palliative care dose, for the right patient, at the right time,” wrote Marie A. Bakitas, DNSc, of the University of Alabama at Birmingham, and coauthors. The study was published in JAMA Internal Medicine.

“My first reaction is disappointment,” Larry Allen, MD, of the University of Colorado in Denver, said in an interview. “We had hoped to see the ENABLE program, which had been successful in cancer, translate to the heart failure setting.”
 

Improvement of palliative care in heart failure patients might rest on who needs it most

“One thing to note,” Dr. Allen added in an interview, “is that, in this population of patients, some of the measures they were trying to improve were already relatively mild to start with. It may not be that the intervention didn’t help but that they picked a patient population that wasn’t particularly in need. If you treat someone who doesn’t have a problem, it’s hard to make them better.”

In a separate interview, Dr. Bakitas acknowledged a similar sentiment. “We were a little surprised until we looked at our sample,” she said. “We realized that we had recruited all these very high-functioning, good quality-of-life patients. What we then did was look at a subsample of patients who had low quality of life at baseline. Low and behold, the intervention had an effect. The patients who started with a poor quality of life had a statistically and clinically significant benefit. Their KCCQ score increased by over 5 points.”

As for next steps. Dr. Bakitas noted that they’re twofold: “One is refining the patient population who can benefit, and the second is working on the intervention and figuring out which pieces are the ones that provide the most benefit.

“Because of logistics and practical issues, not everyone in the study got all the intervention that they should have. Think of it like a drug trial; if someone misses a pill, they don’t get the full dose that we thought would work. We need to make sure our interventions have the right pieces in place. We don’t want to develop a great intervention that’s not practical for patients.”

Study design and outcomes

To determine the benefits of early palliative care for patients with heart failure, the researchers developed the ENABLE CHF-PC (Educate, Nurture, Advise, Before Life Ends Comprehensive Heartcare for Patients and Caregivers) intervention. This nurse-led program includes an in-person consultant followed by six telehealth nurse coaching sessions lasting 30-40 minutes and then monthly follow-up calls through either 48 weeks or the patient’s death.

To test the effectiveness of their intervention after 16 weeks, the researchers launched a two-site, single-blind randomized clinical trial made up of 415 patients who were 50 years or older with advanced heart failure. Among the patients, 53% were men and the mean age was 64 years; 55% were African American, 26% lived in a rural area, and 46% had a high school education or less. The average length of time since heart failure diagnosis was 5.1 years.

Patients were randomized evenly to receive either the ENABLE CHF-PC intervention (208) or usual care. The primary outcomes were quality of life (QOL), which was measured by the heart failure–specific 23-item Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire (KCCQ) and the 14-item Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy–Palliative-14 (FACIT Pal-14), and mood, which was measured by the 14-item Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS). Pain was measured via 3-item pain intensity and 2-item pain interference scales.

Effect size was measured as Cohen d or d-equivalent, where a small effect is 0.2, medium is 0.5, and large is about 0.854.

At baseline, the mean KCCQ score of 52.6 at baseline indicated a “fairly good” QOL across all patients. After 16 weeks, the mean KCCQ score improved 3.9 points in the intervention group, compared with 2.3 points in the usual care group (d = 0.07; [95% confidence interval, –0.09-0.24]). In addition, the mean FACIT-Pal-14 score improved 1.4 points in the intervention group compared to 0.2 points in the usual care group (d = 0.12 [95% CI, –0.03-0.28]). Only small differences were observed between groups regarding anxiety and depression, but pain intensity (difference, –2.8; SE, 0.9; d = –0.26 [95% CI, –0.43-0.09]) and pain interference (difference, –2.3; SE, 1; d = –0.21 [95% CI, –0.40 to –0.02]) demonstrated a statistically significant and clinically important decrease.
 

As heart failure care evolves, so must palliative care

Though the study and intervention developed by Dr. Bakitas and colleagues is commendable, it is only somewhat surprising that it did not drastically improve patients’ quality of life, Nathan E. Goldstein, MD, of the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York, wrote in an accompanying editorial.

He noted several reasons for the lack of improvement, including a large proportion of patients still being in the early stages of the disease. Ultimately, however, he wonders if innovation in heart failure care ultimately impacted the study while it was occurring. Medications and technological advancements evolve rapidly in this field, he said, especially over the course of a 3-year study period.

To continue this work and produce real benefits in patients with advanced heart failure, Dr. Goldstein emphasized the need for “dynamic palliative care interventions that can adapt to the constantly changing landscape of the patient’s needs caused by the underlying nature of the disease, as well as the innovations in the field of cardiology.”

The authors acknowledged their study’s limitations, including data attrition at 16 weeks that was higher than expected – a turn of events they attributed to “unique socioeconomic factors … and lack of regular health care appointments” among some participants. In addition, a minority of patients were unable to stick to the study protocol, which has led the researchers to begin investigating video alternatives to in-person consultation.

The study was supported by the National Institutes of Health/National Institutes of Nursing Research. Four of the authors reported received grants from the National Institutes of Nursing Research outside the submitted work or during the study. Dr. Goldstein reported no conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Bakitas MA et al. JAMA Intern Med. 2020 July 27. doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2020.2861.

A new follow-up study of menopausal hormone therapy found that prior use of conjugated equine estrogen (CEE) decreased both breast cancer incidence and mortality, while prior use of CEE plus medroxyprogesterone acetate (MPA) was associated with an increase in incidence.

“Prior use of CEE alone is, to our knowledge, the first pharmacologic intervention demonstrated to be associated with a statistically significantly reduction in deaths from breast cancer,” wrote Rowan T. Chlebowski, MD, PhD, of the Lundquist Institute for Biomedical Innovation in Torrance, Calif., and his coauthors. The study was published July 28 in JAMA.

To further investigate the outcomes of the Women’s Health Initiative in regard to hormone therapy and breast cancer risk, the researchers analyzed the long-term follow-up of two randomized trials that included 27,347 postmenopausal women with no prior breast cancer and negative mammograms at baseline. Their mean (SD) age was 63.4 (7.2) years. Enrollment took place from 1993 to 1998; participants were contacted for follow-up every 6 months through 2005 and annually from then on. Mortality data were gathered from follow-up and the National Death Index.

The first trial included 16,608 women with a uterus. Among these women, 8,506 received 0.625 mg/day of CEE plus 2.5 mg/day of MPA, and 8,102 received placebo. The second trial included 10,739 women who’d gotten a hysterectomy, 5,310 of whom received 0.625 mg/day of CEE alone and 5,429 of whom received placebo. The first trial ended in 2002 after a median intervention period of 5.6 years, and the second trial ended in 2004 after a period of 7.2 years.

An analysis in 2015 found that CEE alone was associated with lower risk of breast cancer and CEE plus MPA was associated with increased risk.

The current analysis confirmed that, after a median of 20.3 years of follow-up, and with mortality data now available for more than 98% of participants, CEE alone was associated with fewer cases of breast cancer (238 cases, annualized rate 0.30%), compared with placebo (296 cases, annualized rate 0.37%; hazard ratio 0.78; 95% confidence interval, 0.65-0.93; P = .005).

Furthermore, CEE alone was also associated with lower mortality (30 deaths, annualized mortality rate 0.031%), compared with placebo (46 deaths, annualized mortality rate 0.046%; HR 0.60; 95% CI, 0.37-0.97; P = .04).

By comparison, CEE plus MPA was linked with more cases of breast cancer (584 cases, annualized rate 0.45%) than placebo (447 cases, annualized rate 0.36%; HR 1.28; 95% CI, 1.13-1.45; P < .001). In regard to mortality, there was no statistically significant difference between CEE plus MPA (71 deaths, annualized mortality rate 0.045%) and placebo (53 deaths, annualized mortality rate 0.035%; HR 1.35; 95% CI, 0.94-1.95; P = .11).

“The big thing to think about is estrogen alone reducing breast cancer mortality by 40%,” said Dr. Chlebowski in an interview. “None of the other interventions, including tamoxifen, had any change on mortality. This should change the way we look at breast cancer prevention, though we might have to be a little creative about it. I think you have to be a little away from menopause for it to reduce breast cancer. But we wanted to start that debate.

“On the other hand,” he said, “a woman takes estrogen plus progestin and when you look at that curve, it’s staying about 25% increased. You take it for 5.6 years and the increase continues through 20 years, so you’re maybe buying a lifetime of increase in breast cancer by taking estrogen plus progestin for 5 years.”

He also highlighted the comprehensiveness of the mortality data, noting that “when you hook up to the National Death Index, they find 98% of all deaths in the United States. That’s really remarkable; you retain the whole power of the randomization. It means our data, between the death index and our follow-up of participants, is essentially complete.”

Use of hormone therapy, and decoding the outcomes, remains ‘complex’

Decades after the data were gathered from the Women’s Health Initiative clinical trials, they continue to assist researchers and patients alike, wrote Christina A. Minami, MD, of Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston and Rachel A. Freedman, MD, of the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute in Boston, in an accompanying editorial.

That said, in regard to the findings of this latest analysis, “many questions still remain on whether (and how) a hormone therapy intervention that occurred many years earlier may continue to affect breast cancer risk and mortality at 20 years,” they wrote. They noted that it’s “impossible” to isolate how exposure to certain therapies can impact long-term outcomes, and that a high percentage of patients who discontinued the drugs during each trial muddy the waters even further.

“Decisions to initiate these medications remain complex,” they added, emphasizing that breast cancer risk is just one of many factors that physicians must consider when considering hormone therapy for their patients.

Dr. Chlebowski and his coauthors acknowledged their study’s limitations, including the use of very specifically administered and formulated dosages making their findings “not necessarily generalizable to other preparations.” In addition, they noted the significant percentage of patients – 54% with CEE alone and 42% with CEE plus MPA – who discontinued drug usage during their respective trials.

The Women’s Health Initiative is supported by the National Institutes of Health and the Department of Health and Human Services. The authors reported numerous potential conflicts of interest, including receiving personal fees and grants from various government organizations, foundations, and pharmaceutical companies. The editorial’s authors reported no conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Chlebowski RT et al. JAMA. 2020 Jul 28. doi: 10.1001/jama.2020.9482.

A new follow-up study of menopausal hormone therapy found that prior use of conjugated equine estrogen (CEE) decreased both breast cancer incidence and mortality, while prior use of CEE plus medroxyprogesterone acetate (MPA) was associated with an increase in incidence.

“Prior use of CEE alone is, to our knowledge, the first pharmacologic intervention demonstrated to be associated with a statistically significantly reduction in deaths from breast cancer,” wrote Rowan T. Chlebowski, MD, PhD, of the Lundquist Institute for Biomedical Innovation in Torrance, Calif., and his coauthors. The study was published July 28 in JAMA.

To further investigate the outcomes of the Women’s Health Initiative in regard to hormone therapy and breast cancer risk, the researchers analyzed the long-term follow-up of two randomized trials that included 27,347 postmenopausal women with no prior breast cancer and negative mammograms at baseline. Their mean (SD) age was 63.4 (7.2) years. Enrollment took place from 1993 to 1998; participants were contacted for follow-up every 6 months through 2005 and annually from then on. Mortality data were gathered from follow-up and the National Death Index.

The first trial included 16,608 women with a uterus. Among these women, 8,506 received 0.625 mg/day of CEE plus 2.5 mg/day of MPA, and 8,102 received placebo. The second trial included 10,739 women who’d gotten a hysterectomy, 5,310 of whom received 0.625 mg/day of CEE alone and 5,429 of whom received placebo. The first trial ended in 2002 after a median intervention period of 5.6 years, and the second trial ended in 2004 after a period of 7.2 years.

An analysis in 2015 found that CEE alone was associated with lower risk of breast cancer and CEE plus MPA was associated with increased risk.

The current analysis confirmed that, after a median of 20.3 years of follow-up, and with mortality data now available for more than 98% of participants, CEE alone was associated with fewer cases of breast cancer (238 cases, annualized rate 0.30%), compared with placebo (296 cases, annualized rate 0.37%; hazard ratio 0.78; 95% confidence interval, 0.65-0.93; P = .005).

Furthermore, CEE alone was also associated with lower mortality (30 deaths, annualized mortality rate 0.031%), compared with placebo (46 deaths, annualized mortality rate 0.046%; HR 0.60; 95% CI, 0.37-0.97; P = .04).

By comparison, CEE plus MPA was linked with more cases of breast cancer (584 cases, annualized rate 0.45%) than placebo (447 cases, annualized rate 0.36%; HR 1.28; 95% CI, 1.13-1.45; P < .001). In regard to mortality, there was no statistically significant difference between CEE plus MPA (71 deaths, annualized mortality rate 0.045%) and placebo (53 deaths, annualized mortality rate 0.035%; HR 1.35; 95% CI, 0.94-1.95; P = .11).

“The big thing to think about is estrogen alone reducing breast cancer mortality by 40%,” said Dr. Chlebowski in an interview. “None of the other interventions, including tamoxifen, had any change on mortality. This should change the way we look at breast cancer prevention, though we might have to be a little creative about it. I think you have to be a little away from menopause for it to reduce breast cancer. But we wanted to start that debate.

“On the other hand,” he said, “a woman takes estrogen plus progestin and when you look at that curve, it’s staying about 25% increased. You take it for 5.6 years and the increase continues through 20 years, so you’re maybe buying a lifetime of increase in breast cancer by taking estrogen plus progestin for 5 years.”

He also highlighted the comprehensiveness of the mortality data, noting that “when you hook up to the National Death Index, they find 98% of all deaths in the United States. That’s really remarkable; you retain the whole power of the randomization. It means our data, between the death index and our follow-up of participants, is essentially complete.”

Use of hormone therapy, and decoding the outcomes, remains ‘complex’

Decades after the data were gathered from the Women’s Health Initiative clinical trials, they continue to assist researchers and patients alike, wrote Christina A. Minami, MD, of Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston and Rachel A. Freedman, MD, of the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute in Boston, in an accompanying editorial.

That said, in regard to the findings of this latest analysis, “many questions still remain on whether (and how) a hormone therapy intervention that occurred many years earlier may continue to affect breast cancer risk and mortality at 20 years,” they wrote. They noted that it’s “impossible” to isolate how exposure to certain therapies can impact long-term outcomes, and that a high percentage of patients who discontinued the drugs during each trial muddy the waters even further.

“Decisions to initiate these medications remain complex,” they added, emphasizing that breast cancer risk is just one of many factors that physicians must consider when considering hormone therapy for their patients.

Dr. Chlebowski and his coauthors acknowledged their study’s limitations, including the use of very specifically administered and formulated dosages making their findings “not necessarily generalizable to other preparations.” In addition, they noted the significant percentage of patients – 54% with CEE alone and 42% with CEE plus MPA – who discontinued drug usage during their respective trials.

The Women’s Health Initiative is supported by the National Institutes of Health and the Department of Health and Human Services. The authors reported numerous potential conflicts of interest, including receiving personal fees and grants from various government organizations, foundations, and pharmaceutical companies. The editorial’s authors reported no conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Chlebowski RT et al. JAMA. 2020 Jul 28. doi: 10.1001/jama.2020.9482.

A new follow-up study of menopausal hormone therapy found that prior use of conjugated equine estrogen (CEE) decreased both breast cancer incidence and mortality, while prior use of CEE plus medroxyprogesterone acetate (MPA) was associated with an increase in incidence.

“Prior use of CEE alone is, to our knowledge, the first pharmacologic intervention demonstrated to be associated with a statistically significantly reduction in deaths from breast cancer,” wrote Rowan T. Chlebowski, MD, PhD, of the Lundquist Institute for Biomedical Innovation in Torrance, Calif., and his coauthors. The study was published July 28 in JAMA.

To further investigate the outcomes of the Women’s Health Initiative in regard to hormone therapy and breast cancer risk, the researchers analyzed the long-term follow-up of two randomized trials that included 27,347 postmenopausal women with no prior breast cancer and negative mammograms at baseline. Their mean (SD) age was 63.4 (7.2) years. Enrollment took place from 1993 to 1998; participants were contacted for follow-up every 6 months through 2005 and annually from then on. Mortality data were gathered from follow-up and the National Death Index.

The first trial included 16,608 women with a uterus. Among these women, 8,506 received 0.625 mg/day of CEE plus 2.5 mg/day of MPA, and 8,102 received placebo. The second trial included 10,739 women who’d gotten a hysterectomy, 5,310 of whom received 0.625 mg/day of CEE alone and 5,429 of whom received placebo. The first trial ended in 2002 after a median intervention period of 5.6 years, and the second trial ended in 2004 after a period of 7.2 years.

An analysis in 2015 found that CEE alone was associated with lower risk of breast cancer and CEE plus MPA was associated with increased risk.

The current analysis confirmed that, after a median of 20.3 years of follow-up, and with mortality data now available for more than 98% of participants, CEE alone was associated with fewer cases of breast cancer (238 cases, annualized rate 0.30%), compared with placebo (296 cases, annualized rate 0.37%; hazard ratio 0.78; 95% confidence interval, 0.65-0.93; P = .005).

Furthermore, CEE alone was also associated with lower mortality (30 deaths, annualized mortality rate 0.031%), compared with placebo (46 deaths, annualized mortality rate 0.046%; HR 0.60; 95% CI, 0.37-0.97; P = .04).

By comparison, CEE plus MPA was linked with more cases of breast cancer (584 cases, annualized rate 0.45%) than placebo (447 cases, annualized rate 0.36%; HR 1.28; 95% CI, 1.13-1.45; P < .001). In regard to mortality, there was no statistically significant difference between CEE plus MPA (71 deaths, annualized mortality rate 0.045%) and placebo (53 deaths, annualized mortality rate 0.035%; HR 1.35; 95% CI, 0.94-1.95; P = .11).

“The big thing to think about is estrogen alone reducing breast cancer mortality by 40%,” said Dr. Chlebowski in an interview. “None of the other interventions, including tamoxifen, had any change on mortality. This should change the way we look at breast cancer prevention, though we might have to be a little creative about it. I think you have to be a little away from menopause for it to reduce breast cancer. But we wanted to start that debate.

“On the other hand,” he said, “a woman takes estrogen plus progestin and when you look at that curve, it’s staying about 25% increased. You take it for 5.6 years and the increase continues through 20 years, so you’re maybe buying a lifetime of increase in breast cancer by taking estrogen plus progestin for 5 years.”

He also highlighted the comprehensiveness of the mortality data, noting that “when you hook up to the National Death Index, they find 98% of all deaths in the United States. That’s really remarkable; you retain the whole power of the randomization. It means our data, between the death index and our follow-up of participants, is essentially complete.”

Use of hormone therapy, and decoding the outcomes, remains ‘complex’

Decades after the data were gathered from the Women’s Health Initiative clinical trials, they continue to assist researchers and patients alike, wrote Christina A. Minami, MD, of Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston and Rachel A. Freedman, MD, of the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute in Boston, in an accompanying editorial.

That said, in regard to the findings of this latest analysis, “many questions still remain on whether (and how) a hormone therapy intervention that occurred many years earlier may continue to affect breast cancer risk and mortality at 20 years,” they wrote. They noted that it’s “impossible” to isolate how exposure to certain therapies can impact long-term outcomes, and that a high percentage of patients who discontinued the drugs during each trial muddy the waters even further.

“Decisions to initiate these medications remain complex,” they added, emphasizing that breast cancer risk is just one of many factors that physicians must consider when considering hormone therapy for their patients.

Dr. Chlebowski and his coauthors acknowledged their study’s limitations, including the use of very specifically administered and formulated dosages making their findings “not necessarily generalizable to other preparations.” In addition, they noted the significant percentage of patients – 54% with CEE alone and 42% with CEE plus MPA – who discontinued drug usage during their respective trials.

The Women’s Health Initiative is supported by the National Institutes of Health and the Department of Health and Human Services. The authors reported numerous potential conflicts of interest, including receiving personal fees and grants from various government organizations, foundations, and pharmaceutical companies. The editorial’s authors reported no conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Chlebowski RT et al. JAMA. 2020 Jul 28. doi: 10.1001/jama.2020.9482.

A study has found that 7 days of treatment with tamoxifen can help treat troublesome bleeding in women who are using an etonogestrel implant for birth control.

“Our data support the use of tamoxifen as an effective option that offers the benefit of a shorter duration of treatment than other approaches such as combined oral contraceptives,” wrote Alison B. Edelman, MD, MPH, of Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, and coauthors. The report is in Obstetrics & Gynecology.

To determine if a short course of tamoxifen – typically used to treat breast cancer – could prove beneficial in reducing bothersome bleeding, the researchers launched a 90-day, double-blind randomized trial of women between the ages of 15 and 45 years who had been using the etonogestrel 68-mg subdermal contraceptive implant for at least 30 days. All participants suffered from frequent or prolonged bleeding or spotting during the previous month; their mean age was 24, and most (n = 62) identified as White.

Of the initial 112 participants, 107 began treatment and were split into two groups: 10 mg of tamoxifen twice a day for 7 days (n = 55) or placebo (n = 52). One hundred and four patients completed treatment one, and 88 completed 90 days. After the first treatment, women in the tamoxifen group experienced 9.8 more consecutive days of amenorrhea (95% confidence interval, 4.6-15.0) compared with the placebo group, as well as more total days of no bleeding in the first 90 days (median 73.5 [24-89] versus 68 [11-81], P = .001).

Afterward, both groups underwent a 90-day, open-label study where all participants took tamoxifen. The differences between the groups mostly disappeared, as they both experienced more amenorrhea days (median 56 [6-81] for tamoxifen and 67.5 [7-83] for placebo) and fewer bleeding days (median 12 [0-63] for tamoxifen and 12 [0-82] for placebo) compared with the placebo group during the initial 90 days. Although no serious adverse events occurred, more women taking tamoxifen reported fluid retention (12 versus 1), headache (19 versus 1), and mood changes (13 versus 2).

“This is a very promising drug for this purpose,” Catherine Cansino, MD, MPH, of the University of California, Davis, said in an interview, adding that it is “a bit unconventional because tamoxifen is traditionally used for cancer or precancer.”

As such, she recognized that young people of reproductive age might be a little wary of the drug. That said, having an effective treatment for troublesome bleeding beyond estrogen-based products should ultimately prove beneficial for clinicians and patients alike.

“Unfortunately, we don’t have long-term data so it’s unclear what the safety outcomes are,” she said, “but having another option to address bothersome bleeding can help women stay on birth control longer. The alternative would be pregnancy, with its own associated risks.”

The authors acknowledged their study’s limitations, including a lack of Black patients and the likelihood that their volunteer cohort “may not reflect the general population of implant users who present for discontinuation owing to bleeding problems.” They also enrolled a small but notable number of women who had been using the implant for less than 3 months, noting that bleeding patterns often change from the first 90 days and so “some of these women would likely experience better (or worse) bleeding irrespective of treatment.”

The study was supported by a Merck Women’s Health Investigator Initiated Studies Program and the Oregon Clinical and Translational Research Institute. Four of the authors acknowledged receiving consulting fees and research support from various organizations and pharmaceutical companies. The remaining three had no relevant financial disclosures. Dr. Cansino is a member of the Ob.Gyn. News editorial advisory board. She said she had no relevant financial disclosures.

SOURCE: Edelman AB et al. Obstet Gynecol. 2020 Jul 9. doi: 10.1097/AOG.0000000000003896.

A study has found that 7 days of treatment with tamoxifen can help treat troublesome bleeding in women who are using an etonogestrel implant for birth control.

“Our data support the use of tamoxifen as an effective option that offers the benefit of a shorter duration of treatment than other approaches such as combined oral contraceptives,” wrote Alison B. Edelman, MD, MPH, of Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, and coauthors. The report is in Obstetrics & Gynecology.

To determine if a short course of tamoxifen – typically used to treat breast cancer – could prove beneficial in reducing bothersome bleeding, the researchers launched a 90-day, double-blind randomized trial of women between the ages of 15 and 45 years who had been using the etonogestrel 68-mg subdermal contraceptive implant for at least 30 days. All participants suffered from frequent or prolonged bleeding or spotting during the previous month; their mean age was 24, and most (n = 62) identified as White.

Of the initial 112 participants, 107 began treatment and were split into two groups: 10 mg of tamoxifen twice a day for 7 days (n = 55) or placebo (n = 52). One hundred and four patients completed treatment one, and 88 completed 90 days. After the first treatment, women in the tamoxifen group experienced 9.8 more consecutive days of amenorrhea (95% confidence interval, 4.6-15.0) compared with the placebo group, as well as more total days of no bleeding in the first 90 days (median 73.5 [24-89] versus 68 [11-81], P = .001).

Afterward, both groups underwent a 90-day, open-label study where all participants took tamoxifen. The differences between the groups mostly disappeared, as they both experienced more amenorrhea days (median 56 [6-81] for tamoxifen and 67.5 [7-83] for placebo) and fewer bleeding days (median 12 [0-63] for tamoxifen and 12 [0-82] for placebo) compared with the placebo group during the initial 90 days. Although no serious adverse events occurred, more women taking tamoxifen reported fluid retention (12 versus 1), headache (19 versus 1), and mood changes (13 versus 2).

“This is a very promising drug for this purpose,” Catherine Cansino, MD, MPH, of the University of California, Davis, said in an interview, adding that it is “a bit unconventional because tamoxifen is traditionally used for cancer or precancer.”

As such, she recognized that young people of reproductive age might be a little wary of the drug. That said, having an effective treatment for troublesome bleeding beyond estrogen-based products should ultimately prove beneficial for clinicians and patients alike.

“Unfortunately, we don’t have long-term data so it’s unclear what the safety outcomes are,” she said, “but having another option to address bothersome bleeding can help women stay on birth control longer. The alternative would be pregnancy, with its own associated risks.”

The authors acknowledged their study’s limitations, including a lack of Black patients and the likelihood that their volunteer cohort “may not reflect the general population of implant users who present for discontinuation owing to bleeding problems.” They also enrolled a small but notable number of women who had been using the implant for less than 3 months, noting that bleeding patterns often change from the first 90 days and so “some of these women would likely experience better (or worse) bleeding irrespective of treatment.”

The study was supported by a Merck Women’s Health Investigator Initiated Studies Program and the Oregon Clinical and Translational Research Institute. Four of the authors acknowledged receiving consulting fees and research support from various organizations and pharmaceutical companies. The remaining three had no relevant financial disclosures. Dr. Cansino is a member of the Ob.Gyn. News editorial advisory board. She said she had no relevant financial disclosures.

SOURCE: Edelman AB et al. Obstet Gynecol. 2020 Jul 9. doi: 10.1097/AOG.0000000000003896.

A study has found that 7 days of treatment with tamoxifen can help treat troublesome bleeding in women who are using an etonogestrel implant for birth control.

“Our data support the use of tamoxifen as an effective option that offers the benefit of a shorter duration of treatment than other approaches such as combined oral contraceptives,” wrote Alison B. Edelman, MD, MPH, of Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, and coauthors. The report is in Obstetrics & Gynecology.

To determine if a short course of tamoxifen – typically used to treat breast cancer – could prove beneficial in reducing bothersome bleeding, the researchers launched a 90-day, double-blind randomized trial of women between the ages of 15 and 45 years who had been using the etonogestrel 68-mg subdermal contraceptive implant for at least 30 days. All participants suffered from frequent or prolonged bleeding or spotting during the previous month; their mean age was 24, and most (n = 62) identified as White.

Of the initial 112 participants, 107 began treatment and were split into two groups: 10 mg of tamoxifen twice a day for 7 days (n = 55) or placebo (n = 52). One hundred and four patients completed treatment one, and 88 completed 90 days. After the first treatment, women in the tamoxifen group experienced 9.8 more consecutive days of amenorrhea (95% confidence interval, 4.6-15.0) compared with the placebo group, as well as more total days of no bleeding in the first 90 days (median 73.5 [24-89] versus 68 [11-81], P = .001).

Afterward, both groups underwent a 90-day, open-label study where all participants took tamoxifen. The differences between the groups mostly disappeared, as they both experienced more amenorrhea days (median 56 [6-81] for tamoxifen and 67.5 [7-83] for placebo) and fewer bleeding days (median 12 [0-63] for tamoxifen and 12 [0-82] for placebo) compared with the placebo group during the initial 90 days. Although no serious adverse events occurred, more women taking tamoxifen reported fluid retention (12 versus 1), headache (19 versus 1), and mood changes (13 versus 2).

“This is a very promising drug for this purpose,” Catherine Cansino, MD, MPH, of the University of California, Davis, said in an interview, adding that it is “a bit unconventional because tamoxifen is traditionally used for cancer or precancer.”

As such, she recognized that young people of reproductive age might be a little wary of the drug. That said, having an effective treatment for troublesome bleeding beyond estrogen-based products should ultimately prove beneficial for clinicians and patients alike.

“Unfortunately, we don’t have long-term data so it’s unclear what the safety outcomes are,” she said, “but having another option to address bothersome bleeding can help women stay on birth control longer. The alternative would be pregnancy, with its own associated risks.”

The authors acknowledged their study’s limitations, including a lack of Black patients and the likelihood that their volunteer cohort “may not reflect the general population of implant users who present for discontinuation owing to bleeding problems.” They also enrolled a small but notable number of women who had been using the implant for less than 3 months, noting that bleeding patterns often change from the first 90 days and so “some of these women would likely experience better (or worse) bleeding irrespective of treatment.”

The study was supported by a Merck Women’s Health Investigator Initiated Studies Program and the Oregon Clinical and Translational Research Institute. Four of the authors acknowledged receiving consulting fees and research support from various organizations and pharmaceutical companies. The remaining three had no relevant financial disclosures. Dr. Cansino is a member of the Ob.Gyn. News editorial advisory board. She said she had no relevant financial disclosures.

SOURCE: Edelman AB et al. Obstet Gynecol. 2020 Jul 9. doi: 10.1097/AOG.0000000000003896.

Osteoporosis treatment with abaloparatide in postmenopausal women does not lead to increased cardiovascular risk, according to a post hoc analysis of the pivotal ACTIVE and ACTIVExtend trials.

iStock/Thinkstock

“Neither treatment with abaloparatide or teriparatide was associated with an increase in serious cardiac [adverse events],” wrote Felicia Cosman, MD, of Columbia University, New York, and coauthors. The study was published in the Journal of Clinical Endocrinology.

To assess the cardiovascular safety profile of abaloparatide, a synthetic analogue of parathyroid hormone–related peptide, the researchers analyzed data on heart rate, blood pressure and cardiovascular-related adverse events (AEs) from patients taking part in the Abaloparatide Comparator Trial in Vertebral Endpoints (ACTIVE) trial and its ACTIVExtend extension study.

The 2,460 participants in the ACTIVE trial were postmenopausal women between the ages of 49 and 86 years with osteoporosis; they were given 80 mcg of daily subcutaneous abaloparatide, 20 mcg of open-label daily subcutaneous teriparatide, or placebo in roughly equal numbers for 18 months. After a 1-month treatment-free period, 1,133 eligible participants from either the abaloparatide or placebo groups were enrolled in ACTIVExtend and given 70 mg of open-label alendronate once a week for 24 months. Because heart rate was only assessed pre- and post dose in the ACTIVE trial, an additional pharmacology study of abaloparatide involving 55 healthy volunteers (32 men and 23 women) was undertaken. After a dose of either abaloparatide or placebo, heart rate was measured at 15, 30, and 45 minutes and 1, 1.5, 2, 2.5, 4, 6, 8, and 12 hours.

Overall, treatment-emergent AEs were higher in the abaloparatide (165, 20.1%) and teriparatide (106, 13%) groups, compared with placebo (74, 9%), as were AEs that led to discontinuation of the study and were potentially associated with changes in heart rate or BP (27 in abaloparatide, 11 in teriparatide, and 5 in placebo). However, the percentage of patients with serious cardiac AEs was similar across groups (1%, 1%, and 0.9%, respectively).

During the ACTIVE trial, major cardiac adverse events plus heart failure were more common in the placebo group (1.7%) than the abaloparatide (0.5%) or teriparatide (0.6%) groups. During ACTIVExtend, major cardiac adverse plus heart failure were similarly common in the abaloparatide/alendronate (1.6%) and the placebo/alendronate (1.6%) groups.

On day 1 of treatment during ACTIVE, the mean change in heart rate from pretreatment to an hour post treatment was 7.9 bpm, 5.3 bpm, and 1.2 bpm for abaloparatide, teriparatide, and placebo, respectively (P < .0001 for abaloparatide and teriparatide vs. placebo; P < .05 for abaloparatide vs. teriparatide).

Subsequent visits saw similar changes. The mean maximum heart rate at 1 hour post dose was 80.7 bpm for abaloparatide, 79.0 bpm for teriparatide, and 73.7 bpm for placebo (P < .0001 for abaloparatide and teriparatide vs. placebo; P < .01 for abaloparatide vs. teriparatide). In the study of healthy volunteers, HR peaked at 15 minutes after dosing and then declined, resolving within 2.5-4 hours.

From predose to 1 hour post dose, small but significant decreases were observed in mean supine systolic and diastolic BP across groups (–2.7/–3.6 mm Hg with abaloparatide, –2.0/–3.6 with teriparatide, –1.5/–2.3 with placebo). During the first year of ACTIVE, the mean maximal decrease in BP from predose to 1 hour post dose was slightly higher (1-2 mm Hg) in the abaloparatide and teriparatide groups, compared with the placebo group (P < .05).

The authors acknowledged their study’s limitations, including the analysis of major cardiac adverse plus heart failure in ACTIVE being limited because of a low number of events and the trial not being designed in that regard.

Abaloparatide was approved by the Food and Drug Administration in 2017 on the basis of results from the ACTIVE and ACTIVExtend trials showing significant reductions in new vertebral and nonvertebral fractures, compared with placebo.

The analysis was partially funded by Radius Health. Its authors acknowledged numerous potential conflicts of interest, including receiving grants and research support from various organizations and pharmaceutical companies.

SOURCE: Cosman F et al. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2020 Jul 13. doi: 10.1210/clinem/dgaa450.

Osteoporosis treatment with abaloparatide in postmenopausal women does not lead to increased cardiovascular risk, according to a post hoc analysis of the pivotal ACTIVE and ACTIVExtend trials.

iStock/Thinkstock

“Neither treatment with abaloparatide or teriparatide was associated with an increase in serious cardiac [adverse events],” wrote Felicia Cosman, MD, of Columbia University, New York, and coauthors. The study was published in the Journal of Clinical Endocrinology.

To assess the cardiovascular safety profile of abaloparatide, a synthetic analogue of parathyroid hormone–related peptide, the researchers analyzed data on heart rate, blood pressure and cardiovascular-related adverse events (AEs) from patients taking part in the Abaloparatide Comparator Trial in Vertebral Endpoints (ACTIVE) trial and its ACTIVExtend extension study.

The 2,460 participants in the ACTIVE trial were postmenopausal women between the ages of 49 and 86 years with osteoporosis; they were given 80 mcg of daily subcutaneous abaloparatide, 20 mcg of open-label daily subcutaneous teriparatide, or placebo in roughly equal numbers for 18 months. After a 1-month treatment-free period, 1,133 eligible participants from either the abaloparatide or placebo groups were enrolled in ACTIVExtend and given 70 mg of open-label alendronate once a week for 24 months. Because heart rate was only assessed pre- and post dose in the ACTIVE trial, an additional pharmacology study of abaloparatide involving 55 healthy volunteers (32 men and 23 women) was undertaken. After a dose of either abaloparatide or placebo, heart rate was measured at 15, 30, and 45 minutes and 1, 1.5, 2, 2.5, 4, 6, 8, and 12 hours.

Overall, treatment-emergent AEs were higher in the abaloparatide (165, 20.1%) and teriparatide (106, 13%) groups, compared with placebo (74, 9%), as were AEs that led to discontinuation of the study and were potentially associated with changes in heart rate or BP (27 in abaloparatide, 11 in teriparatide, and 5 in placebo). However, the percentage of patients with serious cardiac AEs was similar across groups (1%, 1%, and 0.9%, respectively).

During the ACTIVE trial, major cardiac adverse events plus heart failure were more common in the placebo group (1.7%) than the abaloparatide (0.5%) or teriparatide (0.6%) groups. During ACTIVExtend, major cardiac adverse plus heart failure were similarly common in the abaloparatide/alendronate (1.6%) and the placebo/alendronate (1.6%) groups.

On day 1 of treatment during ACTIVE, the mean change in heart rate from pretreatment to an hour post treatment was 7.9 bpm, 5.3 bpm, and 1.2 bpm for abaloparatide, teriparatide, and placebo, respectively (P < .0001 for abaloparatide and teriparatide vs. placebo; P < .05 for abaloparatide vs. teriparatide).

Subsequent visits saw similar changes. The mean maximum heart rate at 1 hour post dose was 80.7 bpm for abaloparatide, 79.0 bpm for teriparatide, and 73.7 bpm for placebo (P < .0001 for abaloparatide and teriparatide vs. placebo; P < .01 for abaloparatide vs. teriparatide). In the study of healthy volunteers, HR peaked at 15 minutes after dosing and then declined, resolving within 2.5-4 hours.

From predose to 1 hour post dose, small but significant decreases were observed in mean supine systolic and diastolic BP across groups (–2.7/–3.6 mm Hg with abaloparatide, –2.0/–3.6 with teriparatide, –1.5/–2.3 with placebo). During the first year of ACTIVE, the mean maximal decrease in BP from predose to 1 hour post dose was slightly higher (1-2 mm Hg) in the abaloparatide and teriparatide groups, compared with the placebo group (P < .05).

The authors acknowledged their study’s limitations, including the analysis of major cardiac adverse plus heart failure in ACTIVE being limited because of a low number of events and the trial not being designed in that regard.

Abaloparatide was approved by the Food and Drug Administration in 2017 on the basis of results from the ACTIVE and ACTIVExtend trials showing significant reductions in new vertebral and nonvertebral fractures, compared with placebo.

The analysis was partially funded by Radius Health. Its authors acknowledged numerous potential conflicts of interest, including receiving grants and research support from various organizations and pharmaceutical companies.

SOURCE: Cosman F et al. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2020 Jul 13. doi: 10.1210/clinem/dgaa450.

Osteoporosis treatment with abaloparatide in postmenopausal women does not lead to increased cardiovascular risk, according to a post hoc analysis of the pivotal ACTIVE and ACTIVExtend trials.

iStock/Thinkstock

“Neither treatment with abaloparatide or teriparatide was associated with an increase in serious cardiac [adverse events],” wrote Felicia Cosman, MD, of Columbia University, New York, and coauthors. The study was published in the Journal of Clinical Endocrinology.

To assess the cardiovascular safety profile of abaloparatide, a synthetic analogue of parathyroid hormone–related peptide, the researchers analyzed data on heart rate, blood pressure and cardiovascular-related adverse events (AEs) from patients taking part in the Abaloparatide Comparator Trial in Vertebral Endpoints (ACTIVE) trial and its ACTIVExtend extension study.

The 2,460 participants in the ACTIVE trial were postmenopausal women between the ages of 49 and 86 years with osteoporosis; they were given 80 mcg of daily subcutaneous abaloparatide, 20 mcg of open-label daily subcutaneous teriparatide, or placebo in roughly equal numbers for 18 months. After a 1-month treatment-free period, 1,133 eligible participants from either the abaloparatide or placebo groups were enrolled in ACTIVExtend and given 70 mg of open-label alendronate once a week for 24 months. Because heart rate was only assessed pre- and post dose in the ACTIVE trial, an additional pharmacology study of abaloparatide involving 55 healthy volunteers (32 men and 23 women) was undertaken. After a dose of either abaloparatide or placebo, heart rate was measured at 15, 30, and 45 minutes and 1, 1.5, 2, 2.5, 4, 6, 8, and 12 hours.

Overall, treatment-emergent AEs were higher in the abaloparatide (165, 20.1%) and teriparatide (106, 13%) groups, compared with placebo (74, 9%), as were AEs that led to discontinuation of the study and were potentially associated with changes in heart rate or BP (27 in abaloparatide, 11 in teriparatide, and 5 in placebo). However, the percentage of patients with serious cardiac AEs was similar across groups (1%, 1%, and 0.9%, respectively).

During the ACTIVE trial, major cardiac adverse events plus heart failure were more common in the placebo group (1.7%) than the abaloparatide (0.5%) or teriparatide (0.6%) groups. During ACTIVExtend, major cardiac adverse plus heart failure were similarly common in the abaloparatide/alendronate (1.6%) and the placebo/alendronate (1.6%) groups.

On day 1 of treatment during ACTIVE, the mean change in heart rate from pretreatment to an hour post treatment was 7.9 bpm, 5.3 bpm, and 1.2 bpm for abaloparatide, teriparatide, and placebo, respectively (P < .0001 for abaloparatide and teriparatide vs. placebo; P < .05 for abaloparatide vs. teriparatide).

Subsequent visits saw similar changes. The mean maximum heart rate at 1 hour post dose was 80.7 bpm for abaloparatide, 79.0 bpm for teriparatide, and 73.7 bpm for placebo (P < .0001 for abaloparatide and teriparatide vs. placebo; P < .01 for abaloparatide vs. teriparatide). In the study of healthy volunteers, HR peaked at 15 minutes after dosing and then declined, resolving within 2.5-4 hours.

From predose to 1 hour post dose, small but significant decreases were observed in mean supine systolic and diastolic BP across groups (–2.7/–3.6 mm Hg with abaloparatide, –2.0/–3.6 with teriparatide, –1.5/–2.3 with placebo). During the first year of ACTIVE, the mean maximal decrease in BP from predose to 1 hour post dose was slightly higher (1-2 mm Hg) in the abaloparatide and teriparatide groups, compared with the placebo group (P < .05).

The authors acknowledged their study’s limitations, including the analysis of major cardiac adverse plus heart failure in ACTIVE being limited because of a low number of events and the trial not being designed in that regard.

Abaloparatide was approved by the Food and Drug Administration in 2017 on the basis of results from the ACTIVE and ACTIVExtend trials showing significant reductions in new vertebral and nonvertebral fractures, compared with placebo.

The analysis was partially funded by Radius Health. Its authors acknowledged numerous potential conflicts of interest, including receiving grants and research support from various organizations and pharmaceutical companies.

SOURCE: Cosman F et al. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2020 Jul 13. doi: 10.1210/clinem/dgaa450.

The incidence of stillbirth has increased since the COVID-19 pandemic began, according to a comparative study of pregnancy outcomes in a London hospital.

“The increase in stillbirths may have resulted from indirect effects such as reluctance to attend hospital when needed (e.g., with reduced fetal movements), fear of contracting infection, or not wanting to add to the National Health Service burden,” Asma Khalil, MD, of St George’s University of London and coauthors reported in JAMA.

To further assess reported changes in stillbirth and preterm delivery rates during the pandemic, the researchers began a retrospective study of pregnancy outcomes at St George’s University Hospital in London. They compared two periods: from Oct. 1, 2019, to Jan. 31, 2020 as the pre–COVID-19 period and from Feb. 1, 2020, to June 14, 2020 as the pandemic period. The median age of the mother at time of birth in both periods was 33 years. The prepandemic period had 1,681 births, and the pandemic period had 1,718 births.

Although there were found to be fewer nulliparous women and fewer women with hypertension in the pandemic period, the incidence of stillbirth in that period was significantly higher (n = 16 [9 per 1,000 births]) than in the prepandemic period (n = 4 [2 per 1,000 births]) (difference, 7 per 1,000 births; 95% confidence interval, 1.83-12.0; P = .01). The pandemic rate remained higher when late terminations for fetal abnormality were excluded (difference 6 per 1,000 births; 95% CI 1.54-10.1; P = .01).

None of the pregnant women who experienced stillbirth had COVID-19 symptoms, and none of the postmortems or placental exams indicated infection. There were no significant differences between the two periods in regard to births before 37 weeks’ gestation, births after 34 weeks’ gestation, neonatal unit admission, or cesarean delivery.

“It’s very important to highlight the effects of the pandemic on pregnant patients, even if they’re not infected with COVID-19,” Shannon Clark, MD, of the University of Texas Medical Branch in Galveston said in an interview.

She noted several COVID-related considerations that could have contributed to this increase: the reluctance of both low-risk and high-risk patients to enter a hospital setting during a pandemic, along with safety-centered changes made in antenatal services and care, which includes a reduced number of ultrasounds and screening exams.

“Checking a patient’s blood pressure, checking their weight changes, checking how the baby is growing,” she said. “They’re all simple things that just can’t be done via telemedicine.”

“We’ve thought a lot about the potential effects of getting COVID in pregnancy,” she added, “but it’s just as important to think about what might happen to those who don’t have it and are considered low risk otherwise.”

The study authors noted its limitations, including it being retrospective, analyzing a short time frame, and focusing on a single medical center. It also didn’t factor in the causes of the stillbirths, nor were the time periods precisely comparable, although they did add that “there is no seasonality to stillbirths in the UK.”

One doctor reported receiving grants outside of the submitted work. No other potential conflicts of interest were noted. Dr. Clark said she had no relevant financial disclosures.

SOURCE: Khalil A et al. JAMA. 2020 Jul. doi: 10.1001/jama.2020.12746.

The incidence of stillbirth has increased since the COVID-19 pandemic began, according to a comparative study of pregnancy outcomes in a London hospital.

“The increase in stillbirths may have resulted from indirect effects such as reluctance to attend hospital when needed (e.g., with reduced fetal movements), fear of contracting infection, or not wanting to add to the National Health Service burden,” Asma Khalil, MD, of St George’s University of London and coauthors reported in JAMA.

To further assess reported changes in stillbirth and preterm delivery rates during the pandemic, the researchers began a retrospective study of pregnancy outcomes at St George’s University Hospital in London. They compared two periods: from Oct. 1, 2019, to Jan. 31, 2020 as the pre–COVID-19 period and from Feb. 1, 2020, to June 14, 2020 as the pandemic period. The median age of the mother at time of birth in both periods was 33 years. The prepandemic period had 1,681 births, and the pandemic period had 1,718 births.

Although there were found to be fewer nulliparous women and fewer women with hypertension in the pandemic period, the incidence of stillbirth in that period was significantly higher (n = 16 [9 per 1,000 births]) than in the prepandemic period (n = 4 [2 per 1,000 births]) (difference, 7 per 1,000 births; 95% confidence interval, 1.83-12.0; P = .01). The pandemic rate remained higher when late terminations for fetal abnormality were excluded (difference 6 per 1,000 births; 95% CI 1.54-10.1; P = .01).

None of the pregnant women who experienced stillbirth had COVID-19 symptoms, and none of the postmortems or placental exams indicated infection. There were no significant differences between the two periods in regard to births before 37 weeks’ gestation, births after 34 weeks’ gestation, neonatal unit admission, or cesarean delivery.

“It’s very important to highlight the effects of the pandemic on pregnant patients, even if they’re not infected with COVID-19,” Shannon Clark, MD, of the University of Texas Medical Branch in Galveston said in an interview.

She noted several COVID-related considerations that could have contributed to this increase: the reluctance of both low-risk and high-risk patients to enter a hospital setting during a pandemic, along with safety-centered changes made in antenatal services and care, which includes a reduced number of ultrasounds and screening exams.

“Checking a patient’s blood pressure, checking their weight changes, checking how the baby is growing,” she said. “They’re all simple things that just can’t be done via telemedicine.”

“We’ve thought a lot about the potential effects of getting COVID in pregnancy,” she added, “but it’s just as important to think about what might happen to those who don’t have it and are considered low risk otherwise.”

The study authors noted its limitations, including it being retrospective, analyzing a short time frame, and focusing on a single medical center. It also didn’t factor in the causes of the stillbirths, nor were the time periods precisely comparable, although they did add that “there is no seasonality to stillbirths in the UK.”

One doctor reported receiving grants outside of the submitted work. No other potential conflicts of interest were noted. Dr. Clark said she had no relevant financial disclosures.

SOURCE: Khalil A et al. JAMA. 2020 Jul. doi: 10.1001/jama.2020.12746.

The incidence of stillbirth has increased since the COVID-19 pandemic began, according to a comparative study of pregnancy outcomes in a London hospital.

“The increase in stillbirths may have resulted from indirect effects such as reluctance to attend hospital when needed (e.g., with reduced fetal movements), fear of contracting infection, or not wanting to add to the National Health Service burden,” Asma Khalil, MD, of St George’s University of London and coauthors reported in JAMA.

To further assess reported changes in stillbirth and preterm delivery rates during the pandemic, the researchers began a retrospective study of pregnancy outcomes at St George’s University Hospital in London. They compared two periods: from Oct. 1, 2019, to Jan. 31, 2020 as the pre–COVID-19 period and from Feb. 1, 2020, to June 14, 2020 as the pandemic period. The median age of the mother at time of birth in both periods was 33 years. The prepandemic period had 1,681 births, and the pandemic period had 1,718 births.

Although there were found to be fewer nulliparous women and fewer women with hypertension in the pandemic period, the incidence of stillbirth in that period was significantly higher (n = 16 [9 per 1,000 births]) than in the prepandemic period (n = 4 [2 per 1,000 births]) (difference, 7 per 1,000 births; 95% confidence interval, 1.83-12.0; P = .01). The pandemic rate remained higher when late terminations for fetal abnormality were excluded (difference 6 per 1,000 births; 95% CI 1.54-10.1; P = .01).

None of the pregnant women who experienced stillbirth had COVID-19 symptoms, and none of the postmortems or placental exams indicated infection. There were no significant differences between the two periods in regard to births before 37 weeks’ gestation, births after 34 weeks’ gestation, neonatal unit admission, or cesarean delivery.

“It’s very important to highlight the effects of the pandemic on pregnant patients, even if they’re not infected with COVID-19,” Shannon Clark, MD, of the University of Texas Medical Branch in Galveston said in an interview.

She noted several COVID-related considerations that could have contributed to this increase: the reluctance of both low-risk and high-risk patients to enter a hospital setting during a pandemic, along with safety-centered changes made in antenatal services and care, which includes a reduced number of ultrasounds and screening exams.

“Checking a patient’s blood pressure, checking their weight changes, checking how the baby is growing,” she said. “They’re all simple things that just can’t be done via telemedicine.”

“We’ve thought a lot about the potential effects of getting COVID in pregnancy,” she added, “but it’s just as important to think about what might happen to those who don’t have it and are considered low risk otherwise.”

The study authors noted its limitations, including it being retrospective, analyzing a short time frame, and focusing on a single medical center. It also didn’t factor in the causes of the stillbirths, nor were the time periods precisely comparable, although they did add that “there is no seasonality to stillbirths in the UK.”

One doctor reported receiving grants outside of the submitted work. No other potential conflicts of interest were noted. Dr. Clark said she had no relevant financial disclosures.

SOURCE: Khalil A et al. JAMA. 2020 Jul. doi: 10.1001/jama.2020.12746.

A new study has determined a benefit of cardiac CT scans beyond assessing heart health: Evaluating fracture rate and potential osteoporosis through the bone mineral density (BMD) of thoracic vertebrae.

“Our results represent a step toward appraisal and recognition of the clinical utility of opportunistic BMD screening from cardiac CT,” wrote Josephine Therkildsen, MD, of Hospital Unit West in Herning, Denmark, and coauthors. The study was published July 14 in Radiology.

To determine if further analysis of cardiac CT could help determine BMD and its association with fracture rate, the investigators launched a prospective observational study of 1,487 Danish patients with potential coronary artery disease who underwent cardiac CT scans between September 2014 and March 2016. Their mean age was 57 years (standard deviation, 9; range, 40-80). Nearly all of the patients were white, and 52.5% (n = 781) were women.

All participants underwent a noncontrast-enhanced cardiac CT, from which volumetric BMD of three thoracic vertebrae was measured via commercially available semiautomatic software. Their mean BMD was 119 mg/cm³ (SD, 34) with no significant difference noted between male and female patients. Of the 1,487 participants, 695 were defined as having normal BMD (> 120 mg/cm³), 613 as having low BMD (80-120 mg/cm³), and 179 as having very low BMD (< 80 mg/cm³). Median follow-up was 3.1 years (interquartile range, 2.7-3.4).

Incident fracture occurred in 80 patients (5.4%), of whom 48 were women and 32 were men. Patients who suffered fractures were significantly older than patients with no fractures (mean 59 years vs. 57 years; P = .03). Of the 80 patients with fractures, 31 were osteoporosis related.

In an unadjusted analysis, participants with very low BMD had a greater rate of any fracture (hazard ratio [HR], 2.6; 95% confidence interval, 1.4-4.7; P = .002) and of osteoporosis-related fracture (HR, 8.1; 95% CI, 2.4-27.0; P = .001). After adjustment for age and sex, their rates remained significantly greater for any fracture (HR, 2.1; 95% CI, 1.1-4.2; P = .03) and for osteoporosis-related fracture (HR, 4.0; 95% CI, 1.1-15.0; P = .04).

“Opportunistic” use of scans benefits both physicians and patients

“The concept of using a CT scan that was done for a different purpose allows you to be opportunistic,” Ethel S. Siris, MD, the Madeline C. Stabile Professor of Clinical Medicine in the department of medicine at Columbia University and director of the Toni Stabile Osteoporosis Center of the Columbia University Medical Center, New York–Presbyterian Hospital, New York, said in an interview. “If you’re dealing with older patients, and if you have the software for your radiologist to use to reanalyze the CT scan and say something about the bone, it’s certainly a way of estimating who may be at risk of future fractures.

“From a practical point of view, it’s hard to imagine that it would ever replace conventional bone mineral density testing via DXA [dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry],” she added. “That said, osteoporosis is woefully underdiagnosed because people don’t get DXA tested. This study showed that, if you have access to the scan of the thoracic or even the lumbar spine and if you have the necessary software, you can make legitimate statements about the numbers being low or very low. What that would lead to, I would hope, is some internists to say, ‘This could be a predictor of fracture risk. We should put you on treatment.’ And then follow up with a conventional DXA test.

“Is that going to happen? I don’t know. But the bottom line of the study is: Anything that may enhance the physician’s drive to evaluate a patient for fracture risk is good.”
 

Whatever the reason for the scan, CT can help diagnose osteoporosis

This study reinforces that CT exams – of the chest, in particular – can serve a valuable dual purpose as osteoporosis screenings, Miriam A. Bredella, MD, professor of radiology at Harvard Medical School and vice chair of the department of radiology at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, wrote in an accompanying editorial.

“In the United States, more than 80 million CT examinations are performed each year, many of which could be used to screen for osteoporosis without additional costs or radiation exposure,” she wrote. And thanks to the findings of the study by Therkildsen et al., which relied on both established and new BMD thresholds, the link between thoracic spine BMD and fracture risk is clearer than ever.

“I hope this study will ignite interest in using chest CT examinations performed for other purposes, such as lung cancer screening, for opportunistic osteoporosis screening and prediction of fractures in vulnerable populations,” she added.

The authors acknowledged their study’s limitations, including a small number of fracture events overall and the inability to evaluate associations between BMD and fracture rate at specific locations. In addition, their cohort was largely made up of white participants with a certain coronary artery disease risk profile; because of ethnical differences in BMD measurements, their results “cannot be extrapolated to other ethnical groups.”

Several of the study’s authors reported potential conflicts of interest, including receiving grants and money for consultancies and board memberships from various councils, associations, and pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Bredella reported no conflicts of interest. Dr. Siris has no relevant disclosures.

SOURCE: Therkildsen J et al. Radiology. 2020 Jul 14. doi: 10.1148/radiol.2020192706.

A new study has determined a benefit of cardiac CT scans beyond assessing heart health: Evaluating fracture rate and potential osteoporosis through the bone mineral density (BMD) of thoracic vertebrae.

“Our results represent a step toward appraisal and recognition of the clinical utility of opportunistic BMD screening from cardiac CT,” wrote Josephine Therkildsen, MD, of Hospital Unit West in Herning, Denmark, and coauthors. The study was published July 14 in Radiology.

To determine if further analysis of cardiac CT could help determine BMD and its association with fracture rate, the investigators launched a prospective observational study of 1,487 Danish patients with potential coronary artery disease who underwent cardiac CT scans between September 2014 and March 2016. Their mean age was 57 years (standard deviation, 9; range, 40-80). Nearly all of the patients were white, and 52.5% (n = 781) were women.

All participants underwent a noncontrast-enhanced cardiac CT, from which volumetric BMD of three thoracic vertebrae was measured via commercially available semiautomatic software. Their mean BMD was 119 mg/cm³ (SD, 34) with no significant difference noted between male and female patients. Of the 1,487 participants, 695 were defined as having normal BMD (> 120 mg/cm³), 613 as having low BMD (80-120 mg/cm³), and 179 as having very low BMD (< 80 mg/cm³). Median follow-up was 3.1 years (interquartile range, 2.7-3.4).

Incident fracture occurred in 80 patients (5.4%), of whom 48 were women and 32 were men. Patients who suffered fractures were significantly older than patients with no fractures (mean 59 years vs. 57 years; P = .03). Of the 80 patients with fractures, 31 were osteoporosis related.

In an unadjusted analysis, participants with very low BMD had a greater rate of any fracture (hazard ratio [HR], 2.6; 95% confidence interval, 1.4-4.7; P = .002) and of osteoporosis-related fracture (HR, 8.1; 95% CI, 2.4-27.0; P = .001). After adjustment for age and sex, their rates remained significantly greater for any fracture (HR, 2.1; 95% CI, 1.1-4.2; P = .03) and for osteoporosis-related fracture (HR, 4.0; 95% CI, 1.1-15.0; P = .04).

“Opportunistic” use of scans benefits both physicians and patients

“The concept of using a CT scan that was done for a different purpose allows you to be opportunistic,” Ethel S. Siris, MD, the Madeline C. Stabile Professor of Clinical Medicine in the department of medicine at Columbia University and director of the Toni Stabile Osteoporosis Center of the Columbia University Medical Center, New York–Presbyterian Hospital, New York, said in an interview. “If you’re dealing with older patients, and if you have the software for your radiologist to use to reanalyze the CT scan and say something about the bone, it’s certainly a way of estimating who may be at risk of future fractures.

“From a practical point of view, it’s hard to imagine that it would ever replace conventional bone mineral density testing via DXA [dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry],” she added. “That said, osteoporosis is woefully underdiagnosed because people don’t get DXA tested. This study showed that, if you have access to the scan of the thoracic or even the lumbar spine and if you have the necessary software, you can make legitimate statements about the numbers being low or very low. What that would lead to, I would hope, is some internists to say, ‘This could be a predictor of fracture risk. We should put you on treatment.’ And then follow up with a conventional DXA test.

“Is that going to happen? I don’t know. But the bottom line of the study is: Anything that may enhance the physician’s drive to evaluate a patient for fracture risk is good.”
 

Whatever the reason for the scan, CT can help diagnose osteoporosis

This study reinforces that CT exams – of the chest, in particular – can serve a valuable dual purpose as osteoporosis screenings, Miriam A. Bredella, MD, professor of radiology at Harvard Medical School and vice chair of the department of radiology at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, wrote in an accompanying editorial.

“In the United States, more than 80 million CT examinations are performed each year, many of which could be used to screen for osteoporosis without additional costs or radiation exposure,” she wrote. And thanks to the findings of the study by Therkildsen et al., which relied on both established and new BMD thresholds, the link between thoracic spine BMD and fracture risk is clearer than ever.

“I hope this study will ignite interest in using chest CT examinations performed for other purposes, such as lung cancer screening, for opportunistic osteoporosis screening and prediction of fractures in vulnerable populations,” she added.

The authors acknowledged their study’s limitations, including a small number of fracture events overall and the inability to evaluate associations between BMD and fracture rate at specific locations. In addition, their cohort was largely made up of white participants with a certain coronary artery disease risk profile; because of ethnical differences in BMD measurements, their results “cannot be extrapolated to other ethnical groups.”

Several of the study’s authors reported potential conflicts of interest, including receiving grants and money for consultancies and board memberships from various councils, associations, and pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Bredella reported no conflicts of interest. Dr. Siris has no relevant disclosures.

SOURCE: Therkildsen J et al. Radiology. 2020 Jul 14. doi: 10.1148/radiol.2020192706.

A new study has determined a benefit of cardiac CT scans beyond assessing heart health: Evaluating fracture rate and potential osteoporosis through the bone mineral density (BMD) of thoracic vertebrae.

“Our results represent a step toward appraisal and recognition of the clinical utility of opportunistic BMD screening from cardiac CT,” wrote Josephine Therkildsen, MD, of Hospital Unit West in Herning, Denmark, and coauthors. The study was published July 14 in Radiology.

To determine if further analysis of cardiac CT could help determine BMD and its association with fracture rate, the investigators launched a prospective observational study of 1,487 Danish patients with potential coronary artery disease who underwent cardiac CT scans between September 2014 and March 2016. Their mean age was 57 years (standard deviation, 9; range, 40-80). Nearly all of the patients were white, and 52.5% (n = 781) were women.

All participants underwent a noncontrast-enhanced cardiac CT, from which volumetric BMD of three thoracic vertebrae was measured via commercially available semiautomatic software. Their mean BMD was 119 mg/cm³ (SD, 34) with no significant difference noted between male and female patients. Of the 1,487 participants, 695 were defined as having normal BMD (> 120 mg/cm³), 613 as having low BMD (80-120 mg/cm³), and 179 as having very low BMD (< 80 mg/cm³). Median follow-up was 3.1 years (interquartile range, 2.7-3.4).

Incident fracture occurred in 80 patients (5.4%), of whom 48 were women and 32 were men. Patients who suffered fractures were significantly older than patients with no fractures (mean 59 years vs. 57 years; P = .03). Of the 80 patients with fractures, 31 were osteoporosis related.

In an unadjusted analysis, participants with very low BMD had a greater rate of any fracture (hazard ratio [HR], 2.6; 95% confidence interval, 1.4-4.7; P = .002) and of osteoporosis-related fracture (HR, 8.1; 95% CI, 2.4-27.0; P = .001). After adjustment for age and sex, their rates remained significantly greater for any fracture (HR, 2.1; 95% CI, 1.1-4.2; P = .03) and for osteoporosis-related fracture (HR, 4.0; 95% CI, 1.1-15.0; P = .04).

“Opportunistic” use of scans benefits both physicians and patients

“The concept of using a CT scan that was done for a different purpose allows you to be opportunistic,” Ethel S. Siris, MD, the Madeline C. Stabile Professor of Clinical Medicine in the department of medicine at Columbia University and director of the Toni Stabile Osteoporosis Center of the Columbia University Medical Center, New York–Presbyterian Hospital, New York, said in an interview. “If you’re dealing with older patients, and if you have the software for your radiologist to use to reanalyze the CT scan and say something about the bone, it’s certainly a way of estimating who may be at risk of future fractures.

“From a practical point of view, it’s hard to imagine that it would ever replace conventional bone mineral density testing via DXA [dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry],” she added. “That said, osteoporosis is woefully underdiagnosed because people don’t get DXA tested. This study showed that, if you have access to the scan of the thoracic or even the lumbar spine and if you have the necessary software, you can make legitimate statements about the numbers being low or very low. What that would lead to, I would hope, is some internists to say, ‘This could be a predictor of fracture risk. We should put you on treatment.’ And then follow up with a conventional DXA test.

“Is that going to happen? I don’t know. But the bottom line of the study is: Anything that may enhance the physician’s drive to evaluate a patient for fracture risk is good.”
 

Whatever the reason for the scan, CT can help diagnose osteoporosis

This study reinforces that CT exams – of the chest, in particular – can serve a valuable dual purpose as osteoporosis screenings, Miriam A. Bredella, MD, professor of radiology at Harvard Medical School and vice chair of the department of radiology at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, wrote in an accompanying editorial.

“In the United States, more than 80 million CT examinations are performed each year, many of which could be used to screen for osteoporosis without additional costs or radiation exposure,” she wrote. And thanks to the findings of the study by Therkildsen et al., which relied on both established and new BMD thresholds, the link between thoracic spine BMD and fracture risk is clearer than ever.

“I hope this study will ignite interest in using chest CT examinations performed for other purposes, such as lung cancer screening, for opportunistic osteoporosis screening and prediction of fractures in vulnerable populations,” she added.

The authors acknowledged their study’s limitations, including a small number of fracture events overall and the inability to evaluate associations between BMD and fracture rate at specific locations. In addition, their cohort was largely made up of white participants with a certain coronary artery disease risk profile; because of ethnical differences in BMD measurements, their results “cannot be extrapolated to other ethnical groups.”

Several of the study’s authors reported potential conflicts of interest, including receiving grants and money for consultancies and board memberships from various councils, associations, and pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Bredella reported no conflicts of interest. Dr. Siris has no relevant disclosures.

SOURCE: Therkildsen J et al. Radiology. 2020 Jul 14. doi: 10.1148/radiol.2020192706.

A meta-analysis of relevant clinical trials has found that lowering blood pressure with antihypertensive agents was statistically significantly associated with reducing the risk of dementia or cognitive impairment, though the risk reduction was modest.

“Although observational studies report hypertension to be an important risk factor for dementia, the benefit of blood pressure lowering on dementia or cognitive impairment in clinical trials is modest and lower than the risk reduction for stroke,” wrote Diarmaid Hughes, MB, of the NUI Galway and Saolta University Hospital Group in Galway, Ireland, and coauthors. They added, however, that “these findings have the potential to inform public health strategies to reduce the burden of dementia globally.” The study was published online ahead of print May 19 in JAMA.
 

A rich data set

To assess the relationship between lowering blood pressure and cognitive issues, the researchers performed a systemic search of randomized, clinical trials that compared blood pressure lowering via antihypertensive agents with a control, had at least 1 year of follow-up, included more than 1,000 participants, and reported on either dementia, cognitive impairment, cognitive decline, or a change in cognitive test scores as outcomes. Of the 14 studies deemed eligible, 12 reported either the incidence of dementia (n = 9) or a composite of dementia or cognitive impairment (n = 3) at follow-up and thus were included in the primary meta-analysis. The other two studies were used for secondary outcomes only.

The studies included 96,158 participants in total – 42.2% were women – and their mean age was 69 years. At baseline, participants’ mean systolic blood pressure was 154 mm Hg and their mean diastolic blood pressure was 83.3 mm Hg. The mean duration of follow-up was 49.24 months.

In the 12 trials that reported dementia or cognitive impairment, blood pressure lowering via antihypertensive agents, compared with control, was significantly associated with a reduction in those two outcomes (7.0% vs. 7.5% over a mean trial follow-up of 4.1 years; odds ratio, 0.93; 95% confidence interval, 0.88-0.98; absolute risk reduction, 0.39%; 95% CI, 0.09%-0.68%). Blood pressure lowering, compared with control, was also significantly associated with a reduction in cognitive decline (20.2% vs. 21.1% over a mean trial follow-up of 4.1 years; OR, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.88-0.99; ARR, 0.71%; 95% CI, 0.19%-1.2%) in the eight trials that reported it as an outcome. An analysis of the eight trials that reported a change in cognitive scores did not find a significant association between that outcome and blood pressure lowering.
 

Subpopulations should be examined

“This is a very broad brush stroke study, albeit a definitive one,” Richard J. Caselli, MD, of the Mayo Clinic in Phoenix said in an interview. “With all the thousands of people in this meta-analysis, there are going to be subpopulations of patients with certain characteristics or common conditions in which blood pressure lowering might have a bigger or a lesser impact on their risk factor. Is there a difference between certain racial groups? Does it matter what antihypertensive strategies are used? You can look at the interactions between blood pressure lowering and other conditions: diabetes, head injuries, air pollution, certain genetic risk factors. There are a number of additional findings that could come from a very rich data set like this.”

The authors acknowledged their study’s limitations, including the challenges of performing a meta-analysis of studies that drew from different populations and had potentially different definitions of dementia, cognitive impairment, and cognitive decline outcomes. In addition, the low incidence of dementia across clinical trials limited the researchers, and its underdetection in trials and the potential of survivor bias for healthier participants with blood pressure reductions were noted as “unmeasured sources of potential error.”

Three authors reported receiving grants or personal fees from the Wellcome Trust and the Health Research Board, the Chief Scientist Office, and Bayer AG, respectively.

SOURCE: Hughes D et al. JAMA. 2020 May 19. doi: 10.1001/jama.2020.4249.

A meta-analysis of relevant clinical trials has found that lowering blood pressure with antihypertensive agents was statistically significantly associated with reducing the risk of dementia or cognitive impairment, though the risk reduction was modest.

“Although observational studies report hypertension to be an important risk factor for dementia, the benefit of blood pressure lowering on dementia or cognitive impairment in clinical trials is modest and lower than the risk reduction for stroke,” wrote Diarmaid Hughes, MB, of the NUI Galway and Saolta University Hospital Group in Galway, Ireland, and coauthors. They added, however, that “these findings have the potential to inform public health strategies to reduce the burden of dementia globally.” The study was published online ahead of print May 19 in JAMA.
 

A rich data set

To assess the relationship between lowering blood pressure and cognitive issues, the researchers performed a systemic search of randomized, clinical trials that compared blood pressure lowering via antihypertensive agents with a control, had at least 1 year of follow-up, included more than 1,000 participants, and reported on either dementia, cognitive impairment, cognitive decline, or a change in cognitive test scores as outcomes. Of the 14 studies deemed eligible, 12 reported either the incidence of dementia (n = 9) or a composite of dementia or cognitive impairment (n = 3) at follow-up and thus were included in the primary meta-analysis. The other two studies were used for secondary outcomes only.

The studies included 96,158 participants in total – 42.2% were women – and their mean age was 69 years. At baseline, participants’ mean systolic blood pressure was 154 mm Hg and their mean diastolic blood pressure was 83.3 mm Hg. The mean duration of follow-up was 49.24 months.

In the 12 trials that reported dementia or cognitive impairment, blood pressure lowering via antihypertensive agents, compared with control, was significantly associated with a reduction in those two outcomes (7.0% vs. 7.5% over a mean trial follow-up of 4.1 years; odds ratio, 0.93; 95% confidence interval, 0.88-0.98; absolute risk reduction, 0.39%; 95% CI, 0.09%-0.68%). Blood pressure lowering, compared with control, was also significantly associated with a reduction in cognitive decline (20.2% vs. 21.1% over a mean trial follow-up of 4.1 years; OR, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.88-0.99; ARR, 0.71%; 95% CI, 0.19%-1.2%) in the eight trials that reported it as an outcome. An analysis of the eight trials that reported a change in cognitive scores did not find a significant association between that outcome and blood pressure lowering.
 

Subpopulations should be examined

“This is a very broad brush stroke study, albeit a definitive one,” Richard J. Caselli, MD, of the Mayo Clinic in Phoenix said in an interview. “With all the thousands of people in this meta-analysis, there are going to be subpopulations of patients with certain characteristics or common conditions in which blood pressure lowering might have a bigger or a lesser impact on their risk factor. Is there a difference between certain racial groups? Does it matter what antihypertensive strategies are used? You can look at the interactions between blood pressure lowering and other conditions: diabetes, head injuries, air pollution, certain genetic risk factors. There are a number of additional findings that could come from a very rich data set like this.”

The authors acknowledged their study’s limitations, including the challenges of performing a meta-analysis of studies that drew from different populations and had potentially different definitions of dementia, cognitive impairment, and cognitive decline outcomes. In addition, the low incidence of dementia across clinical trials limited the researchers, and its underdetection in trials and the potential of survivor bias for healthier participants with blood pressure reductions were noted as “unmeasured sources of potential error.”

Three authors reported receiving grants or personal fees from the Wellcome Trust and the Health Research Board, the Chief Scientist Office, and Bayer AG, respectively.

SOURCE: Hughes D et al. JAMA. 2020 May 19. doi: 10.1001/jama.2020.4249.

A meta-analysis of relevant clinical trials has found that lowering blood pressure with antihypertensive agents was statistically significantly associated with reducing the risk of dementia or cognitive impairment, though the risk reduction was modest.

“Although observational studies report hypertension to be an important risk factor for dementia, the benefit of blood pressure lowering on dementia or cognitive impairment in clinical trials is modest and lower than the risk reduction for stroke,” wrote Diarmaid Hughes, MB, of the NUI Galway and Saolta University Hospital Group in Galway, Ireland, and coauthors. They added, however, that “these findings have the potential to inform public health strategies to reduce the burden of dementia globally.” The study was published online ahead of print May 19 in JAMA.
 

A rich data set

To assess the relationship between lowering blood pressure and cognitive issues, the researchers performed a systemic search of randomized, clinical trials that compared blood pressure lowering via antihypertensive agents with a control, had at least 1 year of follow-up, included more than 1,000 participants, and reported on either dementia, cognitive impairment, cognitive decline, or a change in cognitive test scores as outcomes. Of the 14 studies deemed eligible, 12 reported either the incidence of dementia (n = 9) or a composite of dementia or cognitive impairment (n = 3) at follow-up and thus were included in the primary meta-analysis. The other two studies were used for secondary outcomes only.

The studies included 96,158 participants in total – 42.2% were women – and their mean age was 69 years. At baseline, participants’ mean systolic blood pressure was 154 mm Hg and their mean diastolic blood pressure was 83.3 mm Hg. The mean duration of follow-up was 49.24 months.

In the 12 trials that reported dementia or cognitive impairment, blood pressure lowering via antihypertensive agents, compared with control, was significantly associated with a reduction in those two outcomes (7.0% vs. 7.5% over a mean trial follow-up of 4.1 years; odds ratio, 0.93; 95% confidence interval, 0.88-0.98; absolute risk reduction, 0.39%; 95% CI, 0.09%-0.68%). Blood pressure lowering, compared with control, was also significantly associated with a reduction in cognitive decline (20.2% vs. 21.1% over a mean trial follow-up of 4.1 years; OR, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.88-0.99; ARR, 0.71%; 95% CI, 0.19%-1.2%) in the eight trials that reported it as an outcome. An analysis of the eight trials that reported a change in cognitive scores did not find a significant association between that outcome and blood pressure lowering.
 

Subpopulations should be examined

“This is a very broad brush stroke study, albeit a definitive one,” Richard J. Caselli, MD, of the Mayo Clinic in Phoenix said in an interview. “With all the thousands of people in this meta-analysis, there are going to be subpopulations of patients with certain characteristics or common conditions in which blood pressure lowering might have a bigger or a lesser impact on their risk factor. Is there a difference between certain racial groups? Does it matter what antihypertensive strategies are used? You can look at the interactions between blood pressure lowering and other conditions: diabetes, head injuries, air pollution, certain genetic risk factors. There are a number of additional findings that could come from a very rich data set like this.”

The authors acknowledged their study’s limitations, including the challenges of performing a meta-analysis of studies that drew from different populations and had potentially different definitions of dementia, cognitive impairment, and cognitive decline outcomes. In addition, the low incidence of dementia across clinical trials limited the researchers, and its underdetection in trials and the potential of survivor bias for healthier participants with blood pressure reductions were noted as “unmeasured sources of potential error.”

Three authors reported receiving grants or personal fees from the Wellcome Trust and the Health Research Board, the Chief Scientist Office, and Bayer AG, respectively.

SOURCE: Hughes D et al. JAMA. 2020 May 19. doi: 10.1001/jama.2020.4249.

Five leading bone health organizations have gotten together to provide new recommendations for managing patients with osteoporosis during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The joint guidance – released by the American Society for Bone and Mineral Research (ASBMR), the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists, the Endocrine Society, the European Calcified Tissue Society, and the National Osteoporosis Foundation – offered both general and specific recommendations for patients whose osteoporosis treatment plan is either continuing or has been disrupted during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Among the general recommendations are to initiate oral bisphosphonate therapy over either the telephone or through a video visit, with no delays for patients at high risk of fracture. They also noted that, as elective procedures, bone mineral density examinations may need to be postponed.

For patients already on osteoporosis medications – such as oral and IV bisphosphonates, denosumab, estrogen, raloxifene, teriparatide, abaloparatide, and romosozumab – they recommend continuing treatment whenever possible. “There is no evidence that any osteoporosis therapy increases the risk or severity of COVID-19 infection or alters the disease course,” they wrote. They did add, however, that COVID-19 may increase the risk of hypercoagulable complications and so caution should be exercised when treating patients with estrogen or raloxifene.

Separately, in a letter to the editor published in the Journal of Clinical Endocrinology and Metabolism (doi: 10.1210/clinem/dgaa254), Ruban Dhaliwal, MD, MPH, of the State University of New York, Syracuse, and coauthors concur in regard to raloxifene. They wrote that, because of the increased risk of thromboembolic events related to COVID-19, “it is best to discontinue raloxifene, which is also associated with such risk.”

The joint statement recognizes current social distancing policies and therefore recommends avoiding standard pretreatment labs prior to IV bisphosphonate and/or denosumab administration if previous labs were normal and the patient’s recent health has been deemed “stable.” Lab evaluation is recommended, however, for patients with fluctuating renal function and for those at higher risk of developing hypocalcemia.

The statement also provides potential alternative methods for delivering parenteral osteoporosis treatments, including off-site clinics, home delivery and administration, self-injection of denosumab and/or romosozumab, and drive-through administration of denosumab and/or romosozumab. They acknowledged the complications surrounding each alternative, including residents of “socioeconomically challenged communities” being unable to reach clinics if public transportation is not available and the “important medicolegal issues” to consider around self-injection.

For all patients whose treatments have been disrupted, the authors recommend frequent reevaluation “with the goal to resume the original osteoporosis treatment plan once circumstances allow.” As for specific recommendations, patients on denosumab who will not be treatable within 7 months of their previous injection should be transitioned to oral bisphosphonate if at all possible. For patients with underlying gastrointestinal disorders, they recommend monthly ibandronate or weekly/monthly risedronate; for patients with chronic renal insufficiency, they recommend an off-label regimen of lower dose oral bisphosphonate.

For patients on teriparatide or abaloparatide who will be unable to receive continued treatment, they recommend a delay in treatment. If that delay goes beyond several months, they recommend a temporary transition to oral bisphosphonate. For patients on romosozumab who will be unable to receive continued treatment, they also recommend a delay in treatment and a temporary transition to oral bisphosphonate. Finally, they expressed confidence that patients on IV bisphosphonates will not be harmed by treatment delays, even those of several months.

“I think we could fall into a trap during this era of the pandemic and fail to address patients’ underlying chronic conditions, even though those comorbidities will end up greatly affecting their overall health,” said incoming ASBMR president Suzanne Jan de Beur, MD, of the Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore. “As we continue to care for our patients, we need to keep chronic conditions like osteoporosis on the radar screen and not stop diagnosing people at risk or those who present with fractures. Even when we can’t perform full screening tests due to distancing policies, we need to be vigilant for those patients who need treatment and administer the treatments we have available as needed.”

The statement’s authors acknowledged the limitations of their recommendations, noting that “there is a paucity of data to provide clear guidance” and as such they were “based primarily on expert opinion.”

The authors from the five organizations did not disclose any conflicts of interest.

Five leading bone health organizations have gotten together to provide new recommendations for managing patients with osteoporosis during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The joint guidance – released by the American Society for Bone and Mineral Research (ASBMR), the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists, the Endocrine Society, the European Calcified Tissue Society, and the National Osteoporosis Foundation – offered both general and specific recommendations for patients whose osteoporosis treatment plan is either continuing or has been disrupted during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Among the general recommendations are to initiate oral bisphosphonate therapy over either the telephone or through a video visit, with no delays for patients at high risk of fracture. They also noted that, as elective procedures, bone mineral density examinations may need to be postponed.

For patients already on osteoporosis medications – such as oral and IV bisphosphonates, denosumab, estrogen, raloxifene, teriparatide, abaloparatide, and romosozumab – they recommend continuing treatment whenever possible. “There is no evidence that any osteoporosis therapy increases the risk or severity of COVID-19 infection or alters the disease course,” they wrote. They did add, however, that COVID-19 may increase the risk of hypercoagulable complications and so caution should be exercised when treating patients with estrogen or raloxifene.

Separately, in a letter to the editor published in the Journal of Clinical Endocrinology and Metabolism (doi: 10.1210/clinem/dgaa254), Ruban Dhaliwal, MD, MPH, of the State University of New York, Syracuse, and coauthors concur in regard to raloxifene. They wrote that, because of the increased risk of thromboembolic events related to COVID-19, “it is best to discontinue raloxifene, which is also associated with such risk.”

The joint statement recognizes current social distancing policies and therefore recommends avoiding standard pretreatment labs prior to IV bisphosphonate and/or denosumab administration if previous labs were normal and the patient’s recent health has been deemed “stable.” Lab evaluation is recommended, however, for patients with fluctuating renal function and for those at higher risk of developing hypocalcemia.

The statement also provides potential alternative methods for delivering parenteral osteoporosis treatments, including off-site clinics, home delivery and administration, self-injection of denosumab and/or romosozumab, and drive-through administration of denosumab and/or romosozumab. They acknowledged the complications surrounding each alternative, including residents of “socioeconomically challenged communities” being unable to reach clinics if public transportation is not available and the “important medicolegal issues” to consider around self-injection.

For all patients whose treatments have been disrupted, the authors recommend frequent reevaluation “with the goal to resume the original osteoporosis treatment plan once circumstances allow.” As for specific recommendations, patients on denosumab who will not be treatable within 7 months of their previous injection should be transitioned to oral bisphosphonate if at all possible. For patients with underlying gastrointestinal disorders, they recommend monthly ibandronate or weekly/monthly risedronate; for patients with chronic renal insufficiency, they recommend an off-label regimen of lower dose oral bisphosphonate.

For patients on teriparatide or abaloparatide who will be unable to receive continued treatment, they recommend a delay in treatment. If that delay goes beyond several months, they recommend a temporary transition to oral bisphosphonate. For patients on romosozumab who will be unable to receive continued treatment, they also recommend a delay in treatment and a temporary transition to oral bisphosphonate. Finally, they expressed confidence that patients on IV bisphosphonates will not be harmed by treatment delays, even those of several months.

“I think we could fall into a trap during this era of the pandemic and fail to address patients’ underlying chronic conditions, even though those comorbidities will end up greatly affecting their overall health,” said incoming ASBMR president Suzanne Jan de Beur, MD, of the Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore. “As we continue to care for our patients, we need to keep chronic conditions like osteoporosis on the radar screen and not stop diagnosing people at risk or those who present with fractures. Even when we can’t perform full screening tests due to distancing policies, we need to be vigilant for those patients who need treatment and administer the treatments we have available as needed.”

The statement’s authors acknowledged the limitations of their recommendations, noting that “there is a paucity of data to provide clear guidance” and as such they were “based primarily on expert opinion.”

The authors from the five organizations did not disclose any conflicts of interest.

Five leading bone health organizations have gotten together to provide new recommendations for managing patients with osteoporosis during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The joint guidance – released by the American Society for Bone and Mineral Research (ASBMR), the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists, the Endocrine Society, the European Calcified Tissue Society, and the National Osteoporosis Foundation – offered both general and specific recommendations for patients whose osteoporosis treatment plan is either continuing or has been disrupted during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Among the general recommendations are to initiate oral bisphosphonate therapy over either the telephone or through a video visit, with no delays for patients at high risk of fracture. They also noted that, as elective procedures, bone mineral density examinations may need to be postponed.

For patients already on osteoporosis medications – such as oral and IV bisphosphonates, denosumab, estrogen, raloxifene, teriparatide, abaloparatide, and romosozumab – they recommend continuing treatment whenever possible. “There is no evidence that any osteoporosis therapy increases the risk or severity of COVID-19 infection or alters the disease course,” they wrote. They did add, however, that COVID-19 may increase the risk of hypercoagulable complications and so caution should be exercised when treating patients with estrogen or raloxifene.

Separately, in a letter to the editor published in the Journal of Clinical Endocrinology and Metabolism (doi: 10.1210/clinem/dgaa254), Ruban Dhaliwal, MD, MPH, of the State University of New York, Syracuse, and coauthors concur in regard to raloxifene. They wrote that, because of the increased risk of thromboembolic events related to COVID-19, “it is best to discontinue raloxifene, which is also associated with such risk.”

The joint statement recognizes current social distancing policies and therefore recommends avoiding standard pretreatment labs prior to IV bisphosphonate and/or denosumab administration if previous labs were normal and the patient’s recent health has been deemed “stable.” Lab evaluation is recommended, however, for patients with fluctuating renal function and for those at higher risk of developing hypocalcemia.

The statement also provides potential alternative methods for delivering parenteral osteoporosis treatments, including off-site clinics, home delivery and administration, self-injection of denosumab and/or romosozumab, and drive-through administration of denosumab and/or romosozumab. They acknowledged the complications surrounding each alternative, including residents of “socioeconomically challenged communities” being unable to reach clinics if public transportation is not available and the “important medicolegal issues” to consider around self-injection.

For all patients whose treatments have been disrupted, the authors recommend frequent reevaluation “with the goal to resume the original osteoporosis treatment plan once circumstances allow.” As for specific recommendations, patients on denosumab who will not be treatable within 7 months of their previous injection should be transitioned to oral bisphosphonate if at all possible. For patients with underlying gastrointestinal disorders, they recommend monthly ibandronate or weekly/monthly risedronate; for patients with chronic renal insufficiency, they recommend an off-label regimen of lower dose oral bisphosphonate.

For patients on teriparatide or abaloparatide who will be unable to receive continued treatment, they recommend a delay in treatment. If that delay goes beyond several months, they recommend a temporary transition to oral bisphosphonate. For patients on romosozumab who will be unable to receive continued treatment, they also recommend a delay in treatment and a temporary transition to oral bisphosphonate. Finally, they expressed confidence that patients on IV bisphosphonates will not be harmed by treatment delays, even those of several months.

“I think we could fall into a trap during this era of the pandemic and fail to address patients’ underlying chronic conditions, even though those comorbidities will end up greatly affecting their overall health,” said incoming ASBMR president Suzanne Jan de Beur, MD, of the Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore. “As we continue to care for our patients, we need to keep chronic conditions like osteoporosis on the radar screen and not stop diagnosing people at risk or those who present with fractures. Even when we can’t perform full screening tests due to distancing policies, we need to be vigilant for those patients who need treatment and administer the treatments we have available as needed.”

The statement’s authors acknowledged the limitations of their recommendations, noting that “there is a paucity of data to provide clear guidance” and as such they were “based primarily on expert opinion.”

The authors from the five organizations did not disclose any conflicts of interest.