User login
Interventional cardiology pioneer reflects on field’s past, future
SNOWMASS, COLO. – When Spencer B. King III, MD, shared his thoughts about the future of interventional cardiology at the Annual Cardiovascular Conference at Snowmass sponsored by the American College of Cardiology, he felt compelled to offer a cautionary note about his past accuracy as a prognosticator.
It was way back at a poster session during the 1976 annual meeting of the American Heart Association in Miami Beach that he first met Andreas Gruentzig, MD, the father of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), who was presenting his initial revolutionary work on what he called “coronary transluminal angioplasty” in dogs.
“I looked at the poster and told him it would never work,” recalled Dr. King, professor emeritus of medicine at Emory University in Atlanta.
He soon changed his mind, however, because, to great acclaim, Dr. Gruentzig performed his successful first in-human coronary angioplasty the next year.
He noted that the Snowmass conference has played a significant role in the development of interventional cardiology in the United States. Dr. Gruentzig attended the conference in 1980, and Dr. King and others took that opportunity to persuade him to leave the bureaucratic confines of Zurich and join him at Emory later that year. The two cardiologists worked closely thereafter, refining angioplasty and conducting clinical trials until Dr. Gruentzig’s death in an airplane crash in Georgia in 1985 at age 46 years.
Turning to the future, Dr. King addressed a number of recent developments in interventional cardiology and rated their chances of significantly improving outcomes in patients with stable ischemic heart disease. He graded the innovations’ potential with use of a four-bar schema, akin to the WiFi signal power rating on a cell phone.
Noninvasive diagnostics to assess anatomy and physiology
“I think coronary CT angiography [CTA] will become the new diagnostic angiogram,” he predicted. “CTA has gotten much better. Outside the United States, in Europe and particularly in Japan and increasingly in China, CTA is becoming extremely common.”
Dr. King cited a recent multicenter study of blinded heart team treatment decision making on the basis of either CTA or conventional invasive angiography in 223 patients with left main or triple-vessel coronary artery disease (CAD). The level of agreement was impressively high: Coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) was recommended for 28% of patients on the basis of CTA and 26% with conventional angiography, which suggests the feasibility of treatment decision making based solely on noninvasive imaging, history, and clinical examination (Eur Heart J. 2018 Nov 1;39[41]:3689-98).
“The other thing I like about the potential for noninvasive imaging to guide our interventions is that it may [replace] the diagnostic angiogram, which has largely become extinct,” the cardiologist continued. “If you think about it, patients are referred for an angiogram, and as far as informed consent is concerned, the patient is told to pack his bags, go off to some other city, get in the cath lab, and take the family because of what they might do to you. They might put stents in you, they might operate on you. We don’t have any idea because we don’t know what you have. And the patient has to buy into this. With CTA, the potential is there for people to actually know what you’re going to do to them before you do it.”
Coronary artery calcium scoring for primary risk assessment has taken on a prominent role in the latest practice guidelines. “I think it’s mostly helpful in getting people out of the system because they don’t have any calcium,” in Dr. King’s view.
PET and MRI will remain secondary noninvasive technologies. They will be used mostly to diagnose microvascular disease, but that’s information that doesn’t have much influence on whether interventional procedures are performed.
Overall, he gave noninvasive diagnostic tools high marks for their potential to improve outcomes in patients with stable ischemic heart disease.
“I give it a pretty robust three bars. Maybe you could give it four,” he said.
New pharmacologic therapies
Citing in particular the proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 (PCSK9) inhibitors and the sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors, Dr. King declared, “It may be that the biggest, newest device in interventional cardiology going forward is not a device at all, it’s medical therapy.”
Interventional cardiologists either need to become expert in advanced medical therapies or else have access to someone in their group who prescribes those medications deftly.
“The future care of our patients will require more than percutaneous coronary intervention,” he emphasized.
So, four bars for the new medical therapies.
PCI and coronary artery bypass surgery
Both get one bar.
“PCI will be a partner of advanced antiatherosclerotic therapies, but will not be replaced by limiting antianginal therapy to medical treatment only,” Dr. King predicted.
Regarding CABG, he highlighted a recent systematic review and pooled analysis of 11,518 patients with stable ischemic heart disease randomized to CABG or PCI using drug-eluting or bare-metal stents in 11 clinical trials. CABG demonstrated a significant mortality benefit over PCI in patients with multivessel disease, particularly among those with diabetes or a higher degree of coronary disease complexity. However, there was no benefit in terms of 5-year all-cause mortality for CABG over PCI in those with left main disease (Lancet. 2018 Mar 10;391[10124]:9399-48).
“CABG will not go away. I predict that about 25% of revascularizations will continue to be done by surgery,” the cardiologist said. “For patients who can have complete revascularization by PCI, it’ll be done with advanced technology, but probably only by a subset of operators. We have a huge number of interventional cardiologists in this country, and some of them do a lot of these kinds of cases and some don’t.”
Endovascular imaging to optimize stent deployment and characterize plaque
Studies suggest that the use of intravascular ultrasound and other endovascular imaging technologies ends up providing better results than when they’re not employed.
“We see greatly increased use of IVUS [intravascular ultrasound], and not so much of optical coherence tomography, because of technical problems. So I give this at least two bars as far as moving practice forward,” according to Dr. King.
Bioresorbable scaffolds
This technology, which he noted “was supposed to solve all of our problems,” has tripped and fallen because of its associated increased risk of scaffold thrombosis. He cited a recent network meta-analysis of 91 randomized, controlled trials comparing bioresorbable scaffolds to current-generation metallic drug-eluting stents in more than 105,000 patients. The bioresorbable scaffolds had a significantly higher rate of scaffold thrombosis in the first 30 days after implantation, as well as from 31 days through 1 year and also beyond 1 year. In fact, there was a rising trend for scaffold thrombosis in the bioresorbable device group after the 1 year mark through a mean 3.7 years of follow-up (EuroIntervention. 2018 Mar 20;13[16]:1904-13).
“The overall impact of bioresorbable scaffolds has been nil. We don’t have them. Bioresorbable scaffolds may become noninferior to the best metal stents, but to become mainstream, they should show superiority,” the cardiologist said.
One bar, based on the uncertain possibility that new bioresorbable scaffolds now in early stages of development ultimately pan out.
Future training needs
PCI operator volumes are low, and that raises a host of issues regarding future training needs. Should fewer interventionalists be trained? Should training in endovascular imaging be a mandatory part of PCI training? Should interventional cardiology be divided into distinct coronary, structural heart, and peripheral vascular subspecialty domains involving different people, a change that is already informally underway in many places? How are operators who are interested in becoming experts in PCI for chronic total occlusion, diffuse disease, left main disease, or other complex cases going to get enough experience to be able to concentrate in those areas?
These are questions that will need to be addressed in the coming years. The answers will surely affect the delivery of interventional cardiology care.
Dr. King reported having no financial conflicts regarding his presentation.
SOURCE: King SB.
SNOWMASS, COLO. – When Spencer B. King III, MD, shared his thoughts about the future of interventional cardiology at the Annual Cardiovascular Conference at Snowmass sponsored by the American College of Cardiology, he felt compelled to offer a cautionary note about his past accuracy as a prognosticator.
It was way back at a poster session during the 1976 annual meeting of the American Heart Association in Miami Beach that he first met Andreas Gruentzig, MD, the father of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), who was presenting his initial revolutionary work on what he called “coronary transluminal angioplasty” in dogs.
“I looked at the poster and told him it would never work,” recalled Dr. King, professor emeritus of medicine at Emory University in Atlanta.
He soon changed his mind, however, because, to great acclaim, Dr. Gruentzig performed his successful first in-human coronary angioplasty the next year.
He noted that the Snowmass conference has played a significant role in the development of interventional cardiology in the United States. Dr. Gruentzig attended the conference in 1980, and Dr. King and others took that opportunity to persuade him to leave the bureaucratic confines of Zurich and join him at Emory later that year. The two cardiologists worked closely thereafter, refining angioplasty and conducting clinical trials until Dr. Gruentzig’s death in an airplane crash in Georgia in 1985 at age 46 years.
Turning to the future, Dr. King addressed a number of recent developments in interventional cardiology and rated their chances of significantly improving outcomes in patients with stable ischemic heart disease. He graded the innovations’ potential with use of a four-bar schema, akin to the WiFi signal power rating on a cell phone.
Noninvasive diagnostics to assess anatomy and physiology
“I think coronary CT angiography [CTA] will become the new diagnostic angiogram,” he predicted. “CTA has gotten much better. Outside the United States, in Europe and particularly in Japan and increasingly in China, CTA is becoming extremely common.”
Dr. King cited a recent multicenter study of blinded heart team treatment decision making on the basis of either CTA or conventional invasive angiography in 223 patients with left main or triple-vessel coronary artery disease (CAD). The level of agreement was impressively high: Coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) was recommended for 28% of patients on the basis of CTA and 26% with conventional angiography, which suggests the feasibility of treatment decision making based solely on noninvasive imaging, history, and clinical examination (Eur Heart J. 2018 Nov 1;39[41]:3689-98).
“The other thing I like about the potential for noninvasive imaging to guide our interventions is that it may [replace] the diagnostic angiogram, which has largely become extinct,” the cardiologist continued. “If you think about it, patients are referred for an angiogram, and as far as informed consent is concerned, the patient is told to pack his bags, go off to some other city, get in the cath lab, and take the family because of what they might do to you. They might put stents in you, they might operate on you. We don’t have any idea because we don’t know what you have. And the patient has to buy into this. With CTA, the potential is there for people to actually know what you’re going to do to them before you do it.”
Coronary artery calcium scoring for primary risk assessment has taken on a prominent role in the latest practice guidelines. “I think it’s mostly helpful in getting people out of the system because they don’t have any calcium,” in Dr. King’s view.
PET and MRI will remain secondary noninvasive technologies. They will be used mostly to diagnose microvascular disease, but that’s information that doesn’t have much influence on whether interventional procedures are performed.
Overall, he gave noninvasive diagnostic tools high marks for their potential to improve outcomes in patients with stable ischemic heart disease.
“I give it a pretty robust three bars. Maybe you could give it four,” he said.
New pharmacologic therapies
Citing in particular the proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 (PCSK9) inhibitors and the sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors, Dr. King declared, “It may be that the biggest, newest device in interventional cardiology going forward is not a device at all, it’s medical therapy.”
Interventional cardiologists either need to become expert in advanced medical therapies or else have access to someone in their group who prescribes those medications deftly.
“The future care of our patients will require more than percutaneous coronary intervention,” he emphasized.
So, four bars for the new medical therapies.
PCI and coronary artery bypass surgery
Both get one bar.
“PCI will be a partner of advanced antiatherosclerotic therapies, but will not be replaced by limiting antianginal therapy to medical treatment only,” Dr. King predicted.
Regarding CABG, he highlighted a recent systematic review and pooled analysis of 11,518 patients with stable ischemic heart disease randomized to CABG or PCI using drug-eluting or bare-metal stents in 11 clinical trials. CABG demonstrated a significant mortality benefit over PCI in patients with multivessel disease, particularly among those with diabetes or a higher degree of coronary disease complexity. However, there was no benefit in terms of 5-year all-cause mortality for CABG over PCI in those with left main disease (Lancet. 2018 Mar 10;391[10124]:9399-48).
“CABG will not go away. I predict that about 25% of revascularizations will continue to be done by surgery,” the cardiologist said. “For patients who can have complete revascularization by PCI, it’ll be done with advanced technology, but probably only by a subset of operators. We have a huge number of interventional cardiologists in this country, and some of them do a lot of these kinds of cases and some don’t.”
Endovascular imaging to optimize stent deployment and characterize plaque
Studies suggest that the use of intravascular ultrasound and other endovascular imaging technologies ends up providing better results than when they’re not employed.
“We see greatly increased use of IVUS [intravascular ultrasound], and not so much of optical coherence tomography, because of technical problems. So I give this at least two bars as far as moving practice forward,” according to Dr. King.
Bioresorbable scaffolds
This technology, which he noted “was supposed to solve all of our problems,” has tripped and fallen because of its associated increased risk of scaffold thrombosis. He cited a recent network meta-analysis of 91 randomized, controlled trials comparing bioresorbable scaffolds to current-generation metallic drug-eluting stents in more than 105,000 patients. The bioresorbable scaffolds had a significantly higher rate of scaffold thrombosis in the first 30 days after implantation, as well as from 31 days through 1 year and also beyond 1 year. In fact, there was a rising trend for scaffold thrombosis in the bioresorbable device group after the 1 year mark through a mean 3.7 years of follow-up (EuroIntervention. 2018 Mar 20;13[16]:1904-13).
“The overall impact of bioresorbable scaffolds has been nil. We don’t have them. Bioresorbable scaffolds may become noninferior to the best metal stents, but to become mainstream, they should show superiority,” the cardiologist said.
One bar, based on the uncertain possibility that new bioresorbable scaffolds now in early stages of development ultimately pan out.
Future training needs
PCI operator volumes are low, and that raises a host of issues regarding future training needs. Should fewer interventionalists be trained? Should training in endovascular imaging be a mandatory part of PCI training? Should interventional cardiology be divided into distinct coronary, structural heart, and peripheral vascular subspecialty domains involving different people, a change that is already informally underway in many places? How are operators who are interested in becoming experts in PCI for chronic total occlusion, diffuse disease, left main disease, or other complex cases going to get enough experience to be able to concentrate in those areas?
These are questions that will need to be addressed in the coming years. The answers will surely affect the delivery of interventional cardiology care.
Dr. King reported having no financial conflicts regarding his presentation.
SOURCE: King SB.
SNOWMASS, COLO. – When Spencer B. King III, MD, shared his thoughts about the future of interventional cardiology at the Annual Cardiovascular Conference at Snowmass sponsored by the American College of Cardiology, he felt compelled to offer a cautionary note about his past accuracy as a prognosticator.
It was way back at a poster session during the 1976 annual meeting of the American Heart Association in Miami Beach that he first met Andreas Gruentzig, MD, the father of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), who was presenting his initial revolutionary work on what he called “coronary transluminal angioplasty” in dogs.
“I looked at the poster and told him it would never work,” recalled Dr. King, professor emeritus of medicine at Emory University in Atlanta.
He soon changed his mind, however, because, to great acclaim, Dr. Gruentzig performed his successful first in-human coronary angioplasty the next year.
He noted that the Snowmass conference has played a significant role in the development of interventional cardiology in the United States. Dr. Gruentzig attended the conference in 1980, and Dr. King and others took that opportunity to persuade him to leave the bureaucratic confines of Zurich and join him at Emory later that year. The two cardiologists worked closely thereafter, refining angioplasty and conducting clinical trials until Dr. Gruentzig’s death in an airplane crash in Georgia in 1985 at age 46 years.
Turning to the future, Dr. King addressed a number of recent developments in interventional cardiology and rated their chances of significantly improving outcomes in patients with stable ischemic heart disease. He graded the innovations’ potential with use of a four-bar schema, akin to the WiFi signal power rating on a cell phone.
Noninvasive diagnostics to assess anatomy and physiology
“I think coronary CT angiography [CTA] will become the new diagnostic angiogram,” he predicted. “CTA has gotten much better. Outside the United States, in Europe and particularly in Japan and increasingly in China, CTA is becoming extremely common.”
Dr. King cited a recent multicenter study of blinded heart team treatment decision making on the basis of either CTA or conventional invasive angiography in 223 patients with left main or triple-vessel coronary artery disease (CAD). The level of agreement was impressively high: Coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) was recommended for 28% of patients on the basis of CTA and 26% with conventional angiography, which suggests the feasibility of treatment decision making based solely on noninvasive imaging, history, and clinical examination (Eur Heart J. 2018 Nov 1;39[41]:3689-98).
“The other thing I like about the potential for noninvasive imaging to guide our interventions is that it may [replace] the diagnostic angiogram, which has largely become extinct,” the cardiologist continued. “If you think about it, patients are referred for an angiogram, and as far as informed consent is concerned, the patient is told to pack his bags, go off to some other city, get in the cath lab, and take the family because of what they might do to you. They might put stents in you, they might operate on you. We don’t have any idea because we don’t know what you have. And the patient has to buy into this. With CTA, the potential is there for people to actually know what you’re going to do to them before you do it.”
Coronary artery calcium scoring for primary risk assessment has taken on a prominent role in the latest practice guidelines. “I think it’s mostly helpful in getting people out of the system because they don’t have any calcium,” in Dr. King’s view.
PET and MRI will remain secondary noninvasive technologies. They will be used mostly to diagnose microvascular disease, but that’s information that doesn’t have much influence on whether interventional procedures are performed.
Overall, he gave noninvasive diagnostic tools high marks for their potential to improve outcomes in patients with stable ischemic heart disease.
“I give it a pretty robust three bars. Maybe you could give it four,” he said.
New pharmacologic therapies
Citing in particular the proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 (PCSK9) inhibitors and the sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors, Dr. King declared, “It may be that the biggest, newest device in interventional cardiology going forward is not a device at all, it’s medical therapy.”
Interventional cardiologists either need to become expert in advanced medical therapies or else have access to someone in their group who prescribes those medications deftly.
“The future care of our patients will require more than percutaneous coronary intervention,” he emphasized.
So, four bars for the new medical therapies.
PCI and coronary artery bypass surgery
Both get one bar.
“PCI will be a partner of advanced antiatherosclerotic therapies, but will not be replaced by limiting antianginal therapy to medical treatment only,” Dr. King predicted.
Regarding CABG, he highlighted a recent systematic review and pooled analysis of 11,518 patients with stable ischemic heart disease randomized to CABG or PCI using drug-eluting or bare-metal stents in 11 clinical trials. CABG demonstrated a significant mortality benefit over PCI in patients with multivessel disease, particularly among those with diabetes or a higher degree of coronary disease complexity. However, there was no benefit in terms of 5-year all-cause mortality for CABG over PCI in those with left main disease (Lancet. 2018 Mar 10;391[10124]:9399-48).
“CABG will not go away. I predict that about 25% of revascularizations will continue to be done by surgery,” the cardiologist said. “For patients who can have complete revascularization by PCI, it’ll be done with advanced technology, but probably only by a subset of operators. We have a huge number of interventional cardiologists in this country, and some of them do a lot of these kinds of cases and some don’t.”
Endovascular imaging to optimize stent deployment and characterize plaque
Studies suggest that the use of intravascular ultrasound and other endovascular imaging technologies ends up providing better results than when they’re not employed.
“We see greatly increased use of IVUS [intravascular ultrasound], and not so much of optical coherence tomography, because of technical problems. So I give this at least two bars as far as moving practice forward,” according to Dr. King.
Bioresorbable scaffolds
This technology, which he noted “was supposed to solve all of our problems,” has tripped and fallen because of its associated increased risk of scaffold thrombosis. He cited a recent network meta-analysis of 91 randomized, controlled trials comparing bioresorbable scaffolds to current-generation metallic drug-eluting stents in more than 105,000 patients. The bioresorbable scaffolds had a significantly higher rate of scaffold thrombosis in the first 30 days after implantation, as well as from 31 days through 1 year and also beyond 1 year. In fact, there was a rising trend for scaffold thrombosis in the bioresorbable device group after the 1 year mark through a mean 3.7 years of follow-up (EuroIntervention. 2018 Mar 20;13[16]:1904-13).
“The overall impact of bioresorbable scaffolds has been nil. We don’t have them. Bioresorbable scaffolds may become noninferior to the best metal stents, but to become mainstream, they should show superiority,” the cardiologist said.
One bar, based on the uncertain possibility that new bioresorbable scaffolds now in early stages of development ultimately pan out.
Future training needs
PCI operator volumes are low, and that raises a host of issues regarding future training needs. Should fewer interventionalists be trained? Should training in endovascular imaging be a mandatory part of PCI training? Should interventional cardiology be divided into distinct coronary, structural heart, and peripheral vascular subspecialty domains involving different people, a change that is already informally underway in many places? How are operators who are interested in becoming experts in PCI for chronic total occlusion, diffuse disease, left main disease, or other complex cases going to get enough experience to be able to concentrate in those areas?
These are questions that will need to be addressed in the coming years. The answers will surely affect the delivery of interventional cardiology care.
Dr. King reported having no financial conflicts regarding his presentation.
SOURCE: King SB.
EXPERT ANALYSIS FROM ACC SNOWMASS 2019
Much still unknown about inflammation’s role in RA patients’ CVD risk
A variety of trials, some recent and some a decade old, have highlighted the role of inflammation on cardiovascular disease risk in both patients with and without rheumatoid arthritis, spurring greater interest in alleviating inflammation across a wide range of patients, Jon T. Giles, MD, said at the Winter Rheumatology Symposium sponsored by the American College of Rheumatology.
However, questions remain about the unique contributions of inflammation to CVD risk in RA patients and the effect of RA treatments on that risk, which future studies hope to answer.
Hints of inflammation’s effects in non-RA patients
The JUPITER trial published more than a decade ago, for example, tested the effects of statins in nearly 18,000 older adults without rheumatoid arthritis (RA) who had elevated levels of inflammation, defined as a C-reactive protein (CRP) level of greater than 2 mg/L and low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol less than 130 mg/dL. Such patients would otherwise be considered low risk and not eligible for statin therapy, said Dr. Giles, a rheumatologist, epidemiologist, and clinical researcher in the division of rheumatology at Columbia University, New York.
A marked decrease in the incidence of cardiovascular disease (CVD) events was seen in those treated with statins, compared with those who received placebo, and all patient subgroups benefited; the number needed to treat to prevent one event was 32 at 5 years (N Engl J Med. 2008;359:2195-207).
The trial was remarkable in that it was stopped early for efficacy, he noted.
“So the question is: Should we be thinking about systemic inflammation as the real target here? And should RA patients who have elevated persistent levels of CRP really be the people that we’re thinking about?” he asked. “Obviously this needs to be tested; we don’t know.”
The more recent CANTOS trial looking at secondary CVD prevention in more than 10,000 non-RA patients with a prior myocardial infarction also highlighted the role of inflammation and provided “some support that decreasing inflammatory cytokines may be important for reducing [CVD] events,” he said (N Engl J Med. 2017;377:1119-31).
Participants were treated with the interleukin-1 inhibitor canakinumab (Ilaris) or placebo, and canakinumab was associated with about a 15% reduction in CVD events, providing “more proof of concept to look at the inflammatory innate immune contribution to CVD risk,” Dr. Giles said.
Treated patients had more infections, but they also had less gout, less arthritis, and less cancer than did those who received placebo, he noted.
Effect of RA treatments on CVD risk
The effects of existing treatments for RA also highlight the importance of inflammation in CVD risk in RA patients, he said, noting that data support a role for immunomodulators for risk reduction.
“There’s a lot of observational epidemiology in this space – mostly for methotrexate and [tumor necrosis factor (TNF)] inhibitors,” he said.
One analysis showed that across 8 cohort studies involving methotrexate, the disease-modifying antirheumatic agent reduced the risk of CVD events by 28%, and that across 16 cohort studies, TNF inhibitors reduced the risk by 30% (Ann Rheum Dis. 2015 Mar;74[3]:480-9).
All of the methotrexate studies showed a reduction, and almost all of the TNF inhibitor trials showed a reduction, Dr. Giles noted.
With respect to other non-TNF biologics, claims data suggest that abatacept (Orencia) is similar to the TNF inhibitor etanercept (Enbrel) with respect to CVD risk, and in a head-to-head, randomized clinical trial of more than 3,000 RA patients presented as a late-breaking abstract at the ACR annual meeting in 2016, Dr. Giles and his colleagues found similar cardiovascular safety between the anti-IL-6 receptor blocker tocilizumab (Actemra) and etanercept.
“I think we’ll know more about this in the near future,” he said.
As for the mechanisms of these agents, early data and animal models suggest that abatacept may play “a special role” in atherosclerosis reduction related to its effects on T cell CTLA-4 over-expression, and methotrexate also seems to have a number of “potential mechanistic benefits” that render it atheroprotective, he said.
The disappointing findings from the recently reported CIRT trial, which showed no benefit of methotrexate for secondary CVD prevention in non-RA patients (N Engl J Med. 2019;380:752-62), has dampened enthusiasm regarding methotrexate’s role here, but it is important to note that patients enrolled in CIRT, unlike those in JUPITER and CANTOS, were not enrolled based on elevated levels of CRP, Dr. Giles said.
Various studies of TNF inhibitors have shown atheroprotective effects through reductions in macrophage-derived inflammatory cytokines, downregulation of adhesion molecules on endothelial cells, improving the function of high-density lipoprotein, stabilizing atherosclerotic plaque remodeling, and reducing procoagulant states.
The TARGET trial
In a recent study of 17 patients with RA, Dr. Giles and his colleagues showed that TNF inhibitor therapy with either adalimumab (Humira) or etanercept significantly reduced aortic inflammation as measured by baseline and 8-week fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG) PET-CT.
“Is this proof that this helps? It’s not proof; there’s no control group, we don’t know that this is not the natural progression of vascular inflammation in these patients,” he said.
However, the findings were suggestive enough to prompt the launch of the TARGET trial, which is now enrolling patients at centers in the United States and Canada, Dr. Giles said.
The TARGET trial is a project involving his team at Columbia University along with researchers from Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston. They plan to enroll 200 RA patients without CVD who have an inadequate response to methotrexate. Participants will be randomized to receive an added TNF inhibitor or added triple therapy, and the primary outcome will be changes in inflammation in the aortic and carotid arteries on FDG PET-CT at 6 months versus baseline.
“So stay tuned and hopefully we’ll have some good information about the effect of two different types of treatments for rheumatoid arthritis on vascular inflammation,” Dr. Giles said.
A final question he addressed is whether the RA-CVD risk link is really a problem that has already been solved – one that “we’re just learning about after the fact.”
“The answer is partially yes and partially no,” he said.
The most up-to-date estimate of whether RA patients have a problem with CVD comes from a Swedish population-based study of more than 15,700 RA patients and nearly 70,900 comparators, which was published in 2018 and showed across-the-board declines in CVD rates over time.
RA and non-RA patients experienced an overall 40% reduction in acute coronary syndromes between 1997 and 2014, but the relative difference in event rates between the groups persisted (Ann Rheum Dis. 2017;76:1642-7).
“There is still a gap ... so we haven’t answered this question yet,” he said, adding that “the rates have been reduced, but we want those rates to be equal or maybe even less.
“Why can’t RA patients have less cardiovascular disease if we’re using drugs that are so effective for treating the inflammatory component of atherogenesis?” he asked.
The authors of the study noted that most RA patients in Sweden are in low disease activity by 3-6 months, so they were “a little confounded by why there is no equalization of these rates as of yet,” he said.
“I think we still have more to learn about this problem, and it is still a problem in our patients,” Dr. Giles said.
Dr. Giles is a consultant for Genentech, Lilly, Horizon, Bristol-Myers Squibb, and UCB, and he has received grant support from Pfizer.
A variety of trials, some recent and some a decade old, have highlighted the role of inflammation on cardiovascular disease risk in both patients with and without rheumatoid arthritis, spurring greater interest in alleviating inflammation across a wide range of patients, Jon T. Giles, MD, said at the Winter Rheumatology Symposium sponsored by the American College of Rheumatology.
However, questions remain about the unique contributions of inflammation to CVD risk in RA patients and the effect of RA treatments on that risk, which future studies hope to answer.
Hints of inflammation’s effects in non-RA patients
The JUPITER trial published more than a decade ago, for example, tested the effects of statins in nearly 18,000 older adults without rheumatoid arthritis (RA) who had elevated levels of inflammation, defined as a C-reactive protein (CRP) level of greater than 2 mg/L and low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol less than 130 mg/dL. Such patients would otherwise be considered low risk and not eligible for statin therapy, said Dr. Giles, a rheumatologist, epidemiologist, and clinical researcher in the division of rheumatology at Columbia University, New York.
A marked decrease in the incidence of cardiovascular disease (CVD) events was seen in those treated with statins, compared with those who received placebo, and all patient subgroups benefited; the number needed to treat to prevent one event was 32 at 5 years (N Engl J Med. 2008;359:2195-207).
The trial was remarkable in that it was stopped early for efficacy, he noted.
“So the question is: Should we be thinking about systemic inflammation as the real target here? And should RA patients who have elevated persistent levels of CRP really be the people that we’re thinking about?” he asked. “Obviously this needs to be tested; we don’t know.”
The more recent CANTOS trial looking at secondary CVD prevention in more than 10,000 non-RA patients with a prior myocardial infarction also highlighted the role of inflammation and provided “some support that decreasing inflammatory cytokines may be important for reducing [CVD] events,” he said (N Engl J Med. 2017;377:1119-31).
Participants were treated with the interleukin-1 inhibitor canakinumab (Ilaris) or placebo, and canakinumab was associated with about a 15% reduction in CVD events, providing “more proof of concept to look at the inflammatory innate immune contribution to CVD risk,” Dr. Giles said.
Treated patients had more infections, but they also had less gout, less arthritis, and less cancer than did those who received placebo, he noted.
Effect of RA treatments on CVD risk
The effects of existing treatments for RA also highlight the importance of inflammation in CVD risk in RA patients, he said, noting that data support a role for immunomodulators for risk reduction.
“There’s a lot of observational epidemiology in this space – mostly for methotrexate and [tumor necrosis factor (TNF)] inhibitors,” he said.
One analysis showed that across 8 cohort studies involving methotrexate, the disease-modifying antirheumatic agent reduced the risk of CVD events by 28%, and that across 16 cohort studies, TNF inhibitors reduced the risk by 30% (Ann Rheum Dis. 2015 Mar;74[3]:480-9).
All of the methotrexate studies showed a reduction, and almost all of the TNF inhibitor trials showed a reduction, Dr. Giles noted.
With respect to other non-TNF biologics, claims data suggest that abatacept (Orencia) is similar to the TNF inhibitor etanercept (Enbrel) with respect to CVD risk, and in a head-to-head, randomized clinical trial of more than 3,000 RA patients presented as a late-breaking abstract at the ACR annual meeting in 2016, Dr. Giles and his colleagues found similar cardiovascular safety between the anti-IL-6 receptor blocker tocilizumab (Actemra) and etanercept.
“I think we’ll know more about this in the near future,” he said.
As for the mechanisms of these agents, early data and animal models suggest that abatacept may play “a special role” in atherosclerosis reduction related to its effects on T cell CTLA-4 over-expression, and methotrexate also seems to have a number of “potential mechanistic benefits” that render it atheroprotective, he said.
The disappointing findings from the recently reported CIRT trial, which showed no benefit of methotrexate for secondary CVD prevention in non-RA patients (N Engl J Med. 2019;380:752-62), has dampened enthusiasm regarding methotrexate’s role here, but it is important to note that patients enrolled in CIRT, unlike those in JUPITER and CANTOS, were not enrolled based on elevated levels of CRP, Dr. Giles said.
Various studies of TNF inhibitors have shown atheroprotective effects through reductions in macrophage-derived inflammatory cytokines, downregulation of adhesion molecules on endothelial cells, improving the function of high-density lipoprotein, stabilizing atherosclerotic plaque remodeling, and reducing procoagulant states.
The TARGET trial
In a recent study of 17 patients with RA, Dr. Giles and his colleagues showed that TNF inhibitor therapy with either adalimumab (Humira) or etanercept significantly reduced aortic inflammation as measured by baseline and 8-week fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG) PET-CT.
“Is this proof that this helps? It’s not proof; there’s no control group, we don’t know that this is not the natural progression of vascular inflammation in these patients,” he said.
However, the findings were suggestive enough to prompt the launch of the TARGET trial, which is now enrolling patients at centers in the United States and Canada, Dr. Giles said.
The TARGET trial is a project involving his team at Columbia University along with researchers from Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston. They plan to enroll 200 RA patients without CVD who have an inadequate response to methotrexate. Participants will be randomized to receive an added TNF inhibitor or added triple therapy, and the primary outcome will be changes in inflammation in the aortic and carotid arteries on FDG PET-CT at 6 months versus baseline.
“So stay tuned and hopefully we’ll have some good information about the effect of two different types of treatments for rheumatoid arthritis on vascular inflammation,” Dr. Giles said.
A final question he addressed is whether the RA-CVD risk link is really a problem that has already been solved – one that “we’re just learning about after the fact.”
“The answer is partially yes and partially no,” he said.
The most up-to-date estimate of whether RA patients have a problem with CVD comes from a Swedish population-based study of more than 15,700 RA patients and nearly 70,900 comparators, which was published in 2018 and showed across-the-board declines in CVD rates over time.
RA and non-RA patients experienced an overall 40% reduction in acute coronary syndromes between 1997 and 2014, but the relative difference in event rates between the groups persisted (Ann Rheum Dis. 2017;76:1642-7).
“There is still a gap ... so we haven’t answered this question yet,” he said, adding that “the rates have been reduced, but we want those rates to be equal or maybe even less.
“Why can’t RA patients have less cardiovascular disease if we’re using drugs that are so effective for treating the inflammatory component of atherogenesis?” he asked.
The authors of the study noted that most RA patients in Sweden are in low disease activity by 3-6 months, so they were “a little confounded by why there is no equalization of these rates as of yet,” he said.
“I think we still have more to learn about this problem, and it is still a problem in our patients,” Dr. Giles said.
Dr. Giles is a consultant for Genentech, Lilly, Horizon, Bristol-Myers Squibb, and UCB, and he has received grant support from Pfizer.
A variety of trials, some recent and some a decade old, have highlighted the role of inflammation on cardiovascular disease risk in both patients with and without rheumatoid arthritis, spurring greater interest in alleviating inflammation across a wide range of patients, Jon T. Giles, MD, said at the Winter Rheumatology Symposium sponsored by the American College of Rheumatology.
However, questions remain about the unique contributions of inflammation to CVD risk in RA patients and the effect of RA treatments on that risk, which future studies hope to answer.
Hints of inflammation’s effects in non-RA patients
The JUPITER trial published more than a decade ago, for example, tested the effects of statins in nearly 18,000 older adults without rheumatoid arthritis (RA) who had elevated levels of inflammation, defined as a C-reactive protein (CRP) level of greater than 2 mg/L and low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol less than 130 mg/dL. Such patients would otherwise be considered low risk and not eligible for statin therapy, said Dr. Giles, a rheumatologist, epidemiologist, and clinical researcher in the division of rheumatology at Columbia University, New York.
A marked decrease in the incidence of cardiovascular disease (CVD) events was seen in those treated with statins, compared with those who received placebo, and all patient subgroups benefited; the number needed to treat to prevent one event was 32 at 5 years (N Engl J Med. 2008;359:2195-207).
The trial was remarkable in that it was stopped early for efficacy, he noted.
“So the question is: Should we be thinking about systemic inflammation as the real target here? And should RA patients who have elevated persistent levels of CRP really be the people that we’re thinking about?” he asked. “Obviously this needs to be tested; we don’t know.”
The more recent CANTOS trial looking at secondary CVD prevention in more than 10,000 non-RA patients with a prior myocardial infarction also highlighted the role of inflammation and provided “some support that decreasing inflammatory cytokines may be important for reducing [CVD] events,” he said (N Engl J Med. 2017;377:1119-31).
Participants were treated with the interleukin-1 inhibitor canakinumab (Ilaris) or placebo, and canakinumab was associated with about a 15% reduction in CVD events, providing “more proof of concept to look at the inflammatory innate immune contribution to CVD risk,” Dr. Giles said.
Treated patients had more infections, but they also had less gout, less arthritis, and less cancer than did those who received placebo, he noted.
Effect of RA treatments on CVD risk
The effects of existing treatments for RA also highlight the importance of inflammation in CVD risk in RA patients, he said, noting that data support a role for immunomodulators for risk reduction.
“There’s a lot of observational epidemiology in this space – mostly for methotrexate and [tumor necrosis factor (TNF)] inhibitors,” he said.
One analysis showed that across 8 cohort studies involving methotrexate, the disease-modifying antirheumatic agent reduced the risk of CVD events by 28%, and that across 16 cohort studies, TNF inhibitors reduced the risk by 30% (Ann Rheum Dis. 2015 Mar;74[3]:480-9).
All of the methotrexate studies showed a reduction, and almost all of the TNF inhibitor trials showed a reduction, Dr. Giles noted.
With respect to other non-TNF biologics, claims data suggest that abatacept (Orencia) is similar to the TNF inhibitor etanercept (Enbrel) with respect to CVD risk, and in a head-to-head, randomized clinical trial of more than 3,000 RA patients presented as a late-breaking abstract at the ACR annual meeting in 2016, Dr. Giles and his colleagues found similar cardiovascular safety between the anti-IL-6 receptor blocker tocilizumab (Actemra) and etanercept.
“I think we’ll know more about this in the near future,” he said.
As for the mechanisms of these agents, early data and animal models suggest that abatacept may play “a special role” in atherosclerosis reduction related to its effects on T cell CTLA-4 over-expression, and methotrexate also seems to have a number of “potential mechanistic benefits” that render it atheroprotective, he said.
The disappointing findings from the recently reported CIRT trial, which showed no benefit of methotrexate for secondary CVD prevention in non-RA patients (N Engl J Med. 2019;380:752-62), has dampened enthusiasm regarding methotrexate’s role here, but it is important to note that patients enrolled in CIRT, unlike those in JUPITER and CANTOS, were not enrolled based on elevated levels of CRP, Dr. Giles said.
Various studies of TNF inhibitors have shown atheroprotective effects through reductions in macrophage-derived inflammatory cytokines, downregulation of adhesion molecules on endothelial cells, improving the function of high-density lipoprotein, stabilizing atherosclerotic plaque remodeling, and reducing procoagulant states.
The TARGET trial
In a recent study of 17 patients with RA, Dr. Giles and his colleagues showed that TNF inhibitor therapy with either adalimumab (Humira) or etanercept significantly reduced aortic inflammation as measured by baseline and 8-week fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG) PET-CT.
“Is this proof that this helps? It’s not proof; there’s no control group, we don’t know that this is not the natural progression of vascular inflammation in these patients,” he said.
However, the findings were suggestive enough to prompt the launch of the TARGET trial, which is now enrolling patients at centers in the United States and Canada, Dr. Giles said.
The TARGET trial is a project involving his team at Columbia University along with researchers from Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston. They plan to enroll 200 RA patients without CVD who have an inadequate response to methotrexate. Participants will be randomized to receive an added TNF inhibitor or added triple therapy, and the primary outcome will be changes in inflammation in the aortic and carotid arteries on FDG PET-CT at 6 months versus baseline.
“So stay tuned and hopefully we’ll have some good information about the effect of two different types of treatments for rheumatoid arthritis on vascular inflammation,” Dr. Giles said.
A final question he addressed is whether the RA-CVD risk link is really a problem that has already been solved – one that “we’re just learning about after the fact.”
“The answer is partially yes and partially no,” he said.
The most up-to-date estimate of whether RA patients have a problem with CVD comes from a Swedish population-based study of more than 15,700 RA patients and nearly 70,900 comparators, which was published in 2018 and showed across-the-board declines in CVD rates over time.
RA and non-RA patients experienced an overall 40% reduction in acute coronary syndromes between 1997 and 2014, but the relative difference in event rates between the groups persisted (Ann Rheum Dis. 2017;76:1642-7).
“There is still a gap ... so we haven’t answered this question yet,” he said, adding that “the rates have been reduced, but we want those rates to be equal or maybe even less.
“Why can’t RA patients have less cardiovascular disease if we’re using drugs that are so effective for treating the inflammatory component of atherogenesis?” he asked.
The authors of the study noted that most RA patients in Sweden are in low disease activity by 3-6 months, so they were “a little confounded by why there is no equalization of these rates as of yet,” he said.
“I think we still have more to learn about this problem, and it is still a problem in our patients,” Dr. Giles said.
Dr. Giles is a consultant for Genentech, Lilly, Horizon, Bristol-Myers Squibb, and UCB, and he has received grant support from Pfizer.
EXPERT ANALYSIS FROM THE WINTER RHEUMATOLOGY SYMPOSIUM
Brilinta reduces MACE in THEMIS trial
The maker of ticagrelor has released top-line results from the phase 3 trial known as THEMIS.
AstraZeneca announced that THEMIS met its primary endpoint of reduction of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) among patients with coronary artery disease (CAD) and type 2 diabetes with no history of heart attack or stroke. (MACE is a composite of cardiovascular death, heart attack, and stroke.)
The trial (NCT01991795) explored these risks by comparing ticagrelor (Brilinta) plus aspirin versus aspirin alone. The oral, reversibly binding, direct-acting P2Y12 receptor antagonist is currently indicated for reducing MACE among patients with acute coronary syndrome or a history of MI. According to the press release, the multinational, randomized, double-blind trial is exploring the use of ticagrelor/aspirin among patients with CAD and type 2 diabetes because of this population’s high risk and the lack of treatment options.
Gabriel Steg, MD, THEMIS cochair and professor at Université Paris–Diderot, said in the release that “patients who have both stable coronary artery disease and diabetes are a sizable group which remains at particularly high risk of major adverse cardiac events. The optimal long-term antiplatelet therapy in that group is not fully established.” He added that the full results from the THEMIS trial will be presented later this year.
Ticagrelor comes with risks of significant and sometimes fatal bleeding; as such it is contraindicated for patients with pathological bleeding risk or history of intracranial hemorrhage. Its use is also discouraged among patients with severe hepatic impairment and in patients who are breastfeeding. Although usually self-limiting when related to ticagrelor use, dyspnea was reported in about 14% of patients taking the drug. Dyspnea and bleeding were among the most common adverse reactions seen with ticagrelor.
The maker of ticagrelor has released top-line results from the phase 3 trial known as THEMIS.
AstraZeneca announced that THEMIS met its primary endpoint of reduction of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) among patients with coronary artery disease (CAD) and type 2 diabetes with no history of heart attack or stroke. (MACE is a composite of cardiovascular death, heart attack, and stroke.)
The trial (NCT01991795) explored these risks by comparing ticagrelor (Brilinta) plus aspirin versus aspirin alone. The oral, reversibly binding, direct-acting P2Y12 receptor antagonist is currently indicated for reducing MACE among patients with acute coronary syndrome or a history of MI. According to the press release, the multinational, randomized, double-blind trial is exploring the use of ticagrelor/aspirin among patients with CAD and type 2 diabetes because of this population’s high risk and the lack of treatment options.
Gabriel Steg, MD, THEMIS cochair and professor at Université Paris–Diderot, said in the release that “patients who have both stable coronary artery disease and diabetes are a sizable group which remains at particularly high risk of major adverse cardiac events. The optimal long-term antiplatelet therapy in that group is not fully established.” He added that the full results from the THEMIS trial will be presented later this year.
Ticagrelor comes with risks of significant and sometimes fatal bleeding; as such it is contraindicated for patients with pathological bleeding risk or history of intracranial hemorrhage. Its use is also discouraged among patients with severe hepatic impairment and in patients who are breastfeeding. Although usually self-limiting when related to ticagrelor use, dyspnea was reported in about 14% of patients taking the drug. Dyspnea and bleeding were among the most common adverse reactions seen with ticagrelor.
The maker of ticagrelor has released top-line results from the phase 3 trial known as THEMIS.
AstraZeneca announced that THEMIS met its primary endpoint of reduction of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) among patients with coronary artery disease (CAD) and type 2 diabetes with no history of heart attack or stroke. (MACE is a composite of cardiovascular death, heart attack, and stroke.)
The trial (NCT01991795) explored these risks by comparing ticagrelor (Brilinta) plus aspirin versus aspirin alone. The oral, reversibly binding, direct-acting P2Y12 receptor antagonist is currently indicated for reducing MACE among patients with acute coronary syndrome or a history of MI. According to the press release, the multinational, randomized, double-blind trial is exploring the use of ticagrelor/aspirin among patients with CAD and type 2 diabetes because of this population’s high risk and the lack of treatment options.
Gabriel Steg, MD, THEMIS cochair and professor at Université Paris–Diderot, said in the release that “patients who have both stable coronary artery disease and diabetes are a sizable group which remains at particularly high risk of major adverse cardiac events. The optimal long-term antiplatelet therapy in that group is not fully established.” He added that the full results from the THEMIS trial will be presented later this year.
Ticagrelor comes with risks of significant and sometimes fatal bleeding; as such it is contraindicated for patients with pathological bleeding risk or history of intracranial hemorrhage. Its use is also discouraged among patients with severe hepatic impairment and in patients who are breastfeeding. Although usually self-limiting when related to ticagrelor use, dyspnea was reported in about 14% of patients taking the drug. Dyspnea and bleeding were among the most common adverse reactions seen with ticagrelor.
FDA accepts supplemental New Drug Application to expand lorcaserin label
The Food and Drug Administration has accepted a supplemental New Drug Application from Eisai to update the label for the weight-loss drug lorcaserin (Belviq) with long-term efficacy and safety data from the CAMELLIA-TIMI 61 trial.
In CAMELLIA-TIMI 61, a double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group, phase 3b/4 clinical trial, about 12,000 people who were overweight or obese and had cardiovascular disease or CVD risk factors, such as type 2 diabetes, received lorcaserin or placebo. In a study published in the New England Journal of Medicine last fall, lorcaserin, a serotonin 2C receptor agonist, met the primary safety endpoint of noninferiority to placebo in the rate of major adverse cardiovascular events (hazard ratio, 0.99; 95% confidence interval, 0.85-1.14; P less than .001).
After meeting the primary endpoint, the trial investigators continued the study, assessing for a broader composite endpoint consisting of cardiovascular death, nonfatal MI, nonfatal stroke, hospitalization caused by unstable angina, heart failure, or coronary revascularization. Although lorcaserin was not superior to placebo in this expanded study, it remained noninferior.
Lorcaserin is contraindicated in women who are pregnant and in patients hypersensitive to lorcaserin. The most common adverse events in patients without diabetes were headache, dizziness, fatigue, nausea, dry mouth, and constipation; in patients with diabetes, the most common adverse events were hypoglycemia, headache, back pain, cough, and fatigue.
“This sNDA file acceptance brings us one step closer to potentially incorporating data into our label based on the first completed large-scale cardiovascular outcomes trial for a weight loss agent,” Lynn Kramer, MD, chief clinical officer and chief medical officer of the Neurology Business Group at Eisai, said in the press release.
Find the full press release on the Eisai website.
The Food and Drug Administration has accepted a supplemental New Drug Application from Eisai to update the label for the weight-loss drug lorcaserin (Belviq) with long-term efficacy and safety data from the CAMELLIA-TIMI 61 trial.
In CAMELLIA-TIMI 61, a double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group, phase 3b/4 clinical trial, about 12,000 people who were overweight or obese and had cardiovascular disease or CVD risk factors, such as type 2 diabetes, received lorcaserin or placebo. In a study published in the New England Journal of Medicine last fall, lorcaserin, a serotonin 2C receptor agonist, met the primary safety endpoint of noninferiority to placebo in the rate of major adverse cardiovascular events (hazard ratio, 0.99; 95% confidence interval, 0.85-1.14; P less than .001).
After meeting the primary endpoint, the trial investigators continued the study, assessing for a broader composite endpoint consisting of cardiovascular death, nonfatal MI, nonfatal stroke, hospitalization caused by unstable angina, heart failure, or coronary revascularization. Although lorcaserin was not superior to placebo in this expanded study, it remained noninferior.
Lorcaserin is contraindicated in women who are pregnant and in patients hypersensitive to lorcaserin. The most common adverse events in patients without diabetes were headache, dizziness, fatigue, nausea, dry mouth, and constipation; in patients with diabetes, the most common adverse events were hypoglycemia, headache, back pain, cough, and fatigue.
“This sNDA file acceptance brings us one step closer to potentially incorporating data into our label based on the first completed large-scale cardiovascular outcomes trial for a weight loss agent,” Lynn Kramer, MD, chief clinical officer and chief medical officer of the Neurology Business Group at Eisai, said in the press release.
Find the full press release on the Eisai website.
The Food and Drug Administration has accepted a supplemental New Drug Application from Eisai to update the label for the weight-loss drug lorcaserin (Belviq) with long-term efficacy and safety data from the CAMELLIA-TIMI 61 trial.
In CAMELLIA-TIMI 61, a double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group, phase 3b/4 clinical trial, about 12,000 people who were overweight or obese and had cardiovascular disease or CVD risk factors, such as type 2 diabetes, received lorcaserin or placebo. In a study published in the New England Journal of Medicine last fall, lorcaserin, a serotonin 2C receptor agonist, met the primary safety endpoint of noninferiority to placebo in the rate of major adverse cardiovascular events (hazard ratio, 0.99; 95% confidence interval, 0.85-1.14; P less than .001).
After meeting the primary endpoint, the trial investigators continued the study, assessing for a broader composite endpoint consisting of cardiovascular death, nonfatal MI, nonfatal stroke, hospitalization caused by unstable angina, heart failure, or coronary revascularization. Although lorcaserin was not superior to placebo in this expanded study, it remained noninferior.
Lorcaserin is contraindicated in women who are pregnant and in patients hypersensitive to lorcaserin. The most common adverse events in patients without diabetes were headache, dizziness, fatigue, nausea, dry mouth, and constipation; in patients with diabetes, the most common adverse events were hypoglycemia, headache, back pain, cough, and fatigue.
“This sNDA file acceptance brings us one step closer to potentially incorporating data into our label based on the first completed large-scale cardiovascular outcomes trial for a weight loss agent,” Lynn Kramer, MD, chief clinical officer and chief medical officer of the Neurology Business Group at Eisai, said in the press release.
Find the full press release on the Eisai website.
FDA approves Orsiro stent for coronary artery disease
The Food and Drug Administration has approved Orsiro, an ultrathin drug-eluting stent (DES), for the treatment of coronary artery disease.
FDA approval was based on 2-year results from BIOFLOW-V, an international, randomized trial in 1,344 patients with coronary artery disease who received either Orsiro or Xience, the current clinical standard. At 2 years, patients who received Orsiro had a 37% lower target lesion failure rate, a 47% lower ischemia-driven target lesion revascularization rate, and a 70% lower spontaneous MI rate. These results were published in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology and presented at the Transcatheter Cardiovascular Therapeutics annual meeting in November 2018.
Orsiro previously received CE marking in Europe in 2011 and has been used to treat more than 1 million patients. The device elutes sirolimus and is available in 52 sizes ranging from 2.25 to 4.0 mm in diameter and lengths up to 40 mm, according to Biotronik’s press release.
“Orsiro has set a new standard for safety and efficacy clinical endpoints, including statistically lower target lesion revascularization and target vessel MI rates. BIOFLOW-V data are the best clinical outcomes witnessed with modern DES. It was largely thought that efficacy findings were unsurpassable, but Orsiro proves we can further reduce event rates with meaningful innovation,” David Kandzari, MD, a cardiologist at Piedmont Heart Institute in Atlanta and principal U.S. investigator for BIOFLOW-V, said in the press release.
The Food and Drug Administration has approved Orsiro, an ultrathin drug-eluting stent (DES), for the treatment of coronary artery disease.
FDA approval was based on 2-year results from BIOFLOW-V, an international, randomized trial in 1,344 patients with coronary artery disease who received either Orsiro or Xience, the current clinical standard. At 2 years, patients who received Orsiro had a 37% lower target lesion failure rate, a 47% lower ischemia-driven target lesion revascularization rate, and a 70% lower spontaneous MI rate. These results were published in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology and presented at the Transcatheter Cardiovascular Therapeutics annual meeting in November 2018.
Orsiro previously received CE marking in Europe in 2011 and has been used to treat more than 1 million patients. The device elutes sirolimus and is available in 52 sizes ranging from 2.25 to 4.0 mm in diameter and lengths up to 40 mm, according to Biotronik’s press release.
“Orsiro has set a new standard for safety and efficacy clinical endpoints, including statistically lower target lesion revascularization and target vessel MI rates. BIOFLOW-V data are the best clinical outcomes witnessed with modern DES. It was largely thought that efficacy findings were unsurpassable, but Orsiro proves we can further reduce event rates with meaningful innovation,” David Kandzari, MD, a cardiologist at Piedmont Heart Institute in Atlanta and principal U.S. investigator for BIOFLOW-V, said in the press release.
The Food and Drug Administration has approved Orsiro, an ultrathin drug-eluting stent (DES), for the treatment of coronary artery disease.
FDA approval was based on 2-year results from BIOFLOW-V, an international, randomized trial in 1,344 patients with coronary artery disease who received either Orsiro or Xience, the current clinical standard. At 2 years, patients who received Orsiro had a 37% lower target lesion failure rate, a 47% lower ischemia-driven target lesion revascularization rate, and a 70% lower spontaneous MI rate. These results were published in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology and presented at the Transcatheter Cardiovascular Therapeutics annual meeting in November 2018.
Orsiro previously received CE marking in Europe in 2011 and has been used to treat more than 1 million patients. The device elutes sirolimus and is available in 52 sizes ranging from 2.25 to 4.0 mm in diameter and lengths up to 40 mm, according to Biotronik’s press release.
“Orsiro has set a new standard for safety and efficacy clinical endpoints, including statistically lower target lesion revascularization and target vessel MI rates. BIOFLOW-V data are the best clinical outcomes witnessed with modern DES. It was largely thought that efficacy findings were unsurpassable, but Orsiro proves we can further reduce event rates with meaningful innovation,” David Kandzari, MD, a cardiologist at Piedmont Heart Institute in Atlanta and principal U.S. investigator for BIOFLOW-V, said in the press release.
AHA: Consider obesity as CVD risk factor in children
The American Heart Association has included obesity and severe obesity in its updated scientific statement outlining risk factors and considerations for cardiovascular risk reduction in high-risk pediatric patients.
The scientific statement is an update to a 2006 American Heart Association (AHA) statement, adding details about obesity as an at-risk condition and severe obesity as a moderate-risk condition. Other additions include classifying type 2 diabetes as a high-risk condition and expanding on new risk factors for cardiovascular disease (CVD) among patients who received treatment for childhood cancer.
The AHA said the statement is aimed at pediatric cardiologists, primary care physicians, and subspecialists who care for at-risk pediatric patients, as well as providers who will care for these patients as they transition to adult life.
Obesity
In the AHA scientific statement, Sarah de Ferranti, MD, MPH, of Boston Children’s Hospital, chair of the writing group, and her colleagues, highlighted a 2016 study that identified a twofold to threefold higher risk of CVD-related mortality among patients who were overweight or obese, compared with patients of normal weight (Diabetes Care. 2016 Nov;39[11]:1996-2003).
Patients with obesity and severe obesity are at increased risk of aortic or coronary fatty streaks, dyslipidemia, high blood pressure, hyperglycemia, and insulin resistance, as well as inflammatory and oxidative stress, the AHA writing group noted.
They estimated that approximately 6% of U.S. children aged 2-19 years old are considered severely obese.
After identifying patients with obesity, the writing group said, a “multimodal and graduated approach to treatment” for these patients is generally warranted, with a focus on dietary and lifestyle changes, and use of pharmacotherapy and bariatric surgery if indicated.
However, the authors said therapeutic life change modification “is limited in severe obesity because of small effect size and difficulty with sustainability,” while use of pharmacotherapy for treatment of pediatric obesity remains understudied and medications such as orlistat and metformin offer only modest weight loss.
Bariatric surgery, “the only treatment for severe pediatric obesity consistently associated with clinically meaningful and durable weight loss,” is not consistently offered to patients under 12 years old, they added.
Diabetes
The AHA statement also addresses risks from type 1 (T1D) and type 2 diabetes (T2D). Children with T1D and T2D are at increased risk for dyslipidemia, hypertension, microalbuminuria, and obesity. Annual screening for these patients is indicated, and cardiovascular risk factor reduction can be achieved by managing hyperglycemia, controlling weight gain as a result of medication, and implementing therapeutic lifestyle changes, when possible.
Childhood cancer
As survival rates from childhood cancer have improved, there is a need to address the increased risk of cardiovascular-related mortality (estimated at 8-10 times higher than the general population) as well as cancer relapse, according to the writing group.
Among patients recruited to the Childhood Cancer Survivor Study, there was a 9-fold increase in cerebrovascular accident, 10-fold increased risk of coronary artery disease, and 15-fold increase in heart failure for childhood cancer survivors, compared with their siblings who were cancer free.
Cancer treatments such as radiation exposure are linked to increased rates of myocardial infarction, heart failure, valvular abnormalities, and pericardial disease at a twofold to sixfold higher rate when administered at a greater than 1,500 centigray dose, compared to cancer survivors who did not receive radiation, the authors wrote.
Anthracycline treatment is associated with a dose-dependent increase in the risk of dilated cardiomyopathy, while hematopoietic stem cell transplantation may increase the risk of CVD-related mortality from heart failure, cerebrovascular accident, cardiomyopathy, coronary artery disease, and rhythm disorders.
In treating childhood cancer survivors for CVD risk factors, “a low threshold should be used when considering the initiation of pharmacological agents because of the high risk of these youth,” and standard pharmacotherapies can be used, the authors said. “Treatment of cardiovascular risk factors should consider the cancer therapies the patient has received previously.”
In the AHA statement, Dr. de Ferranti and her colleagues also outlined epidemiology, screening, and treatment data for other cardiovascular risk factors such as familial hypercholesterolemia, Lipoprotein(a), hypertension, chronic kidney disease, congenital heart disease, Kawasaki disease, and heart transplantation.
Some members of the writing group reported research grants from Amgen, Sanofi, the Wisconsin Partnership Program, and the National Institutes of Health. One author reported unpaid consultancies with Novo Nordisk, Orexigen, and Vivus.
SOURCE: de Ferranti SD et al. Circulation. 2019 Feb 25. doi: 10.1161/CIR.0000000000000618.
The American Heart Association has included obesity and severe obesity in its updated scientific statement outlining risk factors and considerations for cardiovascular risk reduction in high-risk pediatric patients.
The scientific statement is an update to a 2006 American Heart Association (AHA) statement, adding details about obesity as an at-risk condition and severe obesity as a moderate-risk condition. Other additions include classifying type 2 diabetes as a high-risk condition and expanding on new risk factors for cardiovascular disease (CVD) among patients who received treatment for childhood cancer.
The AHA said the statement is aimed at pediatric cardiologists, primary care physicians, and subspecialists who care for at-risk pediatric patients, as well as providers who will care for these patients as they transition to adult life.
Obesity
In the AHA scientific statement, Sarah de Ferranti, MD, MPH, of Boston Children’s Hospital, chair of the writing group, and her colleagues, highlighted a 2016 study that identified a twofold to threefold higher risk of CVD-related mortality among patients who were overweight or obese, compared with patients of normal weight (Diabetes Care. 2016 Nov;39[11]:1996-2003).
Patients with obesity and severe obesity are at increased risk of aortic or coronary fatty streaks, dyslipidemia, high blood pressure, hyperglycemia, and insulin resistance, as well as inflammatory and oxidative stress, the AHA writing group noted.
They estimated that approximately 6% of U.S. children aged 2-19 years old are considered severely obese.
After identifying patients with obesity, the writing group said, a “multimodal and graduated approach to treatment” for these patients is generally warranted, with a focus on dietary and lifestyle changes, and use of pharmacotherapy and bariatric surgery if indicated.
However, the authors said therapeutic life change modification “is limited in severe obesity because of small effect size and difficulty with sustainability,” while use of pharmacotherapy for treatment of pediatric obesity remains understudied and medications such as orlistat and metformin offer only modest weight loss.
Bariatric surgery, “the only treatment for severe pediatric obesity consistently associated with clinically meaningful and durable weight loss,” is not consistently offered to patients under 12 years old, they added.
Diabetes
The AHA statement also addresses risks from type 1 (T1D) and type 2 diabetes (T2D). Children with T1D and T2D are at increased risk for dyslipidemia, hypertension, microalbuminuria, and obesity. Annual screening for these patients is indicated, and cardiovascular risk factor reduction can be achieved by managing hyperglycemia, controlling weight gain as a result of medication, and implementing therapeutic lifestyle changes, when possible.
Childhood cancer
As survival rates from childhood cancer have improved, there is a need to address the increased risk of cardiovascular-related mortality (estimated at 8-10 times higher than the general population) as well as cancer relapse, according to the writing group.
Among patients recruited to the Childhood Cancer Survivor Study, there was a 9-fold increase in cerebrovascular accident, 10-fold increased risk of coronary artery disease, and 15-fold increase in heart failure for childhood cancer survivors, compared with their siblings who were cancer free.
Cancer treatments such as radiation exposure are linked to increased rates of myocardial infarction, heart failure, valvular abnormalities, and pericardial disease at a twofold to sixfold higher rate when administered at a greater than 1,500 centigray dose, compared to cancer survivors who did not receive radiation, the authors wrote.
Anthracycline treatment is associated with a dose-dependent increase in the risk of dilated cardiomyopathy, while hematopoietic stem cell transplantation may increase the risk of CVD-related mortality from heart failure, cerebrovascular accident, cardiomyopathy, coronary artery disease, and rhythm disorders.
In treating childhood cancer survivors for CVD risk factors, “a low threshold should be used when considering the initiation of pharmacological agents because of the high risk of these youth,” and standard pharmacotherapies can be used, the authors said. “Treatment of cardiovascular risk factors should consider the cancer therapies the patient has received previously.”
In the AHA statement, Dr. de Ferranti and her colleagues also outlined epidemiology, screening, and treatment data for other cardiovascular risk factors such as familial hypercholesterolemia, Lipoprotein(a), hypertension, chronic kidney disease, congenital heart disease, Kawasaki disease, and heart transplantation.
Some members of the writing group reported research grants from Amgen, Sanofi, the Wisconsin Partnership Program, and the National Institutes of Health. One author reported unpaid consultancies with Novo Nordisk, Orexigen, and Vivus.
SOURCE: de Ferranti SD et al. Circulation. 2019 Feb 25. doi: 10.1161/CIR.0000000000000618.
The American Heart Association has included obesity and severe obesity in its updated scientific statement outlining risk factors and considerations for cardiovascular risk reduction in high-risk pediatric patients.
The scientific statement is an update to a 2006 American Heart Association (AHA) statement, adding details about obesity as an at-risk condition and severe obesity as a moderate-risk condition. Other additions include classifying type 2 diabetes as a high-risk condition and expanding on new risk factors for cardiovascular disease (CVD) among patients who received treatment for childhood cancer.
The AHA said the statement is aimed at pediatric cardiologists, primary care physicians, and subspecialists who care for at-risk pediatric patients, as well as providers who will care for these patients as they transition to adult life.
Obesity
In the AHA scientific statement, Sarah de Ferranti, MD, MPH, of Boston Children’s Hospital, chair of the writing group, and her colleagues, highlighted a 2016 study that identified a twofold to threefold higher risk of CVD-related mortality among patients who were overweight or obese, compared with patients of normal weight (Diabetes Care. 2016 Nov;39[11]:1996-2003).
Patients with obesity and severe obesity are at increased risk of aortic or coronary fatty streaks, dyslipidemia, high blood pressure, hyperglycemia, and insulin resistance, as well as inflammatory and oxidative stress, the AHA writing group noted.
They estimated that approximately 6% of U.S. children aged 2-19 years old are considered severely obese.
After identifying patients with obesity, the writing group said, a “multimodal and graduated approach to treatment” for these patients is generally warranted, with a focus on dietary and lifestyle changes, and use of pharmacotherapy and bariatric surgery if indicated.
However, the authors said therapeutic life change modification “is limited in severe obesity because of small effect size and difficulty with sustainability,” while use of pharmacotherapy for treatment of pediatric obesity remains understudied and medications such as orlistat and metformin offer only modest weight loss.
Bariatric surgery, “the only treatment for severe pediatric obesity consistently associated with clinically meaningful and durable weight loss,” is not consistently offered to patients under 12 years old, they added.
Diabetes
The AHA statement also addresses risks from type 1 (T1D) and type 2 diabetes (T2D). Children with T1D and T2D are at increased risk for dyslipidemia, hypertension, microalbuminuria, and obesity. Annual screening for these patients is indicated, and cardiovascular risk factor reduction can be achieved by managing hyperglycemia, controlling weight gain as a result of medication, and implementing therapeutic lifestyle changes, when possible.
Childhood cancer
As survival rates from childhood cancer have improved, there is a need to address the increased risk of cardiovascular-related mortality (estimated at 8-10 times higher than the general population) as well as cancer relapse, according to the writing group.
Among patients recruited to the Childhood Cancer Survivor Study, there was a 9-fold increase in cerebrovascular accident, 10-fold increased risk of coronary artery disease, and 15-fold increase in heart failure for childhood cancer survivors, compared with their siblings who were cancer free.
Cancer treatments such as radiation exposure are linked to increased rates of myocardial infarction, heart failure, valvular abnormalities, and pericardial disease at a twofold to sixfold higher rate when administered at a greater than 1,500 centigray dose, compared to cancer survivors who did not receive radiation, the authors wrote.
Anthracycline treatment is associated with a dose-dependent increase in the risk of dilated cardiomyopathy, while hematopoietic stem cell transplantation may increase the risk of CVD-related mortality from heart failure, cerebrovascular accident, cardiomyopathy, coronary artery disease, and rhythm disorders.
In treating childhood cancer survivors for CVD risk factors, “a low threshold should be used when considering the initiation of pharmacological agents because of the high risk of these youth,” and standard pharmacotherapies can be used, the authors said. “Treatment of cardiovascular risk factors should consider the cancer therapies the patient has received previously.”
In the AHA statement, Dr. de Ferranti and her colleagues also outlined epidemiology, screening, and treatment data for other cardiovascular risk factors such as familial hypercholesterolemia, Lipoprotein(a), hypertension, chronic kidney disease, congenital heart disease, Kawasaki disease, and heart transplantation.
Some members of the writing group reported research grants from Amgen, Sanofi, the Wisconsin Partnership Program, and the National Institutes of Health. One author reported unpaid consultancies with Novo Nordisk, Orexigen, and Vivus.
SOURCE: de Ferranti SD et al. Circulation. 2019 Feb 25. doi: 10.1161/CIR.0000000000000618.
FROM CIRCULATION
Take action to mitigate CVD risk in RA patients
Emerging understanding of the increased incidence of cardiovascular disease in patients with rheumatoid arthritis is providing greater insight regarding mitigation of risk, according to Jon T. Giles, MD.
The mechanisms of increased cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) are multifactorial; in addition to traditional risk factors for CVD, chronically elevated levels of systemic inflammatory cytokines likely play a major role in atherogenesis and myocardial dysfunction in RA patients, and the interactions between those elevated cytokine levels and traditional risk factors also play a likely role, Dr. Giles, a rheumatologist, epidemiologist, and clinical researcher in the division of rheumatology at Columbia University, New York, said at the Winter Rheumatology Symposium sponsored by the American College of Rheumatology.
In addition, the relationship between traditional fasting lipids and atherosclerosis is different in RA patients from that in non-RA patients, he said, noting that this has important implications for CVD screening and risk management. The phenotype of CVD in RA based on the current literature is also one involving more coronary atherosclerosis in which the atherosclerotic plaques are more inflamed.
“There’s more myocardial dysfunction,” Dr. Giles said, noting that this dysfunction may be partly mediated by more myocardial fibrosis and possibly active subclinical low-grade myocarditis.
It is possible that traditional CVD risk factors such as smoking and hypertension have a greater impact in RA patients, but it’s likely that most of the differences are related to RA-specific factors such as autoimmunity, inflammation, and genetics, as well as some nontraditional CVD risk factors such as stress, anxiety, and depression that may be increased in RA patients, he noted.
With respect to traditional CVD risk factors, a recent study of more than 5,600 RA patients without CVD who were followed for an average of almost 6 years at 13 centers in Europe and the United States showed that 389 experienced CVD events, and the most common CVD risk factors in those patients were smoking – particularly in men – and hypertension.
“But also, RA characteristics played a big role,” he said.
Disease activity was one of the major risk factors for CVD events in RA patients, and the traditional CVD risk factor of hyperlipidemia, and particularly elevated low-density lipoprotein (LDL) levels, had less influence in RA patients than in the general population. In men it was “a negative predictor” of CVD events, he said (Ann Rheum Dis. 2018;77:48-54).
Prior studies have also shown a “strange relationship” between lipids and CVD risk in RA patients. For example, RA patients with very low LDL cholesterol have been shown to have higher CVD event rates – a phenomenon known as the “lipid paradox” – and it may be related to inflammation, but the mechanism is unclear,” he said.
To further assess whether RA patients with abnormally low LDL cholesterol levels without the use of statin therapy had more atherosclerotic burden, Dr. Giles and his colleagues looked at more than 600 RA patients and more than 1,000 non-RA patients (Arthritis Rheumatol. 2015;67[suppl 10]:Abstract 2127). They found that RA patients did, indeed, have a greater atherosclerotic burden, which was “quite shocking,” he said.
The burden rivaled that seen in patients with LDL levels greater than 160 mg/dL, he noted.
“Interestingly, these patients did not have higher levels of inflammatory markers, and they did not have higher disease activity scores. They looked exactly the same as the rest of the RA patients,” he said, noting that investigation into why the LDL levels in these patients are so low is ongoing.
As for how atherogenic lipoproteins allow for atherosclerosis and atherogenesis to occur in the setting of low LDL in RA patients, it turns out it’s not just the amount, but also the characteristics of the lipoproteins, such as the size and oxidization of the LDL, which change in the context of systemic inflammation, he explained.
Further, during an acute-phase reaction, high-density lipoprotein (HDL) composition changes rapidly from antiatherogenic to proinflammatory.
Extensive evidence shows that endothelial function is diminished in RA, and that RA patients have these and other proatherogenic mechanisms, as well as other elements of immunity that are associated with atherogenesis, including aspects of both innate and adaptive immune function, he said.
Given the emerging understanding of CVD risk in RA, mitigation of that risk is an important consideration. In fact, the European League Against Rheumatism updated its CVD management guidelines in 2015/2016, including a statement that rheumatologists are responsible for CVD risk management in RA patients (Ann Rheum Dis. 2017;76:17-28).
The guidelines are intended for all inflammatory arthritis, and the recommendation with the strongest level of evidence relates to optimization of disease activity. Also recommended are:
- CVD screening every 5 years.
- Use of a 1.5 multiplier for risk scores.
- Secondary screening with imaging for select patients.
- Management of traditional risk factors according to local guidelines.
- Minimization of the use of NSAIDs and corticosteroids.
- Emphasis on lifestyle management.
Importantly, research has suggested that screening for hyperlipidemia is substandard in RA, and that standard risk stratification tools underperform in the setting of RA, he said.
“So my approach, and this is not evidence based yet ... comes down to what [a patient’s] apparent risk is. So if an RA patient is high risk based on your apparent risk prediction, then they are likely high risk and maybe even higher than estimated,” Dr. Giles said. These patients need optimization of their traditional risk factors and their inflammatory factors and should therefore receive a high-intensity statin regardless of lipid levels, he said.
That means atorvastatin at a dose of at least 40 mg or rosuvastatin at a dose of at least 20 mg, he said, adding that some studies have suggested that statins work as well in RA patients as in non-RA patients, and that RA patients with CVD risk do better with a statin than without.
He considers patients who have intermediate risk based on the risk calculation to actually be high risk in most cases, and they, too, need maximal optimization of traditional CVD risk factors and inflammatory factors.
“Consider one-time secondary imaging for all of these patients,” he advised, noting that a coronary calcium score from a chest CT scan is a good option that has low radiation, can be quantified, and is increasingly covered by insurance.
A coronary calcium score of 0 on chest CT is highly reassuring, and a score that is greater than what is expected for age, gender, and/or race can help define the intensity of intervention, he said.
For example, if a patient’s score is 300 but should be 50, that patient should be treated as if he or she has coronary artery disease. Patients with high scores in general – particularly those with scores over 300 – should also be maximally managed, he said.
Patients at low risk based on risk calculations usually are low risk, but some can be high risk, so again, maximal optimization of risk factors is recommended.
Secondary imaging can be considered in some of these patients, and while it’s not entirely clear which are at greatest risk, Dr. Giles said he recommends screening those with treatment-resistant active disease, those with high disease severity, and those with abnormally low LDL.
Dr. Giles is a consultant for Genentech, Lilly, Horizon, Bristol-Myers Squibb, and UCB, and he has received grant support from Pfizer.
Emerging understanding of the increased incidence of cardiovascular disease in patients with rheumatoid arthritis is providing greater insight regarding mitigation of risk, according to Jon T. Giles, MD.
The mechanisms of increased cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) are multifactorial; in addition to traditional risk factors for CVD, chronically elevated levels of systemic inflammatory cytokines likely play a major role in atherogenesis and myocardial dysfunction in RA patients, and the interactions between those elevated cytokine levels and traditional risk factors also play a likely role, Dr. Giles, a rheumatologist, epidemiologist, and clinical researcher in the division of rheumatology at Columbia University, New York, said at the Winter Rheumatology Symposium sponsored by the American College of Rheumatology.
In addition, the relationship between traditional fasting lipids and atherosclerosis is different in RA patients from that in non-RA patients, he said, noting that this has important implications for CVD screening and risk management. The phenotype of CVD in RA based on the current literature is also one involving more coronary atherosclerosis in which the atherosclerotic plaques are more inflamed.
“There’s more myocardial dysfunction,” Dr. Giles said, noting that this dysfunction may be partly mediated by more myocardial fibrosis and possibly active subclinical low-grade myocarditis.
It is possible that traditional CVD risk factors such as smoking and hypertension have a greater impact in RA patients, but it’s likely that most of the differences are related to RA-specific factors such as autoimmunity, inflammation, and genetics, as well as some nontraditional CVD risk factors such as stress, anxiety, and depression that may be increased in RA patients, he noted.
With respect to traditional CVD risk factors, a recent study of more than 5,600 RA patients without CVD who were followed for an average of almost 6 years at 13 centers in Europe and the United States showed that 389 experienced CVD events, and the most common CVD risk factors in those patients were smoking – particularly in men – and hypertension.
“But also, RA characteristics played a big role,” he said.
Disease activity was one of the major risk factors for CVD events in RA patients, and the traditional CVD risk factor of hyperlipidemia, and particularly elevated low-density lipoprotein (LDL) levels, had less influence in RA patients than in the general population. In men it was “a negative predictor” of CVD events, he said (Ann Rheum Dis. 2018;77:48-54).
Prior studies have also shown a “strange relationship” between lipids and CVD risk in RA patients. For example, RA patients with very low LDL cholesterol have been shown to have higher CVD event rates – a phenomenon known as the “lipid paradox” – and it may be related to inflammation, but the mechanism is unclear,” he said.
To further assess whether RA patients with abnormally low LDL cholesterol levels without the use of statin therapy had more atherosclerotic burden, Dr. Giles and his colleagues looked at more than 600 RA patients and more than 1,000 non-RA patients (Arthritis Rheumatol. 2015;67[suppl 10]:Abstract 2127). They found that RA patients did, indeed, have a greater atherosclerotic burden, which was “quite shocking,” he said.
The burden rivaled that seen in patients with LDL levels greater than 160 mg/dL, he noted.
“Interestingly, these patients did not have higher levels of inflammatory markers, and they did not have higher disease activity scores. They looked exactly the same as the rest of the RA patients,” he said, noting that investigation into why the LDL levels in these patients are so low is ongoing.
As for how atherogenic lipoproteins allow for atherosclerosis and atherogenesis to occur in the setting of low LDL in RA patients, it turns out it’s not just the amount, but also the characteristics of the lipoproteins, such as the size and oxidization of the LDL, which change in the context of systemic inflammation, he explained.
Further, during an acute-phase reaction, high-density lipoprotein (HDL) composition changes rapidly from antiatherogenic to proinflammatory.
Extensive evidence shows that endothelial function is diminished in RA, and that RA patients have these and other proatherogenic mechanisms, as well as other elements of immunity that are associated with atherogenesis, including aspects of both innate and adaptive immune function, he said.
Given the emerging understanding of CVD risk in RA, mitigation of that risk is an important consideration. In fact, the European League Against Rheumatism updated its CVD management guidelines in 2015/2016, including a statement that rheumatologists are responsible for CVD risk management in RA patients (Ann Rheum Dis. 2017;76:17-28).
The guidelines are intended for all inflammatory arthritis, and the recommendation with the strongest level of evidence relates to optimization of disease activity. Also recommended are:
- CVD screening every 5 years.
- Use of a 1.5 multiplier for risk scores.
- Secondary screening with imaging for select patients.
- Management of traditional risk factors according to local guidelines.
- Minimization of the use of NSAIDs and corticosteroids.
- Emphasis on lifestyle management.
Importantly, research has suggested that screening for hyperlipidemia is substandard in RA, and that standard risk stratification tools underperform in the setting of RA, he said.
“So my approach, and this is not evidence based yet ... comes down to what [a patient’s] apparent risk is. So if an RA patient is high risk based on your apparent risk prediction, then they are likely high risk and maybe even higher than estimated,” Dr. Giles said. These patients need optimization of their traditional risk factors and their inflammatory factors and should therefore receive a high-intensity statin regardless of lipid levels, he said.
That means atorvastatin at a dose of at least 40 mg or rosuvastatin at a dose of at least 20 mg, he said, adding that some studies have suggested that statins work as well in RA patients as in non-RA patients, and that RA patients with CVD risk do better with a statin than without.
He considers patients who have intermediate risk based on the risk calculation to actually be high risk in most cases, and they, too, need maximal optimization of traditional CVD risk factors and inflammatory factors.
“Consider one-time secondary imaging for all of these patients,” he advised, noting that a coronary calcium score from a chest CT scan is a good option that has low radiation, can be quantified, and is increasingly covered by insurance.
A coronary calcium score of 0 on chest CT is highly reassuring, and a score that is greater than what is expected for age, gender, and/or race can help define the intensity of intervention, he said.
For example, if a patient’s score is 300 but should be 50, that patient should be treated as if he or she has coronary artery disease. Patients with high scores in general – particularly those with scores over 300 – should also be maximally managed, he said.
Patients at low risk based on risk calculations usually are low risk, but some can be high risk, so again, maximal optimization of risk factors is recommended.
Secondary imaging can be considered in some of these patients, and while it’s not entirely clear which are at greatest risk, Dr. Giles said he recommends screening those with treatment-resistant active disease, those with high disease severity, and those with abnormally low LDL.
Dr. Giles is a consultant for Genentech, Lilly, Horizon, Bristol-Myers Squibb, and UCB, and he has received grant support from Pfizer.
Emerging understanding of the increased incidence of cardiovascular disease in patients with rheumatoid arthritis is providing greater insight regarding mitigation of risk, according to Jon T. Giles, MD.
The mechanisms of increased cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) are multifactorial; in addition to traditional risk factors for CVD, chronically elevated levels of systemic inflammatory cytokines likely play a major role in atherogenesis and myocardial dysfunction in RA patients, and the interactions between those elevated cytokine levels and traditional risk factors also play a likely role, Dr. Giles, a rheumatologist, epidemiologist, and clinical researcher in the division of rheumatology at Columbia University, New York, said at the Winter Rheumatology Symposium sponsored by the American College of Rheumatology.
In addition, the relationship between traditional fasting lipids and atherosclerosis is different in RA patients from that in non-RA patients, he said, noting that this has important implications for CVD screening and risk management. The phenotype of CVD in RA based on the current literature is also one involving more coronary atherosclerosis in which the atherosclerotic plaques are more inflamed.
“There’s more myocardial dysfunction,” Dr. Giles said, noting that this dysfunction may be partly mediated by more myocardial fibrosis and possibly active subclinical low-grade myocarditis.
It is possible that traditional CVD risk factors such as smoking and hypertension have a greater impact in RA patients, but it’s likely that most of the differences are related to RA-specific factors such as autoimmunity, inflammation, and genetics, as well as some nontraditional CVD risk factors such as stress, anxiety, and depression that may be increased in RA patients, he noted.
With respect to traditional CVD risk factors, a recent study of more than 5,600 RA patients without CVD who were followed for an average of almost 6 years at 13 centers in Europe and the United States showed that 389 experienced CVD events, and the most common CVD risk factors in those patients were smoking – particularly in men – and hypertension.
“But also, RA characteristics played a big role,” he said.
Disease activity was one of the major risk factors for CVD events in RA patients, and the traditional CVD risk factor of hyperlipidemia, and particularly elevated low-density lipoprotein (LDL) levels, had less influence in RA patients than in the general population. In men it was “a negative predictor” of CVD events, he said (Ann Rheum Dis. 2018;77:48-54).
Prior studies have also shown a “strange relationship” between lipids and CVD risk in RA patients. For example, RA patients with very low LDL cholesterol have been shown to have higher CVD event rates – a phenomenon known as the “lipid paradox” – and it may be related to inflammation, but the mechanism is unclear,” he said.
To further assess whether RA patients with abnormally low LDL cholesterol levels without the use of statin therapy had more atherosclerotic burden, Dr. Giles and his colleagues looked at more than 600 RA patients and more than 1,000 non-RA patients (Arthritis Rheumatol. 2015;67[suppl 10]:Abstract 2127). They found that RA patients did, indeed, have a greater atherosclerotic burden, which was “quite shocking,” he said.
The burden rivaled that seen in patients with LDL levels greater than 160 mg/dL, he noted.
“Interestingly, these patients did not have higher levels of inflammatory markers, and they did not have higher disease activity scores. They looked exactly the same as the rest of the RA patients,” he said, noting that investigation into why the LDL levels in these patients are so low is ongoing.
As for how atherogenic lipoproteins allow for atherosclerosis and atherogenesis to occur in the setting of low LDL in RA patients, it turns out it’s not just the amount, but also the characteristics of the lipoproteins, such as the size and oxidization of the LDL, which change in the context of systemic inflammation, he explained.
Further, during an acute-phase reaction, high-density lipoprotein (HDL) composition changes rapidly from antiatherogenic to proinflammatory.
Extensive evidence shows that endothelial function is diminished in RA, and that RA patients have these and other proatherogenic mechanisms, as well as other elements of immunity that are associated with atherogenesis, including aspects of both innate and adaptive immune function, he said.
Given the emerging understanding of CVD risk in RA, mitigation of that risk is an important consideration. In fact, the European League Against Rheumatism updated its CVD management guidelines in 2015/2016, including a statement that rheumatologists are responsible for CVD risk management in RA patients (Ann Rheum Dis. 2017;76:17-28).
The guidelines are intended for all inflammatory arthritis, and the recommendation with the strongest level of evidence relates to optimization of disease activity. Also recommended are:
- CVD screening every 5 years.
- Use of a 1.5 multiplier for risk scores.
- Secondary screening with imaging for select patients.
- Management of traditional risk factors according to local guidelines.
- Minimization of the use of NSAIDs and corticosteroids.
- Emphasis on lifestyle management.
Importantly, research has suggested that screening for hyperlipidemia is substandard in RA, and that standard risk stratification tools underperform in the setting of RA, he said.
“So my approach, and this is not evidence based yet ... comes down to what [a patient’s] apparent risk is. So if an RA patient is high risk based on your apparent risk prediction, then they are likely high risk and maybe even higher than estimated,” Dr. Giles said. These patients need optimization of their traditional risk factors and their inflammatory factors and should therefore receive a high-intensity statin regardless of lipid levels, he said.
That means atorvastatin at a dose of at least 40 mg or rosuvastatin at a dose of at least 20 mg, he said, adding that some studies have suggested that statins work as well in RA patients as in non-RA patients, and that RA patients with CVD risk do better with a statin than without.
He considers patients who have intermediate risk based on the risk calculation to actually be high risk in most cases, and they, too, need maximal optimization of traditional CVD risk factors and inflammatory factors.
“Consider one-time secondary imaging for all of these patients,” he advised, noting that a coronary calcium score from a chest CT scan is a good option that has low radiation, can be quantified, and is increasingly covered by insurance.
A coronary calcium score of 0 on chest CT is highly reassuring, and a score that is greater than what is expected for age, gender, and/or race can help define the intensity of intervention, he said.
For example, if a patient’s score is 300 but should be 50, that patient should be treated as if he or she has coronary artery disease. Patients with high scores in general – particularly those with scores over 300 – should also be maximally managed, he said.
Patients at low risk based on risk calculations usually are low risk, but some can be high risk, so again, maximal optimization of risk factors is recommended.
Secondary imaging can be considered in some of these patients, and while it’s not entirely clear which are at greatest risk, Dr. Giles said he recommends screening those with treatment-resistant active disease, those with high disease severity, and those with abnormally low LDL.
Dr. Giles is a consultant for Genentech, Lilly, Horizon, Bristol-Myers Squibb, and UCB, and he has received grant support from Pfizer.
EXPERT ANALYSIS FROM THE WINTER RHEUMATOLOGY SYMPOSIUM
Conservatism spreads in prostate cancer
, the United States now has more than 100 measles cases for the year, e-cigarette use reverses progress in reducing teens’ tobacco use, and consider adopting the MESA 10-year coronary heart disease risk calculator.
Amazon Alexa
Apple Podcasts
Google Podcasts
Spotify
, the United States now has more than 100 measles cases for the year, e-cigarette use reverses progress in reducing teens’ tobacco use, and consider adopting the MESA 10-year coronary heart disease risk calculator.
Amazon Alexa
Apple Podcasts
Google Podcasts
Spotify
, the United States now has more than 100 measles cases for the year, e-cigarette use reverses progress in reducing teens’ tobacco use, and consider adopting the MESA 10-year coronary heart disease risk calculator.
Amazon Alexa
Apple Podcasts
Google Podcasts
Spotify
Consider adopting the MESA 10-year CHD risk calculator
SNOWMASS, COLO. – The Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis–based 10-year coronary heart disease risk calculator offers significant advantages over the far more widely used Atherosclerotic Cardiovascular Disease risk estimator based upon the pooled cohort equations recommended in the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association guidelines, Robert A. Vogel, MD, said at the Annual Cardiovascular Conference at Snowmass.
“I don’t use the PCE very much. I use the MESA [Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis]. I like it because it gives me options I don’t have with the PCE [pooled cohort equations],” Dr. Vogel, a preventive cardiology expert at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora, said at the meeting sponsored by the American College of Cardiology.
Those added options include, importantly, the ability to plug in a patient’s coronary artery calcium score. MESA, a landmark longitudinal National Institutes of Health–sponsored study, generated a great deal of the data that established the prognostic value of measuring coronary artery calcium.
“You can do the MESA worksheet with or without coronary artery calcium, either way,” Dr. Vogel noted.
Another big advantage for the MESA risk calculator: It asks a yes/no question about family history of heart attack in first-degree relatives. That’s truly risk-altering information, and yet it’s absent from the ACC/AHA ASCVD (Atherosclerotic Cardiovascular Disease) risk calculator, the cardiologist continued.
Plus, the MESA risk calculator includes four ethnic options: Caucasian, African American, Chinese, or Hispanic, while the ACC/AHA’s PCE-based tool includes only the categories of white, African American, or other.
Dr. Vogel offered a case example for purposes of comparison and contrast of the two risk calculators: a 48-year-old white man with no history or symptoms of cardiovascular disease whose father had an MI at age 52. He wants to know whether he should start taking a statin. The patient is a former smoker who quit 3 years ago. His physical exam is normal. He has a body mass index of 29 kg/m2, an LDL cholesterol of 134 mg/dL, a total cholesterol of 194 mg/dL, a triglyceride level of 92 mg/dL, blood pressure of 128/78 mm Hg, an HDL cholesterol of 42 mg/dL, and a hemoglobin A1c of 5.9%.
Using the PCE-based risk calculator, the man’s 10-year risk of cardiovascular disease is only 3.3%, which falls below the ACC/AHA guideline-recommended threshold for statin therapy for primary prevention. But with the MESA score, as a result of the additional information regarding the family history of premature cardiovascular disease, the patient’s risk jumps to 4.9%, even without including a coronary artery calcium score.
“This shows you how big a factor the family history is. I think it’s unfortunate that the PCE doesn’t put it in,” Dr. Vogel said.
Indeed, in an analysis from MESA, a 60-year-old man with a lipid and blood pressure profile similar to that of Dr. Vogel’s patient would have a 10-year cardiovascular disease risk of 6% with a negative family history and a 9% risk with a positive history, he noted.
In the 48-year-old patient used as an example by Dr. Vogel, plugging into the MESA risk calculator a coronary artery calcium score of, say, 50, 100, or 150 Agatston units would boost the 10-year cardiovascular disease risk to 7.5%, 8.9%, and 9.9%, respectively.
Both the MESA and the ACC/AHA risk calculators incorporate diabetes as a simple yes/no item. It’s either present or absent. This is too crude a dichotomy for Dr. Vogel’s liking in light of data showing that individuals with impaired glucose tolerance have a cumulative risk of cardiovascular mortality that’s intermediate between diabetic and normoglycemic individuals. And of course, the patient in his case example had a HbA1c of 5.9%. So what is a physician to do?
“I fudge the numbers,” he said. “
He also adjusts a former smoker’s estimated 10-year cardiovascular risk based upon how long ago the smoker quit. An ex-smoker’s hazard ratio for coronary heart disease doesn’t drop to that of a never-smoker until 8 years after quitting. And since the patient in this example has been tobacco-free for only 3 years, Dr. Vogel bumps up that individual’s risk level once again. So at this point, even without the additional information that would be provided by a coronary calcium score, the patient’s adjusted MESA 10-year risk is in the 10% range, compared with the 3.3% figure derived using the PCE-based risk calculator.
He reported serving as a paid consultant to the National Football League and the Pritikin Longevity Center, receiving research grants from Sanofi, and serving on speakers bureaus for Regeneron and Sanofi.
SNOWMASS, COLO. – The Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis–based 10-year coronary heart disease risk calculator offers significant advantages over the far more widely used Atherosclerotic Cardiovascular Disease risk estimator based upon the pooled cohort equations recommended in the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association guidelines, Robert A. Vogel, MD, said at the Annual Cardiovascular Conference at Snowmass.
“I don’t use the PCE very much. I use the MESA [Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis]. I like it because it gives me options I don’t have with the PCE [pooled cohort equations],” Dr. Vogel, a preventive cardiology expert at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora, said at the meeting sponsored by the American College of Cardiology.
Those added options include, importantly, the ability to plug in a patient’s coronary artery calcium score. MESA, a landmark longitudinal National Institutes of Health–sponsored study, generated a great deal of the data that established the prognostic value of measuring coronary artery calcium.
“You can do the MESA worksheet with or without coronary artery calcium, either way,” Dr. Vogel noted.
Another big advantage for the MESA risk calculator: It asks a yes/no question about family history of heart attack in first-degree relatives. That’s truly risk-altering information, and yet it’s absent from the ACC/AHA ASCVD (Atherosclerotic Cardiovascular Disease) risk calculator, the cardiologist continued.
Plus, the MESA risk calculator includes four ethnic options: Caucasian, African American, Chinese, or Hispanic, while the ACC/AHA’s PCE-based tool includes only the categories of white, African American, or other.
Dr. Vogel offered a case example for purposes of comparison and contrast of the two risk calculators: a 48-year-old white man with no history or symptoms of cardiovascular disease whose father had an MI at age 52. He wants to know whether he should start taking a statin. The patient is a former smoker who quit 3 years ago. His physical exam is normal. He has a body mass index of 29 kg/m2, an LDL cholesterol of 134 mg/dL, a total cholesterol of 194 mg/dL, a triglyceride level of 92 mg/dL, blood pressure of 128/78 mm Hg, an HDL cholesterol of 42 mg/dL, and a hemoglobin A1c of 5.9%.
Using the PCE-based risk calculator, the man’s 10-year risk of cardiovascular disease is only 3.3%, which falls below the ACC/AHA guideline-recommended threshold for statin therapy for primary prevention. But with the MESA score, as a result of the additional information regarding the family history of premature cardiovascular disease, the patient’s risk jumps to 4.9%, even without including a coronary artery calcium score.
“This shows you how big a factor the family history is. I think it’s unfortunate that the PCE doesn’t put it in,” Dr. Vogel said.
Indeed, in an analysis from MESA, a 60-year-old man with a lipid and blood pressure profile similar to that of Dr. Vogel’s patient would have a 10-year cardiovascular disease risk of 6% with a negative family history and a 9% risk with a positive history, he noted.
In the 48-year-old patient used as an example by Dr. Vogel, plugging into the MESA risk calculator a coronary artery calcium score of, say, 50, 100, or 150 Agatston units would boost the 10-year cardiovascular disease risk to 7.5%, 8.9%, and 9.9%, respectively.
Both the MESA and the ACC/AHA risk calculators incorporate diabetes as a simple yes/no item. It’s either present or absent. This is too crude a dichotomy for Dr. Vogel’s liking in light of data showing that individuals with impaired glucose tolerance have a cumulative risk of cardiovascular mortality that’s intermediate between diabetic and normoglycemic individuals. And of course, the patient in his case example had a HbA1c of 5.9%. So what is a physician to do?
“I fudge the numbers,” he said. “
He also adjusts a former smoker’s estimated 10-year cardiovascular risk based upon how long ago the smoker quit. An ex-smoker’s hazard ratio for coronary heart disease doesn’t drop to that of a never-smoker until 8 years after quitting. And since the patient in this example has been tobacco-free for only 3 years, Dr. Vogel bumps up that individual’s risk level once again. So at this point, even without the additional information that would be provided by a coronary calcium score, the patient’s adjusted MESA 10-year risk is in the 10% range, compared with the 3.3% figure derived using the PCE-based risk calculator.
He reported serving as a paid consultant to the National Football League and the Pritikin Longevity Center, receiving research grants from Sanofi, and serving on speakers bureaus for Regeneron and Sanofi.
SNOWMASS, COLO. – The Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis–based 10-year coronary heart disease risk calculator offers significant advantages over the far more widely used Atherosclerotic Cardiovascular Disease risk estimator based upon the pooled cohort equations recommended in the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association guidelines, Robert A. Vogel, MD, said at the Annual Cardiovascular Conference at Snowmass.
“I don’t use the PCE very much. I use the MESA [Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis]. I like it because it gives me options I don’t have with the PCE [pooled cohort equations],” Dr. Vogel, a preventive cardiology expert at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora, said at the meeting sponsored by the American College of Cardiology.
Those added options include, importantly, the ability to plug in a patient’s coronary artery calcium score. MESA, a landmark longitudinal National Institutes of Health–sponsored study, generated a great deal of the data that established the prognostic value of measuring coronary artery calcium.
“You can do the MESA worksheet with or without coronary artery calcium, either way,” Dr. Vogel noted.
Another big advantage for the MESA risk calculator: It asks a yes/no question about family history of heart attack in first-degree relatives. That’s truly risk-altering information, and yet it’s absent from the ACC/AHA ASCVD (Atherosclerotic Cardiovascular Disease) risk calculator, the cardiologist continued.
Plus, the MESA risk calculator includes four ethnic options: Caucasian, African American, Chinese, or Hispanic, while the ACC/AHA’s PCE-based tool includes only the categories of white, African American, or other.
Dr. Vogel offered a case example for purposes of comparison and contrast of the two risk calculators: a 48-year-old white man with no history or symptoms of cardiovascular disease whose father had an MI at age 52. He wants to know whether he should start taking a statin. The patient is a former smoker who quit 3 years ago. His physical exam is normal. He has a body mass index of 29 kg/m2, an LDL cholesterol of 134 mg/dL, a total cholesterol of 194 mg/dL, a triglyceride level of 92 mg/dL, blood pressure of 128/78 mm Hg, an HDL cholesterol of 42 mg/dL, and a hemoglobin A1c of 5.9%.
Using the PCE-based risk calculator, the man’s 10-year risk of cardiovascular disease is only 3.3%, which falls below the ACC/AHA guideline-recommended threshold for statin therapy for primary prevention. But with the MESA score, as a result of the additional information regarding the family history of premature cardiovascular disease, the patient’s risk jumps to 4.9%, even without including a coronary artery calcium score.
“This shows you how big a factor the family history is. I think it’s unfortunate that the PCE doesn’t put it in,” Dr. Vogel said.
Indeed, in an analysis from MESA, a 60-year-old man with a lipid and blood pressure profile similar to that of Dr. Vogel’s patient would have a 10-year cardiovascular disease risk of 6% with a negative family history and a 9% risk with a positive history, he noted.
In the 48-year-old patient used as an example by Dr. Vogel, plugging into the MESA risk calculator a coronary artery calcium score of, say, 50, 100, or 150 Agatston units would boost the 10-year cardiovascular disease risk to 7.5%, 8.9%, and 9.9%, respectively.
Both the MESA and the ACC/AHA risk calculators incorporate diabetes as a simple yes/no item. It’s either present or absent. This is too crude a dichotomy for Dr. Vogel’s liking in light of data showing that individuals with impaired glucose tolerance have a cumulative risk of cardiovascular mortality that’s intermediate between diabetic and normoglycemic individuals. And of course, the patient in his case example had a HbA1c of 5.9%. So what is a physician to do?
“I fudge the numbers,” he said. “
He also adjusts a former smoker’s estimated 10-year cardiovascular risk based upon how long ago the smoker quit. An ex-smoker’s hazard ratio for coronary heart disease doesn’t drop to that of a never-smoker until 8 years after quitting. And since the patient in this example has been tobacco-free for only 3 years, Dr. Vogel bumps up that individual’s risk level once again. So at this point, even without the additional information that would be provided by a coronary calcium score, the patient’s adjusted MESA 10-year risk is in the 10% range, compared with the 3.3% figure derived using the PCE-based risk calculator.
He reported serving as a paid consultant to the National Football League and the Pritikin Longevity Center, receiving research grants from Sanofi, and serving on speakers bureaus for Regeneron and Sanofi.
REPORTING FROM ACC SNOWMASS 2019
Biologics curb coronary artery plaques in severe psoriasis
Treatment with biologic therapy significantly improves coronary plaque profiles in patients with severe psoriasis, based on data from 121 adult patients who completed a year of follow-up.
A previous study showed a reduced rate of nonfatal myocardial infarction, nonfatal stroke, and cardiovascular death among individuals treated with biologic therapies, wrote Youssef A. Elnabawi, MD, of the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute in Bethesda, Md., and his colleagues.
Psoriasis “provides a reliable model to study inflammatory atherogenesis and the longitudinal impact of modulating specific cytokines on vascular behavior, while treating the primary skin disease with [Food and Drug Administration]–approved biologic therapies,” the researchers said.
In a study published in Cardiovascular Research, patients given biologics showed a 5% reduction in total coronary plaque burden after 1 year, as well as a 64% improvement in Psoriasis Area Severity Index scores. In addition, the decrease in noncalcified plaque burden in the biologics group was significantly greater, compared with the nonbiologics group (P =.03), and remained significant after controlling for standard cardiovascular risk factors.
When broken down by biologic, “we observed the greatest percent reduction of noncalcified plaque burden in patients on [anti-interleukin (IL)–17] therapy with a reduction in necrotic core suggesting a potential role for IL-17 in atherosclerotic pathways,” Dr. Elnabawi and his colleagues wrote.
(from 2.0 mg/dL to 1.4 mg/dL), but no change in the nonbiologics group.
The study population included patients naive to biologic or systemic psoriasis therapies who were assessed via clinical and laboratory data and coronary computed tomography angiography at baseline and after 1 year. A total of 89 participants with moderate to severe psoriasis received biologics, including adalimumab, etanercept, ustekinumab, secukinumab, and ixekizumab; 32 psoriasis patients received no biologics and served as a reference group. The average age of the patients was 50 years, and 58% were male. At baseline, patients had low cardiovascular risk based on Framingham scores, and moderate to severe skin disease.
The findings were limited by several factors, including the observational nature of the study, small study population, and the open-label use of biologics, as well as the use of coronary indices, rather than actual cardiovascular events, to assess cardiovascular disease risk, the researchers noted.
However, the results, combined with results from previous studies in animal models, “support further investigation of IL-17 blockade on coronary disease in humans,” they said.
The study was supported by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, with additional support from the National Institutes of Health Medical Research Scholars Program, the Doris Duke Charitable Foundation, the American Association for Dental Research, the Colgate-Palmolive Company, Genentech, Elsevier, and other private donors. Dr. Elnabawi had no financial conflicts to disclose.
SOURCE: Elnabawi YA et al. Cardiovasc Res. 2019. doi: 10.1093/cvr/cvz009.
Treatment with biologic therapy significantly improves coronary plaque profiles in patients with severe psoriasis, based on data from 121 adult patients who completed a year of follow-up.
A previous study showed a reduced rate of nonfatal myocardial infarction, nonfatal stroke, and cardiovascular death among individuals treated with biologic therapies, wrote Youssef A. Elnabawi, MD, of the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute in Bethesda, Md., and his colleagues.
Psoriasis “provides a reliable model to study inflammatory atherogenesis and the longitudinal impact of modulating specific cytokines on vascular behavior, while treating the primary skin disease with [Food and Drug Administration]–approved biologic therapies,” the researchers said.
In a study published in Cardiovascular Research, patients given biologics showed a 5% reduction in total coronary plaque burden after 1 year, as well as a 64% improvement in Psoriasis Area Severity Index scores. In addition, the decrease in noncalcified plaque burden in the biologics group was significantly greater, compared with the nonbiologics group (P =.03), and remained significant after controlling for standard cardiovascular risk factors.
When broken down by biologic, “we observed the greatest percent reduction of noncalcified plaque burden in patients on [anti-interleukin (IL)–17] therapy with a reduction in necrotic core suggesting a potential role for IL-17 in atherosclerotic pathways,” Dr. Elnabawi and his colleagues wrote.
(from 2.0 mg/dL to 1.4 mg/dL), but no change in the nonbiologics group.
The study population included patients naive to biologic or systemic psoriasis therapies who were assessed via clinical and laboratory data and coronary computed tomography angiography at baseline and after 1 year. A total of 89 participants with moderate to severe psoriasis received biologics, including adalimumab, etanercept, ustekinumab, secukinumab, and ixekizumab; 32 psoriasis patients received no biologics and served as a reference group. The average age of the patients was 50 years, and 58% were male. At baseline, patients had low cardiovascular risk based on Framingham scores, and moderate to severe skin disease.
The findings were limited by several factors, including the observational nature of the study, small study population, and the open-label use of biologics, as well as the use of coronary indices, rather than actual cardiovascular events, to assess cardiovascular disease risk, the researchers noted.
However, the results, combined with results from previous studies in animal models, “support further investigation of IL-17 blockade on coronary disease in humans,” they said.
The study was supported by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, with additional support from the National Institutes of Health Medical Research Scholars Program, the Doris Duke Charitable Foundation, the American Association for Dental Research, the Colgate-Palmolive Company, Genentech, Elsevier, and other private donors. Dr. Elnabawi had no financial conflicts to disclose.
SOURCE: Elnabawi YA et al. Cardiovasc Res. 2019. doi: 10.1093/cvr/cvz009.
Treatment with biologic therapy significantly improves coronary plaque profiles in patients with severe psoriasis, based on data from 121 adult patients who completed a year of follow-up.
A previous study showed a reduced rate of nonfatal myocardial infarction, nonfatal stroke, and cardiovascular death among individuals treated with biologic therapies, wrote Youssef A. Elnabawi, MD, of the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute in Bethesda, Md., and his colleagues.
Psoriasis “provides a reliable model to study inflammatory atherogenesis and the longitudinal impact of modulating specific cytokines on vascular behavior, while treating the primary skin disease with [Food and Drug Administration]–approved biologic therapies,” the researchers said.
In a study published in Cardiovascular Research, patients given biologics showed a 5% reduction in total coronary plaque burden after 1 year, as well as a 64% improvement in Psoriasis Area Severity Index scores. In addition, the decrease in noncalcified plaque burden in the biologics group was significantly greater, compared with the nonbiologics group (P =.03), and remained significant after controlling for standard cardiovascular risk factors.
When broken down by biologic, “we observed the greatest percent reduction of noncalcified plaque burden in patients on [anti-interleukin (IL)–17] therapy with a reduction in necrotic core suggesting a potential role for IL-17 in atherosclerotic pathways,” Dr. Elnabawi and his colleagues wrote.
(from 2.0 mg/dL to 1.4 mg/dL), but no change in the nonbiologics group.
The study population included patients naive to biologic or systemic psoriasis therapies who were assessed via clinical and laboratory data and coronary computed tomography angiography at baseline and after 1 year. A total of 89 participants with moderate to severe psoriasis received biologics, including adalimumab, etanercept, ustekinumab, secukinumab, and ixekizumab; 32 psoriasis patients received no biologics and served as a reference group. The average age of the patients was 50 years, and 58% were male. At baseline, patients had low cardiovascular risk based on Framingham scores, and moderate to severe skin disease.
The findings were limited by several factors, including the observational nature of the study, small study population, and the open-label use of biologics, as well as the use of coronary indices, rather than actual cardiovascular events, to assess cardiovascular disease risk, the researchers noted.
However, the results, combined with results from previous studies in animal models, “support further investigation of IL-17 blockade on coronary disease in humans,” they said.
The study was supported by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, with additional support from the National Institutes of Health Medical Research Scholars Program, the Doris Duke Charitable Foundation, the American Association for Dental Research, the Colgate-Palmolive Company, Genentech, Elsevier, and other private donors. Dr. Elnabawi had no financial conflicts to disclose.
SOURCE: Elnabawi YA et al. Cardiovasc Res. 2019. doi: 10.1093/cvr/cvz009.
FROM CARDIOVASCULAR RESEARCH
Key clinical point: Psoriasis patients treated with biologics also showed improvement in coronary artery profiles after 1 year, compared with patients not treated with biologics.
Major finding: Biologic therapy was associated with a 5% reduction in total coronary plaque burden from baseline.
Study details: The data come from 121 psoriasis patients in a prospective, observational study.
Disclosures: The study was supported by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, with additional support from the National Institutes of Health Medical Research Scholars Program, the Doris Duke Charitable Foundation, the American Association for Dental Research, the Colgate-Palmolive Company, Genentech, Elsevier, and other private donors. Dr. Elnabawi had no financial conflicts to disclose.
Source: Elnabawi YA et al. Cardiovasc Res. 2019. doi: 10.1093/cvr/cvz009.