Cardiology

Pfizer is suspending distribution of the antismoking treatment Chantix after heightened levels of the carcinogen N-nitrosodimethylamine (NDMA) were found in some lots of the pills.

The pharmaceutical company is also recalling some lots of Chantix that may have high levels of NDMA, Reuters reported.

Pfizer told Reuters the distribution pause was ordered out of abundance of caution while further testing is conducted. The FDA approved varenicline, which is marketed as Chantix, in 2006.

“The benefits of Chantix outweigh the very low potential risks, if any, posed by nitrosamine exposure from varenicline on top of other common sources over a lifetime,” Pfizer spokesperson Steven Danehy said in an email, according to Reuters.

The FDA has not issued a recall on Chantix. In Canada, however, health authorities on June 8 instituted a recall for Champix, the name under which the drug is sold in that nation.

The Chantix website says it’s a 3- to 6-month treatment that helps people overcome the need to smoke tobacco. The website says more than 13 million people have been prescribed Chantix.

Other health concerns have been raised about Chantix, such as mental health side effects.

In 2016, however, researchers concluded Chantix did not appear to raise the risk of serious health disorders such as depression, anxiety, and suicidal thoughts.

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

Pfizer is suspending distribution of the antismoking treatment Chantix after heightened levels of the carcinogen N-nitrosodimethylamine (NDMA) were found in some lots of the pills.

The pharmaceutical company is also recalling some lots of Chantix that may have high levels of NDMA, Reuters reported.

Pfizer told Reuters the distribution pause was ordered out of abundance of caution while further testing is conducted. The FDA approved varenicline, which is marketed as Chantix, in 2006.

“The benefits of Chantix outweigh the very low potential risks, if any, posed by nitrosamine exposure from varenicline on top of other common sources over a lifetime,” Pfizer spokesperson Steven Danehy said in an email, according to Reuters.

The FDA has not issued a recall on Chantix. In Canada, however, health authorities on June 8 instituted a recall for Champix, the name under which the drug is sold in that nation.

The Chantix website says it’s a 3- to 6-month treatment that helps people overcome the need to smoke tobacco. The website says more than 13 million people have been prescribed Chantix.

Other health concerns have been raised about Chantix, such as mental health side effects.

In 2016, however, researchers concluded Chantix did not appear to raise the risk of serious health disorders such as depression, anxiety, and suicidal thoughts.

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

Pfizer is suspending distribution of the antismoking treatment Chantix after heightened levels of the carcinogen N-nitrosodimethylamine (NDMA) were found in some lots of the pills.

The pharmaceutical company is also recalling some lots of Chantix that may have high levels of NDMA, Reuters reported.

Pfizer told Reuters the distribution pause was ordered out of abundance of caution while further testing is conducted. The FDA approved varenicline, which is marketed as Chantix, in 2006.

“The benefits of Chantix outweigh the very low potential risks, if any, posed by nitrosamine exposure from varenicline on top of other common sources over a lifetime,” Pfizer spokesperson Steven Danehy said in an email, according to Reuters.

The FDA has not issued a recall on Chantix. In Canada, however, health authorities on June 8 instituted a recall for Champix, the name under which the drug is sold in that nation.

The Chantix website says it’s a 3- to 6-month treatment that helps people overcome the need to smoke tobacco. The website says more than 13 million people have been prescribed Chantix.

Other health concerns have been raised about Chantix, such as mental health side effects.

In 2016, however, researchers concluded Chantix did not appear to raise the risk of serious health disorders such as depression, anxiety, and suicidal thoughts.

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

Pregnant women with a history of bariatric surgery have better cardiovascular adaptation to pregnancy compared with women who have similar early-pregnancy body mass index (BMI) but no history of weight loss surgery, new data suggest.

“Pregnant women who have had bariatric surgery demonstrate better cardiovascular adaptation through lower blood pressure, heart rate, and cardiac output, more favorable diastolic indices, and better systolic function,” reported Deesha Patel, MBBS MRCOG, specialist registrar, Chelsea and Westminster Hospital, London.

“Because the groups were matched for early pregnancy BMI, it’s unlikely that the results are due to weight loss alone but indicate that the metabolic alterations as a result of the surgery, via the enterocardiac axis, play an important role,” Dr. Patel continued.

The findings were presented at the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists 2021 Virtual World Congress.

Although obesity is known for its inflammatory and toxic effects on the cardiovascular system, it is not clear to what extent the various treatment options for obesity modify these risks in the long term, said Hutan Ashrafian, MD, clinical lecturer in surgery, Imperial College London.

“It is even less clear how anti-obesity interventions affect the cardiovascular system in pregnancy,” Dr. Ashrafian told this news organization.

“This very novel study in pregnant mothers having undergone the most successful and consistent intervention for severe obesity – bariatric or metabolic surgery – gives new clues as to the extent that bariatric procedures can alter cardiovascular risk in pregnant mothers,” continued Dr. Ashrafian, who was not involved in the study.

The results show how bariatric surgery has favorable effects on cardiac adaptation in pregnancy and in turn “might offer protection from pregnancy-related cardiovascular pathology such as preeclampsia,” explained Dr. Ashrafian. “This adds to the known effects of cardiovascular protection of bariatric surgery through the enterocardiac axis, which may explain a wider range of effects that can be translated within pregnancy and possibly following pregnancy in the postpartum era and beyond.”
 

A history of bariatric surgery versus no surgery

The prospective, longitudinal study compared 41 women who had a history of bariatric surgery with 41 women who had not undergone surgery. Patients’ characteristics were closely matched for age, BMI (34.5 kg/m2 and 34.3 kg/m2 in the surgery and bariatric surgery groups, respectively) and race. Hypertensive disorders in the post-surgery group were significantly less common compared with the no-surgery group (0% vs. 9.8%).

During the study, participants underwent cardiovascular assessment at 12-14 weeks, 20-24 weeks, and 30-32 weeks of gestation. The assessment included measurement of blood pressure and heart rate, transthoracic echocardiography, and 2D speckle tracking, performed offline to assess global longitudinal and circumferential strain.

Blood pressure readings across the three trimesters were consistently lower in the women who had undergone bariatric surgery compared with those in the no-surgery group, and all differences were statistically significant. Likewise, heart rate and cardiac output across the three trimesters were lower in the post-surgery cohort. However, there was no difference in stroke volume between the two groups.

As for diastolic function, there were more favorable indices in the post-surgery group with a higher E/A ratio, a marker of left ventricle filling (P < .001), and lower left atrial volume (P < .05), Dr. Patel reported.

With respect to systolic function, there was no difference in ejection fraction, but there was lower global longitudinal strain (P < .01) and global circumferential strain in the post-bariatric group (P = .02), suggesting better systolic function.

“Strain is a measure of differences in motion and velocity between regions of the myocardium through the cardiac cycle and can detect subclinical changes when ejection fraction is normal,” she added.

“This is a fascinating piece of work. The author should be congratulated on gathering so many [pregnant] women who had had bariatric surgery. The work gives a unique glimpse into metabolic syndrome,” said Philip Toozs-Hobson, MD, who moderated the session.

“We are increasingly recognizing the impact [of bariatric surgery] on metabolic syndrome, and the fact that this study demonstrates that there is more to it than just weight is important,” continued Dr. Toosz-Hobson, who is a consultant gynecologist at Birmingham Women’s Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, United Kingdom.
 

Cardiovascular benefits of bariatric surgery

Bariatric surgery has been associated with loss of excess body weight of up to 55% and with approximately 40% reduction in all-cause mortality in the general population. The procedure also reduces the risk for heart disease, diabetes, and cancer.

The cardiovascular benefits of bariatric surgery include reduced hypertension, remodeling of the heart with a reduction in left ventricular mass, and an improvement in diastolic and systolic function.

“Traditionally, the cardiac changes were thought to be due to weight loss and blood pressure reduction, but it is now conceivable that the metabolic components contribute to the reverse modeling via changes to the enterocardiac axis involving changes to gut hormones,” said Dr. Patel. These hormones include secretin, glucagon, and vasoactive intestinal peptide, which are known to have inotropic effects, as well as adiponectin and leptin, which are known to have cardiac effects, she added.

“Pregnancy following bariatric surgery is associated with a reduced risk of hypertensive disorders, as well as a reduced risk of gestational diabetes, large-for-gestational-age neonates, and a small increased risk of small-for-gestational-age neonates,” said Dr. Patel.

Dr. Patel and Dr. Toosz-Hobson have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Pregnant women with a history of bariatric surgery have better cardiovascular adaptation to pregnancy compared with women who have similar early-pregnancy body mass index (BMI) but no history of weight loss surgery, new data suggest.

“Pregnant women who have had bariatric surgery demonstrate better cardiovascular adaptation through lower blood pressure, heart rate, and cardiac output, more favorable diastolic indices, and better systolic function,” reported Deesha Patel, MBBS MRCOG, specialist registrar, Chelsea and Westminster Hospital, London.

“Because the groups were matched for early pregnancy BMI, it’s unlikely that the results are due to weight loss alone but indicate that the metabolic alterations as a result of the surgery, via the enterocardiac axis, play an important role,” Dr. Patel continued.

The findings were presented at the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists 2021 Virtual World Congress.

Although obesity is known for its inflammatory and toxic effects on the cardiovascular system, it is not clear to what extent the various treatment options for obesity modify these risks in the long term, said Hutan Ashrafian, MD, clinical lecturer in surgery, Imperial College London.

“It is even less clear how anti-obesity interventions affect the cardiovascular system in pregnancy,” Dr. Ashrafian told this news organization.

“This very novel study in pregnant mothers having undergone the most successful and consistent intervention for severe obesity – bariatric or metabolic surgery – gives new clues as to the extent that bariatric procedures can alter cardiovascular risk in pregnant mothers,” continued Dr. Ashrafian, who was not involved in the study.

The results show how bariatric surgery has favorable effects on cardiac adaptation in pregnancy and in turn “might offer protection from pregnancy-related cardiovascular pathology such as preeclampsia,” explained Dr. Ashrafian. “This adds to the known effects of cardiovascular protection of bariatric surgery through the enterocardiac axis, which may explain a wider range of effects that can be translated within pregnancy and possibly following pregnancy in the postpartum era and beyond.”
 

A history of bariatric surgery versus no surgery

The prospective, longitudinal study compared 41 women who had a history of bariatric surgery with 41 women who had not undergone surgery. Patients’ characteristics were closely matched for age, BMI (34.5 kg/m2 and 34.3 kg/m2 in the surgery and bariatric surgery groups, respectively) and race. Hypertensive disorders in the post-surgery group were significantly less common compared with the no-surgery group (0% vs. 9.8%).

During the study, participants underwent cardiovascular assessment at 12-14 weeks, 20-24 weeks, and 30-32 weeks of gestation. The assessment included measurement of blood pressure and heart rate, transthoracic echocardiography, and 2D speckle tracking, performed offline to assess global longitudinal and circumferential strain.

Blood pressure readings across the three trimesters were consistently lower in the women who had undergone bariatric surgery compared with those in the no-surgery group, and all differences were statistically significant. Likewise, heart rate and cardiac output across the three trimesters were lower in the post-surgery cohort. However, there was no difference in stroke volume between the two groups.

As for diastolic function, there were more favorable indices in the post-surgery group with a higher E/A ratio, a marker of left ventricle filling (P < .001), and lower left atrial volume (P < .05), Dr. Patel reported.

With respect to systolic function, there was no difference in ejection fraction, but there was lower global longitudinal strain (P < .01) and global circumferential strain in the post-bariatric group (P = .02), suggesting better systolic function.

“Strain is a measure of differences in motion and velocity between regions of the myocardium through the cardiac cycle and can detect subclinical changes when ejection fraction is normal,” she added.

“This is a fascinating piece of work. The author should be congratulated on gathering so many [pregnant] women who had had bariatric surgery. The work gives a unique glimpse into metabolic syndrome,” said Philip Toozs-Hobson, MD, who moderated the session.

“We are increasingly recognizing the impact [of bariatric surgery] on metabolic syndrome, and the fact that this study demonstrates that there is more to it than just weight is important,” continued Dr. Toosz-Hobson, who is a consultant gynecologist at Birmingham Women’s Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, United Kingdom.
 

Cardiovascular benefits of bariatric surgery

Bariatric surgery has been associated with loss of excess body weight of up to 55% and with approximately 40% reduction in all-cause mortality in the general population. The procedure also reduces the risk for heart disease, diabetes, and cancer.

The cardiovascular benefits of bariatric surgery include reduced hypertension, remodeling of the heart with a reduction in left ventricular mass, and an improvement in diastolic and systolic function.

“Traditionally, the cardiac changes were thought to be due to weight loss and blood pressure reduction, but it is now conceivable that the metabolic components contribute to the reverse modeling via changes to the enterocardiac axis involving changes to gut hormones,” said Dr. Patel. These hormones include secretin, glucagon, and vasoactive intestinal peptide, which are known to have inotropic effects, as well as adiponectin and leptin, which are known to have cardiac effects, she added.

“Pregnancy following bariatric surgery is associated with a reduced risk of hypertensive disorders, as well as a reduced risk of gestational diabetes, large-for-gestational-age neonates, and a small increased risk of small-for-gestational-age neonates,” said Dr. Patel.

Dr. Patel and Dr. Toosz-Hobson have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Pregnant women with a history of bariatric surgery have better cardiovascular adaptation to pregnancy compared with women who have similar early-pregnancy body mass index (BMI) but no history of weight loss surgery, new data suggest.

“Pregnant women who have had bariatric surgery demonstrate better cardiovascular adaptation through lower blood pressure, heart rate, and cardiac output, more favorable diastolic indices, and better systolic function,” reported Deesha Patel, MBBS MRCOG, specialist registrar, Chelsea and Westminster Hospital, London.

“Because the groups were matched for early pregnancy BMI, it’s unlikely that the results are due to weight loss alone but indicate that the metabolic alterations as a result of the surgery, via the enterocardiac axis, play an important role,” Dr. Patel continued.

The findings were presented at the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists 2021 Virtual World Congress.

Although obesity is known for its inflammatory and toxic effects on the cardiovascular system, it is not clear to what extent the various treatment options for obesity modify these risks in the long term, said Hutan Ashrafian, MD, clinical lecturer in surgery, Imperial College London.

“It is even less clear how anti-obesity interventions affect the cardiovascular system in pregnancy,” Dr. Ashrafian told this news organization.

“This very novel study in pregnant mothers having undergone the most successful and consistent intervention for severe obesity – bariatric or metabolic surgery – gives new clues as to the extent that bariatric procedures can alter cardiovascular risk in pregnant mothers,” continued Dr. Ashrafian, who was not involved in the study.

The results show how bariatric surgery has favorable effects on cardiac adaptation in pregnancy and in turn “might offer protection from pregnancy-related cardiovascular pathology such as preeclampsia,” explained Dr. Ashrafian. “This adds to the known effects of cardiovascular protection of bariatric surgery through the enterocardiac axis, which may explain a wider range of effects that can be translated within pregnancy and possibly following pregnancy in the postpartum era and beyond.”
 

A history of bariatric surgery versus no surgery

The prospective, longitudinal study compared 41 women who had a history of bariatric surgery with 41 women who had not undergone surgery. Patients’ characteristics were closely matched for age, BMI (34.5 kg/m2 and 34.3 kg/m2 in the surgery and bariatric surgery groups, respectively) and race. Hypertensive disorders in the post-surgery group were significantly less common compared with the no-surgery group (0% vs. 9.8%).

During the study, participants underwent cardiovascular assessment at 12-14 weeks, 20-24 weeks, and 30-32 weeks of gestation. The assessment included measurement of blood pressure and heart rate, transthoracic echocardiography, and 2D speckle tracking, performed offline to assess global longitudinal and circumferential strain.

Blood pressure readings across the three trimesters were consistently lower in the women who had undergone bariatric surgery compared with those in the no-surgery group, and all differences were statistically significant. Likewise, heart rate and cardiac output across the three trimesters were lower in the post-surgery cohort. However, there was no difference in stroke volume between the two groups.

As for diastolic function, there were more favorable indices in the post-surgery group with a higher E/A ratio, a marker of left ventricle filling (P < .001), and lower left atrial volume (P < .05), Dr. Patel reported.

With respect to systolic function, there was no difference in ejection fraction, but there was lower global longitudinal strain (P < .01) and global circumferential strain in the post-bariatric group (P = .02), suggesting better systolic function.

“Strain is a measure of differences in motion and velocity between regions of the myocardium through the cardiac cycle and can detect subclinical changes when ejection fraction is normal,” she added.

“This is a fascinating piece of work. The author should be congratulated on gathering so many [pregnant] women who had had bariatric surgery. The work gives a unique glimpse into metabolic syndrome,” said Philip Toozs-Hobson, MD, who moderated the session.

“We are increasingly recognizing the impact [of bariatric surgery] on metabolic syndrome, and the fact that this study demonstrates that there is more to it than just weight is important,” continued Dr. Toosz-Hobson, who is a consultant gynecologist at Birmingham Women’s Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, United Kingdom.
 

Cardiovascular benefits of bariatric surgery

Bariatric surgery has been associated with loss of excess body weight of up to 55% and with approximately 40% reduction in all-cause mortality in the general population. The procedure also reduces the risk for heart disease, diabetes, and cancer.

The cardiovascular benefits of bariatric surgery include reduced hypertension, remodeling of the heart with a reduction in left ventricular mass, and an improvement in diastolic and systolic function.

“Traditionally, the cardiac changes were thought to be due to weight loss and blood pressure reduction, but it is now conceivable that the metabolic components contribute to the reverse modeling via changes to the enterocardiac axis involving changes to gut hormones,” said Dr. Patel. These hormones include secretin, glucagon, and vasoactive intestinal peptide, which are known to have inotropic effects, as well as adiponectin and leptin, which are known to have cardiac effects, she added.

“Pregnancy following bariatric surgery is associated with a reduced risk of hypertensive disorders, as well as a reduced risk of gestational diabetes, large-for-gestational-age neonates, and a small increased risk of small-for-gestational-age neonates,” said Dr. Patel.

Dr. Patel and Dr. Toosz-Hobson have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Deprescribing may help in reducing inappropriate medication use and adverse events, but for cardiovascular care in the elderly, eliminating statins among patients taking other medications may have negative effects that far outweigh the benefits, a new study suggests.

In a large cohort study, researchers found that the withdrawal of statins from an elderly population receiving polypharmacy was associated with an increase in the risk for hospital admission for heart failure and any cardiovascular outcome, as well as death from any cause.

Statins are “lifesaving” drugs, and “according to the findings of our study, the discontinuation of this therapy has significant effects,” lead study author Federico Rea, PhD, research fellow, Laboratory of Healthcare Research and Pharmacoepidemiology, the department of statistics and quantitative methods, the University of Milano-Bicocca, said in an interview.

The article was published online June 14, 2021, in JAMA Network Open.

Negative clinical consequences, including adverse drug reactions leading to hospitalizations, are causing more physicians to consider deprescribing as a way to reduce problems associated with polypharmacy, the researchers noted.

Statins are “the most widely prescribed medication in the Western world, being a pivotal component in the primary and secondary prevention of cardiovascular (CV) diseases,” they wrote, but because randomized trials usually exclude patients with serious clinical conditions, the precise role statins play for frail patients, such as those with polypharmacy, “is still unclear.”

The population-based cohort study examined 29,047 Italian residents aged 65 years and older who were receiving uninterrupted treatment with statins as well as blood pressure–lowering, antidiabetic, and antiplatelet agents over 16 months. The follow-up period was more than 3 years.

The cohort members were followed to identify those for whom statins were discontinued. Those who continued taking other therapies during the first 6 months after stopping statins were propensity score matched in a 1:1 ratio with patients who did not discontinue taking statins or other drugs. The patient pairs were then followed for fatal and nonfatal outcomes to estimate the risk associated with statin discontinuation.

Of the overall cohort exposed to polypharmacy, 5819 (20.0%) discontinued statins while continuing to take their other medications. Of those, 4,010 were matched with a comparator.

Compared with the maintaining group, those who discontinued statins had the following outcomes: an increased risk for hospital admissions for heart failure (hazard ratio, 1.24; 95% confidence interval, 1.07-1.43), any cardiovascular outcomes (HR, 1.14; 95% CI, 1.03-1.26), death from any cause (HR, 1.15; 95% CI, 1.02-1.30), and emergency admissions for any cause (HR, 1.12; 95% CI, 1.01-1.19)

The increased risk occurred in patients with mild or severe profiles, regardless of gender and whether statins were prescribed as primary or secondary CV prevention.

“We expected that the discontinuation of statins could reduce the risk of access to the emergency department for neurological causes, considered a proxy for the onset of episodes of delirium, [but] this was not observed, suggesting that statin therapy has essential benefits on the reduction of fatal/nonfatal cardiovascular events with no harm effect,” said Dr. Rea, “at least considering major adverse events like hospital and emergency department admissions.”
 

Findings no surprise

Neil Stone, MD, Bonow Professor of Medicine (Cardiology) and Preventive Medicine at Northwestern University, Chicago, said the study results aren’t surprising.

“Older patients have a higher absolute risk of dying, and withdrawing proven therapy shown to reduce risk of coronary/stroke events in randomized, controlled trials would be expected to result in more cardiovascular events,” Dr. Stone said.

Although polypharmacy is a concern for the elderly and is a factor in decreased adherence, he said better solutions are needed than withdrawing proven, effective therapy. “In that sense, this study indirectly supports more research in the use of polypills to address cardiovascular risk factors,” he said. Giving a single pill that combines medications of proven value in reducing blood pressure and cholesterol might be preferable to reducing the total number of medications.

Given the complexity of polypharmacy, the study investigators say more attention is needed from all health care professionals who care for elderly patients.

“We hope that future studies can shed light on the best way to balance the undeniable benefit of [statins] and the harms, especially among the elderly exposed to polypharmacy,” said Rea.

Further research is also needed into why statins are discontinued in the first place, added Dr. Stone. “We know that statins often are stopped due to symptoms that on further scrutiny may not be related to statin use.”

The study was funded by grants from Fondo d’Ateneo per la Ricerca and Modelling Effectiveness, Cost-effectiveness, and Promoting Health Care Value in the Real World: the Motive Project from the Italian Ministry of the Education, University, and Research. One coauthor served on the advisory board of Roche and has received grants from Bristol Myers Squibb, GlaxoSmithKline, and Novartis outside the submitted work. The other authors disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Deprescribing may help in reducing inappropriate medication use and adverse events, but for cardiovascular care in the elderly, eliminating statins among patients taking other medications may have negative effects that far outweigh the benefits, a new study suggests.

In a large cohort study, researchers found that the withdrawal of statins from an elderly population receiving polypharmacy was associated with an increase in the risk for hospital admission for heart failure and any cardiovascular outcome, as well as death from any cause.

Statins are “lifesaving” drugs, and “according to the findings of our study, the discontinuation of this therapy has significant effects,” lead study author Federico Rea, PhD, research fellow, Laboratory of Healthcare Research and Pharmacoepidemiology, the department of statistics and quantitative methods, the University of Milano-Bicocca, said in an interview.

The article was published online June 14, 2021, in JAMA Network Open.

Negative clinical consequences, including adverse drug reactions leading to hospitalizations, are causing more physicians to consider deprescribing as a way to reduce problems associated with polypharmacy, the researchers noted.

Statins are “the most widely prescribed medication in the Western world, being a pivotal component in the primary and secondary prevention of cardiovascular (CV) diseases,” they wrote, but because randomized trials usually exclude patients with serious clinical conditions, the precise role statins play for frail patients, such as those with polypharmacy, “is still unclear.”

The population-based cohort study examined 29,047 Italian residents aged 65 years and older who were receiving uninterrupted treatment with statins as well as blood pressure–lowering, antidiabetic, and antiplatelet agents over 16 months. The follow-up period was more than 3 years.

The cohort members were followed to identify those for whom statins were discontinued. Those who continued taking other therapies during the first 6 months after stopping statins were propensity score matched in a 1:1 ratio with patients who did not discontinue taking statins or other drugs. The patient pairs were then followed for fatal and nonfatal outcomes to estimate the risk associated with statin discontinuation.

Of the overall cohort exposed to polypharmacy, 5819 (20.0%) discontinued statins while continuing to take their other medications. Of those, 4,010 were matched with a comparator.

Compared with the maintaining group, those who discontinued statins had the following outcomes: an increased risk for hospital admissions for heart failure (hazard ratio, 1.24; 95% confidence interval, 1.07-1.43), any cardiovascular outcomes (HR, 1.14; 95% CI, 1.03-1.26), death from any cause (HR, 1.15; 95% CI, 1.02-1.30), and emergency admissions for any cause (HR, 1.12; 95% CI, 1.01-1.19)

The increased risk occurred in patients with mild or severe profiles, regardless of gender and whether statins were prescribed as primary or secondary CV prevention.

“We expected that the discontinuation of statins could reduce the risk of access to the emergency department for neurological causes, considered a proxy for the onset of episodes of delirium, [but] this was not observed, suggesting that statin therapy has essential benefits on the reduction of fatal/nonfatal cardiovascular events with no harm effect,” said Dr. Rea, “at least considering major adverse events like hospital and emergency department admissions.”
 

Findings no surprise

Neil Stone, MD, Bonow Professor of Medicine (Cardiology) and Preventive Medicine at Northwestern University, Chicago, said the study results aren’t surprising.

“Older patients have a higher absolute risk of dying, and withdrawing proven therapy shown to reduce risk of coronary/stroke events in randomized, controlled trials would be expected to result in more cardiovascular events,” Dr. Stone said.

Although polypharmacy is a concern for the elderly and is a factor in decreased adherence, he said better solutions are needed than withdrawing proven, effective therapy. “In that sense, this study indirectly supports more research in the use of polypills to address cardiovascular risk factors,” he said. Giving a single pill that combines medications of proven value in reducing blood pressure and cholesterol might be preferable to reducing the total number of medications.

Given the complexity of polypharmacy, the study investigators say more attention is needed from all health care professionals who care for elderly patients.

“We hope that future studies can shed light on the best way to balance the undeniable benefit of [statins] and the harms, especially among the elderly exposed to polypharmacy,” said Rea.

Further research is also needed into why statins are discontinued in the first place, added Dr. Stone. “We know that statins often are stopped due to symptoms that on further scrutiny may not be related to statin use.”

The study was funded by grants from Fondo d’Ateneo per la Ricerca and Modelling Effectiveness, Cost-effectiveness, and Promoting Health Care Value in the Real World: the Motive Project from the Italian Ministry of the Education, University, and Research. One coauthor served on the advisory board of Roche and has received grants from Bristol Myers Squibb, GlaxoSmithKline, and Novartis outside the submitted work. The other authors disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Deprescribing may help in reducing inappropriate medication use and adverse events, but for cardiovascular care in the elderly, eliminating statins among patients taking other medications may have negative effects that far outweigh the benefits, a new study suggests.

In a large cohort study, researchers found that the withdrawal of statins from an elderly population receiving polypharmacy was associated with an increase in the risk for hospital admission for heart failure and any cardiovascular outcome, as well as death from any cause.

Statins are “lifesaving” drugs, and “according to the findings of our study, the discontinuation of this therapy has significant effects,” lead study author Federico Rea, PhD, research fellow, Laboratory of Healthcare Research and Pharmacoepidemiology, the department of statistics and quantitative methods, the University of Milano-Bicocca, said in an interview.

The article was published online June 14, 2021, in JAMA Network Open.

Negative clinical consequences, including adverse drug reactions leading to hospitalizations, are causing more physicians to consider deprescribing as a way to reduce problems associated with polypharmacy, the researchers noted.

Statins are “the most widely prescribed medication in the Western world, being a pivotal component in the primary and secondary prevention of cardiovascular (CV) diseases,” they wrote, but because randomized trials usually exclude patients with serious clinical conditions, the precise role statins play for frail patients, such as those with polypharmacy, “is still unclear.”

The population-based cohort study examined 29,047 Italian residents aged 65 years and older who were receiving uninterrupted treatment with statins as well as blood pressure–lowering, antidiabetic, and antiplatelet agents over 16 months. The follow-up period was more than 3 years.

The cohort members were followed to identify those for whom statins were discontinued. Those who continued taking other therapies during the first 6 months after stopping statins were propensity score matched in a 1:1 ratio with patients who did not discontinue taking statins or other drugs. The patient pairs were then followed for fatal and nonfatal outcomes to estimate the risk associated with statin discontinuation.

Of the overall cohort exposed to polypharmacy, 5819 (20.0%) discontinued statins while continuing to take their other medications. Of those, 4,010 were matched with a comparator.

Compared with the maintaining group, those who discontinued statins had the following outcomes: an increased risk for hospital admissions for heart failure (hazard ratio, 1.24; 95% confidence interval, 1.07-1.43), any cardiovascular outcomes (HR, 1.14; 95% CI, 1.03-1.26), death from any cause (HR, 1.15; 95% CI, 1.02-1.30), and emergency admissions for any cause (HR, 1.12; 95% CI, 1.01-1.19)

The increased risk occurred in patients with mild or severe profiles, regardless of gender and whether statins were prescribed as primary or secondary CV prevention.

“We expected that the discontinuation of statins could reduce the risk of access to the emergency department for neurological causes, considered a proxy for the onset of episodes of delirium, [but] this was not observed, suggesting that statin therapy has essential benefits on the reduction of fatal/nonfatal cardiovascular events with no harm effect,” said Dr. Rea, “at least considering major adverse events like hospital and emergency department admissions.”
 

Findings no surprise

Neil Stone, MD, Bonow Professor of Medicine (Cardiology) and Preventive Medicine at Northwestern University, Chicago, said the study results aren’t surprising.

“Older patients have a higher absolute risk of dying, and withdrawing proven therapy shown to reduce risk of coronary/stroke events in randomized, controlled trials would be expected to result in more cardiovascular events,” Dr. Stone said.

Although polypharmacy is a concern for the elderly and is a factor in decreased adherence, he said better solutions are needed than withdrawing proven, effective therapy. “In that sense, this study indirectly supports more research in the use of polypills to address cardiovascular risk factors,” he said. Giving a single pill that combines medications of proven value in reducing blood pressure and cholesterol might be preferable to reducing the total number of medications.

Given the complexity of polypharmacy, the study investigators say more attention is needed from all health care professionals who care for elderly patients.

“We hope that future studies can shed light on the best way to balance the undeniable benefit of [statins] and the harms, especially among the elderly exposed to polypharmacy,” said Rea.

Further research is also needed into why statins are discontinued in the first place, added Dr. Stone. “We know that statins often are stopped due to symptoms that on further scrutiny may not be related to statin use.”

The study was funded by grants from Fondo d’Ateneo per la Ricerca and Modelling Effectiveness, Cost-effectiveness, and Promoting Health Care Value in the Real World: the Motive Project from the Italian Ministry of the Education, University, and Research. One coauthor served on the advisory board of Roche and has received grants from Bristol Myers Squibb, GlaxoSmithKline, and Novartis outside the submitted work. The other authors disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

The Food and Drug Administration is adding a warning to mRNA COVID-19 vaccines’ fact sheets as medical experts continue to investigate cases of heart inflammation, which are rare but are more likely to occur in young men and teen boys.

Doran Fink, MD, PhD, deputy director of the FDA’s division of vaccines and related products applications, told a Centers for Disease Control and Prevention expert panel on June 23 that the FDA is finalizing language on a warning statement for health care providers, vaccine recipients, and parents or caregivers of teens.

The incidents are more likely to follow the second dose of the Pfizer or Moderna vaccine, with chest pain and other symptoms occurring within several days to a week, the warning will note.

“Based on limited follow-up, most cases appear to have been associated with resolution of symptoms, but limited information is available about potential long-term sequelae,” Dr. Fink said, describing the statement to the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, independent experts who advise the CDC.

“Symptoms suggestive of myocarditis or pericarditis should result in vaccine recipients seeking medical attention,” he said.
 

Benefits outweigh risks

Although no formal vote occurred after the meeting, the ACIP members delivered a strong endorsement for continuing to vaccinate 12- to 29-year-olds with the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines despite the warning.

“To me it’s clear, based on current information, that the benefits of vaccine clearly outweigh the risks,” said ACIP member Veronica McNally, president and CEO of the Franny Strong Foundation in Bloomfield, Mich., a sentiment echoed by other members.

As ACIP was meeting, leaders of the nation’s major physician, nurse, and public health associations issued a statement supporting continued vaccination: “The facts are clear: this is an extremely rare side effect, and only an exceedingly small number of people will experience it after vaccination.

“Importantly, for the young people who do, most cases are mild, and individuals recover often on their own or with minimal treatment. In addition, we know that myocarditis and pericarditis are much more common if you get COVID-19, and the risks to the heart from COVID-19 infection can be more severe.”

ACIP heard the evidence behind that claim. According to the Vaccine Safety Datalink, which contains data from more than 12 million medical records, myocarditis or pericarditis occurs in 12- to 39-year-olds at a rate of 8 per 1 million after the second Pfizer dose and 19.8 per 1 million after the second Moderna dose.

The CDC continues to investigate the link between the mRNA vaccines and heart inflammation, including any differences between the vaccines.

Most of the symptoms resolved quickly, said Tom Shimabukuro, deputy director of CDC’s Immunization Safety Office. Of 323 cases analyzed by the CDC, 309 were hospitalized, 295 were discharged, and 218, or 79%, had recovered from symptoms.

“Most postvaccine myocarditis has been responding to minimal treatment,” pediatric cardiologist Matthew Oster, MD, MPH, from Children’s Healthcare of Atlanta, told the panel.
 

COVID ‘risks are higher’

Overall, the CDC has reported 2,767 COVID-19 deaths among people aged 12-29 years, and there have been 4,018 reported cases of the COVID-linked inflammatory disorder MIS-C since the beginning of the pandemic.

That amounts to 1 MIS-C case in every 3,200 COVID infections – 36% of them among teens aged 12-20 years and 62% among children who are Hispanic or Black and non-Hispanic, according to a CDC presentation.

The CDC estimated that every 1 million second-dose COVID vaccines administered to 12- to 17-year-old boys could prevent 5,700 cases of COVID-19, 215 hospitalizations, 71 ICU admissions, and 2 deaths. There could also be 56-69 myocarditis cases.

The emergence of new variants in the United States and the skewed pattern of vaccination around the country also may increase the risk to unvaccinated young people, noted Grace Lee, MD, MPH, chair of the ACIP’s COVID-19 Vaccine Safety Technical Subgroup and a pediatric infectious disease physician at Stanford (Calif.) Children’s Health.

“If you’re in an area with low vaccination, the risks are higher,” she said. “The benefits [of the vaccine] are going to be far, far greater than any risk.”

Individuals, parents, and their clinicians should consider the full scope of risk when making decisions about vaccination, she said.

As the pandemic evolves, medical experts have to balance the known risks and benefits while they gather more information, said William Schaffner, MD, an infectious disease physician at Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn., and medical director of the National Foundation for Infectious Diseases.

“The story is not over,” Dr. Schaffner said in an interview. “Clearly, we are still working in the face of a pandemic, so there’s urgency to continue vaccinating. But they would like to know more about the long-term consequences of the myocarditis.”
 

Booster possibilities

Meanwhile, ACIP began conversations on the parameters for a possible vaccine booster. For now, there are simply questions: Would a third vaccine help the immunocompromised gain protection? Should people get a different type of vaccine – mRNA versus adenovirus vector – for their booster? Most important, how long do antibodies last?

“Prior to going around giving everyone boosters, we really need to improve the overall vaccination coverage,” said Helen Keipp Talbot, MD, associate professor of medicine at Vanderbilt University. “That will protect everyone.”

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

The Food and Drug Administration is adding a warning to mRNA COVID-19 vaccines’ fact sheets as medical experts continue to investigate cases of heart inflammation, which are rare but are more likely to occur in young men and teen boys.

Doran Fink, MD, PhD, deputy director of the FDA’s division of vaccines and related products applications, told a Centers for Disease Control and Prevention expert panel on June 23 that the FDA is finalizing language on a warning statement for health care providers, vaccine recipients, and parents or caregivers of teens.

The incidents are more likely to follow the second dose of the Pfizer or Moderna vaccine, with chest pain and other symptoms occurring within several days to a week, the warning will note.

“Based on limited follow-up, most cases appear to have been associated with resolution of symptoms, but limited information is available about potential long-term sequelae,” Dr. Fink said, describing the statement to the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, independent experts who advise the CDC.

“Symptoms suggestive of myocarditis or pericarditis should result in vaccine recipients seeking medical attention,” he said.
 

Benefits outweigh risks

Although no formal vote occurred after the meeting, the ACIP members delivered a strong endorsement for continuing to vaccinate 12- to 29-year-olds with the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines despite the warning.

“To me it’s clear, based on current information, that the benefits of vaccine clearly outweigh the risks,” said ACIP member Veronica McNally, president and CEO of the Franny Strong Foundation in Bloomfield, Mich., a sentiment echoed by other members.

As ACIP was meeting, leaders of the nation’s major physician, nurse, and public health associations issued a statement supporting continued vaccination: “The facts are clear: this is an extremely rare side effect, and only an exceedingly small number of people will experience it after vaccination.

“Importantly, for the young people who do, most cases are mild, and individuals recover often on their own or with minimal treatment. In addition, we know that myocarditis and pericarditis are much more common if you get COVID-19, and the risks to the heart from COVID-19 infection can be more severe.”

ACIP heard the evidence behind that claim. According to the Vaccine Safety Datalink, which contains data from more than 12 million medical records, myocarditis or pericarditis occurs in 12- to 39-year-olds at a rate of 8 per 1 million after the second Pfizer dose and 19.8 per 1 million after the second Moderna dose.

The CDC continues to investigate the link between the mRNA vaccines and heart inflammation, including any differences between the vaccines.

Most of the symptoms resolved quickly, said Tom Shimabukuro, deputy director of CDC’s Immunization Safety Office. Of 323 cases analyzed by the CDC, 309 were hospitalized, 295 were discharged, and 218, or 79%, had recovered from symptoms.

“Most postvaccine myocarditis has been responding to minimal treatment,” pediatric cardiologist Matthew Oster, MD, MPH, from Children’s Healthcare of Atlanta, told the panel.
 

COVID ‘risks are higher’

Overall, the CDC has reported 2,767 COVID-19 deaths among people aged 12-29 years, and there have been 4,018 reported cases of the COVID-linked inflammatory disorder MIS-C since the beginning of the pandemic.

That amounts to 1 MIS-C case in every 3,200 COVID infections – 36% of them among teens aged 12-20 years and 62% among children who are Hispanic or Black and non-Hispanic, according to a CDC presentation.

The CDC estimated that every 1 million second-dose COVID vaccines administered to 12- to 17-year-old boys could prevent 5,700 cases of COVID-19, 215 hospitalizations, 71 ICU admissions, and 2 deaths. There could also be 56-69 myocarditis cases.

The emergence of new variants in the United States and the skewed pattern of vaccination around the country also may increase the risk to unvaccinated young people, noted Grace Lee, MD, MPH, chair of the ACIP’s COVID-19 Vaccine Safety Technical Subgroup and a pediatric infectious disease physician at Stanford (Calif.) Children’s Health.

“If you’re in an area with low vaccination, the risks are higher,” she said. “The benefits [of the vaccine] are going to be far, far greater than any risk.”

Individuals, parents, and their clinicians should consider the full scope of risk when making decisions about vaccination, she said.

As the pandemic evolves, medical experts have to balance the known risks and benefits while they gather more information, said William Schaffner, MD, an infectious disease physician at Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn., and medical director of the National Foundation for Infectious Diseases.

“The story is not over,” Dr. Schaffner said in an interview. “Clearly, we are still working in the face of a pandemic, so there’s urgency to continue vaccinating. But they would like to know more about the long-term consequences of the myocarditis.”
 

Booster possibilities

Meanwhile, ACIP began conversations on the parameters for a possible vaccine booster. For now, there are simply questions: Would a third vaccine help the immunocompromised gain protection? Should people get a different type of vaccine – mRNA versus adenovirus vector – for their booster? Most important, how long do antibodies last?

“Prior to going around giving everyone boosters, we really need to improve the overall vaccination coverage,” said Helen Keipp Talbot, MD, associate professor of medicine at Vanderbilt University. “That will protect everyone.”

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

The Food and Drug Administration is adding a warning to mRNA COVID-19 vaccines’ fact sheets as medical experts continue to investigate cases of heart inflammation, which are rare but are more likely to occur in young men and teen boys.

Doran Fink, MD, PhD, deputy director of the FDA’s division of vaccines and related products applications, told a Centers for Disease Control and Prevention expert panel on June 23 that the FDA is finalizing language on a warning statement for health care providers, vaccine recipients, and parents or caregivers of teens.

The incidents are more likely to follow the second dose of the Pfizer or Moderna vaccine, with chest pain and other symptoms occurring within several days to a week, the warning will note.

“Based on limited follow-up, most cases appear to have been associated with resolution of symptoms, but limited information is available about potential long-term sequelae,” Dr. Fink said, describing the statement to the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, independent experts who advise the CDC.

“Symptoms suggestive of myocarditis or pericarditis should result in vaccine recipients seeking medical attention,” he said.
 

Benefits outweigh risks

Although no formal vote occurred after the meeting, the ACIP members delivered a strong endorsement for continuing to vaccinate 12- to 29-year-olds with the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines despite the warning.

“To me it’s clear, based on current information, that the benefits of vaccine clearly outweigh the risks,” said ACIP member Veronica McNally, president and CEO of the Franny Strong Foundation in Bloomfield, Mich., a sentiment echoed by other members.

As ACIP was meeting, leaders of the nation’s major physician, nurse, and public health associations issued a statement supporting continued vaccination: “The facts are clear: this is an extremely rare side effect, and only an exceedingly small number of people will experience it after vaccination.

“Importantly, for the young people who do, most cases are mild, and individuals recover often on their own or with minimal treatment. In addition, we know that myocarditis and pericarditis are much more common if you get COVID-19, and the risks to the heart from COVID-19 infection can be more severe.”

ACIP heard the evidence behind that claim. According to the Vaccine Safety Datalink, which contains data from more than 12 million medical records, myocarditis or pericarditis occurs in 12- to 39-year-olds at a rate of 8 per 1 million after the second Pfizer dose and 19.8 per 1 million after the second Moderna dose.

The CDC continues to investigate the link between the mRNA vaccines and heart inflammation, including any differences between the vaccines.

Most of the symptoms resolved quickly, said Tom Shimabukuro, deputy director of CDC’s Immunization Safety Office. Of 323 cases analyzed by the CDC, 309 were hospitalized, 295 were discharged, and 218, or 79%, had recovered from symptoms.

“Most postvaccine myocarditis has been responding to minimal treatment,” pediatric cardiologist Matthew Oster, MD, MPH, from Children’s Healthcare of Atlanta, told the panel.
 

COVID ‘risks are higher’

Overall, the CDC has reported 2,767 COVID-19 deaths among people aged 12-29 years, and there have been 4,018 reported cases of the COVID-linked inflammatory disorder MIS-C since the beginning of the pandemic.

That amounts to 1 MIS-C case in every 3,200 COVID infections – 36% of them among teens aged 12-20 years and 62% among children who are Hispanic or Black and non-Hispanic, according to a CDC presentation.

The CDC estimated that every 1 million second-dose COVID vaccines administered to 12- to 17-year-old boys could prevent 5,700 cases of COVID-19, 215 hospitalizations, 71 ICU admissions, and 2 deaths. There could also be 56-69 myocarditis cases.

The emergence of new variants in the United States and the skewed pattern of vaccination around the country also may increase the risk to unvaccinated young people, noted Grace Lee, MD, MPH, chair of the ACIP’s COVID-19 Vaccine Safety Technical Subgroup and a pediatric infectious disease physician at Stanford (Calif.) Children’s Health.

“If you’re in an area with low vaccination, the risks are higher,” she said. “The benefits [of the vaccine] are going to be far, far greater than any risk.”

Individuals, parents, and their clinicians should consider the full scope of risk when making decisions about vaccination, she said.

As the pandemic evolves, medical experts have to balance the known risks and benefits while they gather more information, said William Schaffner, MD, an infectious disease physician at Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn., and medical director of the National Foundation for Infectious Diseases.

“The story is not over,” Dr. Schaffner said in an interview. “Clearly, we are still working in the face of a pandemic, so there’s urgency to continue vaccinating. But they would like to know more about the long-term consequences of the myocarditis.”
 

Booster possibilities

Meanwhile, ACIP began conversations on the parameters for a possible vaccine booster. For now, there are simply questions: Would a third vaccine help the immunocompromised gain protection? Should people get a different type of vaccine – mRNA versus adenovirus vector – for their booster? Most important, how long do antibodies last?

“Prior to going around giving everyone boosters, we really need to improve the overall vaccination coverage,” said Helen Keipp Talbot, MD, associate professor of medicine at Vanderbilt University. “That will protect everyone.”

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

Among patients with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD), 2 years after release of treat-to-target guidelines from the American Heart Association and the European Society of Cardiology and European Atherosclerosis Society, most patients with LDL cholesterol higher than 70 mg/dL did not receive intensification of therapy, and two-thirds continued to have LDL levels above that level, according to a prospective registry study.

Both guidelines recommend driving LDL-C levels to 50% or below of baseline levels; results from the Getting to an Improved Understanding of Low-Density Lipoprotein Cholesterol and Dyslipidemia Management (GOULD) registry suggest this is rarely achieved. “Unfortunately it’s not a total surprise, but it’s disappointing,” said Christopher Cannon, MD, the study’s lead author.

“Therapeutic inertia seems to be the rule in clinical practice,” said Jennifer G. Robinson, MD, MPH, who was asked to comment on the study. Dr. Robinson is professor epidemiology and cardiology at the University of Iowa, Iowa City.

Patients hesitant

Changes in practice following guidelines can often be slow, but in this case may have been complicated by the fact that statins have a reputation for causing side effects, so some patients may be refusing treatment based on what they’ve seen on the Internet. Even though the study looked at all lipid-lowering agents, the misinformation around statins may be spilling over, according to Dr. Cannon. “There’s in general so much misinformation around COVID and every other topic in the world. That makes people question what is real [about] anything,” said Dr. Cannon, a cardiologist at Brigham and Women’s hospital and professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, both in Boston.

Patient characteristics may partly explain slow uptake. “Clinicians may not think further LDL-C lowering is a high enough priority in terms of potential benefit for a given patient in light of the effort being expended to take care of all their other issues and chronic health problems. If the clinician does bring it up to the patient, there may be barriers in terms of additional medication burden, cost, or acquisition issues,” said Dr. Robinson.

The answer may be better evidence and a more personalized approach. Clinical trials that explore defined patient populations could convince patients of a benefit, and payers to reimburse, according to Dr. Robinson.
 

Changing guidance

Another complication is that both the guidelines and the field are rapidly changing. The 2013 AHA guidelines did not include a treatment to goal and focused instead on use of high-dose statins. But the 2018 update reversed course after randomized studies demonstrated a benefit to treating to target. The researchers found no increase in the frequency of treating to target after the release of the 2018 guidelines. “Publication and announcement of guidelines doesn’t mean that people are getting treated better. We really have to implement them,” said Dr. Cannon.

On a positive note, the GOULD researchers found high acceptance of the new proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 serine protease (PCSK9) inhibitors, with over 90% of patients continuing those medications after 2 years. “That’s nice and high. If people do get onto the very intensive lipid-lowing therapies, they tend to stay on them,” said Dr. Cannon.
 

What’s next

Still, the lack of intensification is concerning, and the findings led to some consternation in Twitter exchanges, said Dr. Cannon. “People posted ‘Well, what do we do now?’ ” Dr. Cannon’s team is addressing the issue with an algorithm-based risk management program with prospective enrollment. They have conducted educational webinars and provided site-specific reports on LDL status among patients at each center compared to others, and hope that information will improve compliance. In 2020, the group published an interim analysis of the first 5,000 enrollees, and Dr. Cannon expects to finish that study by the end of the year.

Dr. Navar agreed that physicians need to do a better job of testing LDL-C levels after treatment to identify patients who require more aggressive therapy. That can be deferred in some primary prevention patients with high LDL-C but normal particle numbers as measured with ApoB. “But in those at high risk for disease and those with established CVD who are not at goal, as long as they don’t have a life-limiting condition, we should always up-titrate therapy. It’s one of the safest, most effective ways to lower cardiovascular risk,” said Dr. Navar.

Key study results

The prospective study included 5,006 patients at 119 centers with a mean age of 68 years. About 40% were women, and 86.1% were White. All had ASCVD and LDL levels of at least 70 mg/dL. After 2 years, 17% had undergone intensification of lipid-lowering therapy (LLT). Among patients with LDL-C levels ≥ 100 mg/dL, 22% underwent LLT intensification, compared with 14% of patients with LDL-C levels of 70-99 mg/dL.

The vast majority, 92%, of patients who underwent LLT via addition of PCSK9 inhibitors were still taking the drug after 2 years.

Three-quarters (3,768) had lipid level measurements at least once during follow-up, and median LDL-C levels dropped from 120 to 95 mg/dL in the ≥100-mg/dL cohort (P < .001), and from 82 to 77 mg/dL in the 70- to 99-mg/dL cohort (P <. 001). There was no significant difference in the median values in the patients on PCSK9 inhibitors.

In all, 21% of the ≥100-mg/dL cohort achieved LDL-C levels <70 mg/dL at 2 years, versus 34% in the 77- to 99-mg/dL cohort and 52% of patients taking PCSK9 inhibitors.

Patients seen at teaching hospitals were more likely to undergo LLT intensification compared to nonteaching hospitals (25% versus 17%; P < .001), as were those where lipid protocols were in place (22% versus 15%; P < .001), and those treated in cardiology (22%) compared to treatment in internal or family medicine (12%; P <.001). The study was published online June 16 in JAMA Cardiology.

Dr. Cannon, Dr. Navar, and Dr. Robinson disclosed ties with Amgen, which funded the study, and other companies.

Among patients with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD), 2 years after release of treat-to-target guidelines from the American Heart Association and the European Society of Cardiology and European Atherosclerosis Society, most patients with LDL cholesterol higher than 70 mg/dL did not receive intensification of therapy, and two-thirds continued to have LDL levels above that level, according to a prospective registry study.

Both guidelines recommend driving LDL-C levels to 50% or below of baseline levels; results from the Getting to an Improved Understanding of Low-Density Lipoprotein Cholesterol and Dyslipidemia Management (GOULD) registry suggest this is rarely achieved. “Unfortunately it’s not a total surprise, but it’s disappointing,” said Christopher Cannon, MD, the study’s lead author.

“Therapeutic inertia seems to be the rule in clinical practice,” said Jennifer G. Robinson, MD, MPH, who was asked to comment on the study. Dr. Robinson is professor epidemiology and cardiology at the University of Iowa, Iowa City.

Patients hesitant

Changes in practice following guidelines can often be slow, but in this case may have been complicated by the fact that statins have a reputation for causing side effects, so some patients may be refusing treatment based on what they’ve seen on the Internet. Even though the study looked at all lipid-lowering agents, the misinformation around statins may be spilling over, according to Dr. Cannon. “There’s in general so much misinformation around COVID and every other topic in the world. That makes people question what is real [about] anything,” said Dr. Cannon, a cardiologist at Brigham and Women’s hospital and professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, both in Boston.

Patient characteristics may partly explain slow uptake. “Clinicians may not think further LDL-C lowering is a high enough priority in terms of potential benefit for a given patient in light of the effort being expended to take care of all their other issues and chronic health problems. If the clinician does bring it up to the patient, there may be barriers in terms of additional medication burden, cost, or acquisition issues,” said Dr. Robinson.

The answer may be better evidence and a more personalized approach. Clinical trials that explore defined patient populations could convince patients of a benefit, and payers to reimburse, according to Dr. Robinson.
 

Changing guidance

Another complication is that both the guidelines and the field are rapidly changing. The 2013 AHA guidelines did not include a treatment to goal and focused instead on use of high-dose statins. But the 2018 update reversed course after randomized studies demonstrated a benefit to treating to target. The researchers found no increase in the frequency of treating to target after the release of the 2018 guidelines. “Publication and announcement of guidelines doesn’t mean that people are getting treated better. We really have to implement them,” said Dr. Cannon.

On a positive note, the GOULD researchers found high acceptance of the new proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 serine protease (PCSK9) inhibitors, with over 90% of patients continuing those medications after 2 years. “That’s nice and high. If people do get onto the very intensive lipid-lowing therapies, they tend to stay on them,” said Dr. Cannon.
 

What’s next

Still, the lack of intensification is concerning, and the findings led to some consternation in Twitter exchanges, said Dr. Cannon. “People posted ‘Well, what do we do now?’ ” Dr. Cannon’s team is addressing the issue with an algorithm-based risk management program with prospective enrollment. They have conducted educational webinars and provided site-specific reports on LDL status among patients at each center compared to others, and hope that information will improve compliance. In 2020, the group published an interim analysis of the first 5,000 enrollees, and Dr. Cannon expects to finish that study by the end of the year.

Dr. Navar agreed that physicians need to do a better job of testing LDL-C levels after treatment to identify patients who require more aggressive therapy. That can be deferred in some primary prevention patients with high LDL-C but normal particle numbers as measured with ApoB. “But in those at high risk for disease and those with established CVD who are not at goal, as long as they don’t have a life-limiting condition, we should always up-titrate therapy. It’s one of the safest, most effective ways to lower cardiovascular risk,” said Dr. Navar.

Key study results

The prospective study included 5,006 patients at 119 centers with a mean age of 68 years. About 40% were women, and 86.1% were White. All had ASCVD and LDL levels of at least 70 mg/dL. After 2 years, 17% had undergone intensification of lipid-lowering therapy (LLT). Among patients with LDL-C levels ≥ 100 mg/dL, 22% underwent LLT intensification, compared with 14% of patients with LDL-C levels of 70-99 mg/dL.

The vast majority, 92%, of patients who underwent LLT via addition of PCSK9 inhibitors were still taking the drug after 2 years.

Three-quarters (3,768) had lipid level measurements at least once during follow-up, and median LDL-C levels dropped from 120 to 95 mg/dL in the ≥100-mg/dL cohort (P < .001), and from 82 to 77 mg/dL in the 70- to 99-mg/dL cohort (P <. 001). There was no significant difference in the median values in the patients on PCSK9 inhibitors.

In all, 21% of the ≥100-mg/dL cohort achieved LDL-C levels <70 mg/dL at 2 years, versus 34% in the 77- to 99-mg/dL cohort and 52% of patients taking PCSK9 inhibitors.

Patients seen at teaching hospitals were more likely to undergo LLT intensification compared to nonteaching hospitals (25% versus 17%; P < .001), as were those where lipid protocols were in place (22% versus 15%; P < .001), and those treated in cardiology (22%) compared to treatment in internal or family medicine (12%; P <.001). The study was published online June 16 in JAMA Cardiology.

Dr. Cannon, Dr. Navar, and Dr. Robinson disclosed ties with Amgen, which funded the study, and other companies.

Among patients with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD), 2 years after release of treat-to-target guidelines from the American Heart Association and the European Society of Cardiology and European Atherosclerosis Society, most patients with LDL cholesterol higher than 70 mg/dL did not receive intensification of therapy, and two-thirds continued to have LDL levels above that level, according to a prospective registry study.

Both guidelines recommend driving LDL-C levels to 50% or below of baseline levels; results from the Getting to an Improved Understanding of Low-Density Lipoprotein Cholesterol and Dyslipidemia Management (GOULD) registry suggest this is rarely achieved. “Unfortunately it’s not a total surprise, but it’s disappointing,” said Christopher Cannon, MD, the study’s lead author.

“Therapeutic inertia seems to be the rule in clinical practice,” said Jennifer G. Robinson, MD, MPH, who was asked to comment on the study. Dr. Robinson is professor epidemiology and cardiology at the University of Iowa, Iowa City.

Patients hesitant

Changes in practice following guidelines can often be slow, but in this case may have been complicated by the fact that statins have a reputation for causing side effects, so some patients may be refusing treatment based on what they’ve seen on the Internet. Even though the study looked at all lipid-lowering agents, the misinformation around statins may be spilling over, according to Dr. Cannon. “There’s in general so much misinformation around COVID and every other topic in the world. That makes people question what is real [about] anything,” said Dr. Cannon, a cardiologist at Brigham and Women’s hospital and professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, both in Boston.

Patient characteristics may partly explain slow uptake. “Clinicians may not think further LDL-C lowering is a high enough priority in terms of potential benefit for a given patient in light of the effort being expended to take care of all their other issues and chronic health problems. If the clinician does bring it up to the patient, there may be barriers in terms of additional medication burden, cost, or acquisition issues,” said Dr. Robinson.

The answer may be better evidence and a more personalized approach. Clinical trials that explore defined patient populations could convince patients of a benefit, and payers to reimburse, according to Dr. Robinson.
 

Changing guidance

Another complication is that both the guidelines and the field are rapidly changing. The 2013 AHA guidelines did not include a treatment to goal and focused instead on use of high-dose statins. But the 2018 update reversed course after randomized studies demonstrated a benefit to treating to target. The researchers found no increase in the frequency of treating to target after the release of the 2018 guidelines. “Publication and announcement of guidelines doesn’t mean that people are getting treated better. We really have to implement them,” said Dr. Cannon.

On a positive note, the GOULD researchers found high acceptance of the new proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 serine protease (PCSK9) inhibitors, with over 90% of patients continuing those medications after 2 years. “That’s nice and high. If people do get onto the very intensive lipid-lowing therapies, they tend to stay on them,” said Dr. Cannon.
 

What’s next

Still, the lack of intensification is concerning, and the findings led to some consternation in Twitter exchanges, said Dr. Cannon. “People posted ‘Well, what do we do now?’ ” Dr. Cannon’s team is addressing the issue with an algorithm-based risk management program with prospective enrollment. They have conducted educational webinars and provided site-specific reports on LDL status among patients at each center compared to others, and hope that information will improve compliance. In 2020, the group published an interim analysis of the first 5,000 enrollees, and Dr. Cannon expects to finish that study by the end of the year.

Dr. Navar agreed that physicians need to do a better job of testing LDL-C levels after treatment to identify patients who require more aggressive therapy. That can be deferred in some primary prevention patients with high LDL-C but normal particle numbers as measured with ApoB. “But in those at high risk for disease and those with established CVD who are not at goal, as long as they don’t have a life-limiting condition, we should always up-titrate therapy. It’s one of the safest, most effective ways to lower cardiovascular risk,” said Dr. Navar.

Key study results

The prospective study included 5,006 patients at 119 centers with a mean age of 68 years. About 40% were women, and 86.1% were White. All had ASCVD and LDL levels of at least 70 mg/dL. After 2 years, 17% had undergone intensification of lipid-lowering therapy (LLT). Among patients with LDL-C levels ≥ 100 mg/dL, 22% underwent LLT intensification, compared with 14% of patients with LDL-C levels of 70-99 mg/dL.

The vast majority, 92%, of patients who underwent LLT via addition of PCSK9 inhibitors were still taking the drug after 2 years.

Three-quarters (3,768) had lipid level measurements at least once during follow-up, and median LDL-C levels dropped from 120 to 95 mg/dL in the ≥100-mg/dL cohort (P < .001), and from 82 to 77 mg/dL in the 70- to 99-mg/dL cohort (P <. 001). There was no significant difference in the median values in the patients on PCSK9 inhibitors.

In all, 21% of the ≥100-mg/dL cohort achieved LDL-C levels <70 mg/dL at 2 years, versus 34% in the 77- to 99-mg/dL cohort and 52% of patients taking PCSK9 inhibitors.

Patients seen at teaching hospitals were more likely to undergo LLT intensification compared to nonteaching hospitals (25% versus 17%; P < .001), as were those where lipid protocols were in place (22% versus 15%; P < .001), and those treated in cardiology (22%) compared to treatment in internal or family medicine (12%; P <.001). The study was published online June 16 in JAMA Cardiology.

Dr. Cannon, Dr. Navar, and Dr. Robinson disclosed ties with Amgen, which funded the study, and other companies.

Statin therapy likely didn’t lead to dementia or even mild cognitive impairment (MCI) in older patients taking the drugs for cardiovascular (CV) primary prevention in a post hoc analysis of a trial that required normal cognitive ability for entry.

Nor did statins, whether lipophilic or hydrophilic, appear to influence changes in cognition or affect separate domains of mental performance, such as memory, language ability, or executive function, over the trial’s follow-up, which averaged almost 5 years.

Although such findings aren’t novel – they are consistent with observations from a number of earlier studies – the new analysis included a possible signal for a statin association with new-onset dementia in a subgroup of more than 18,000 patients. Researchers attribute the retrospective finding, from a trial not designed to explore the issue, to confounding or chance.

Still, the adjusted risk for dementia seemed to go up by a third among statin users who at baseline placed in the lowest quartile for cognitive function, based on a composite test score, in the ASPREE trial, a test of primary-prevention low-dose aspirin in patients 65 or older. The better the baseline cognitive score by quartile, the lower the risk for dementia ( interaction P < .001).

The bottom-quartile association of statins with dementia was driven by new diagnoses of Alzheimer’s disease, as opposed to the study’s other “mixed presentation” dementia subtype, wrote the authors of analysis, published June 21, 2021, in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology), led by Zhen Zhou, PhD, Menzies Institute for Medical Research, University of Tasmania, Hobart, Australia.

“I wouldn’t overinterpret that,” said senior author Mark R. Nelson, MBBS, PhD, of the same institution. Indeed, it should be “reassuring” for physicians prescribing statins to older patients that there was no overall statin effect on cognition or new-onset dementia, he said in an interview.

“This is a post hoc analysis within a dataset, although a very-high-quality dataset, it must be said.” The patients were prospectively followed for a range of cognition domains, and the results were adjudicated, Dr. Nelson observed. Although the question of statins and dementia risk is thought to be largely settled, the analysis “was just too tempting not to do.”

On the basis of the current analysis and the bulk of preceding evidence, “lipid lowering in the short term does not appear to result in improvement or deterioration of cognition irrespective of baseline LDL cholesterol levels and medication used,” Christie M. Ballantyne, MD, and Vijay Nambi, MD, PhD, both from Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, wrote in an accompanying editorial.

The current study “provides additional information that the lipo- or hydrophilicity of the statin does not affect changes in cognition. However, the potential increased risk for Alzheimer’s disease, especially among patients with baseline cognitive impairment, requires further investigation.”

The current analysis is reassuring that the likelihood of such statin effects on cognition “is vanishingly small,” Neil J. Stone MD, Northwestern University, Chicago, said in an interview. In fact, its primary finding of no such association “best summarizes what we know in 2021 about statin therapy” after exploration of the issue in a number of prospective trials and systematic reviews, said Dr. Stone, who was not a coauthor on the report.

The observed interaction between statin use and baseline neurocognitive ability “is hypothesis raising at best. It should be explored in randomized, controlled trials that can look at this question in an unbiased manner,” he agreed.

If patients believe or suspect that a statin is causing symptoms that suggest cognitive dysfunction, “what they really need to do is to stop it for 3 weeks and check out other causes. And in rechallenging, the guidelines say, if they think that it’s causing a memory problem that occurs anecdotally, then they can be given another statin, usually, which doesn’t cause it.”

ASPREE compared daily low-dose aspirin with placebo in a community-based older population numbering about 19,000 in Australia and the United States. Patients were initially without known CV disease, dementia, or physical disabilities. It did not randomize patients by statin therapy.

Of note, entry to the trial required a score of at least 78 on the Modified Mini-Mental State Examination (3MS), corresponding to normal cognition.

Aspirin showed no significant benefit for disability-free survival, an endpoint that included death and dementia, or CV events over a median of 4.7 years. It was associated with slightly more cases of major hemorrhage, as previously reported.

A subsequent ASPREE analysis suggested that the aspirin had no effect on risks of mild cognitive impairment, cognitive decline, or dementia.

Of the 18,846 patients in the current post hoc analysis, the average age of the patients was 74 years, and 56.4% were women; 31.3% were taking statins at baseline. The incidence of dementia per 1,000 person-years for those taking statins in comparison with those not taking statins was 6.91 and 6.48, respectively. Any cognitive changes were tracked by the 3MS and three other validated tests in different domains of cognition, with results contributing to the composite score.

The corresponding incidence of dementia considered probable Alzheimer’s disease was 2.97 and 2.65 for those receiving versus not receiving statins, respectively. The incidence of dementia with mixed presentation was 3.94 and 3.84, respectively.

There were no significant differences in risk for dementia overall or for either dementia subtype in multivariate analyses. Adjustments included demographics, CV lifestyle risk factors, family medical history, including dementia, ASPREE randomization group, and individual scores on the four tests of cognition.

Results for development of MCI mirrored those for dementia, as did results stratified for baseline lipids and for use of lipophilic statins, such as atorvastatin or simvastatin versus hydrophilic statins, including pravastatin and rosuvastatin.

Significant interactions were observed between composite cognitive scores and statin therapy at baseline; as scores increased, indicating better cognitive performance, the risks for dementia and its subtypes went down. Statins were associated with incident dementia at the lowest cognitive performance quartile.

That association is probably a function of the cohort’s advanced age, Dr. Nelson said. “If you get into old age, and you’ve got high cognitive scores, you’ve probably got protective factors. That’s how I would interpret that.”

Dr. Ballantyne and Dr. Nambi also emphasized the difficulties of controlling for potential biases even with extensive covariate adjustments. The statin dosages at which patients were treated were not part of the analysis, “and achieved LDL [cholesterol levels over the study period were not known,” they wrote.

“Furthermore, patients who were treated with statins were more likely to have diabetes, hypertension, chronic kidney disease, and obesity, all of which are known to increase risk for cognitive decline, and, as might have been predicted, statin users therefore had significantly lower scores for global cognition and episodic memory.”

Dr. Nelson pointed to an ongoing prospective atorvastatin trial that includes dementia in its primary endpoint and should be “the definitive study.” STAREE (Statin Therapy for Reducing Events in the Elderly) is running throughout Australia with a projected enrollment of 18,000 and primary completion by the end of 2022. “We’ve already enrolled 8,000 patients.”

Less far along is the PREVENTABLE (Pragmatic Evaluation of Events and Benefits of Lipid-Lowering in Older Adults) trial, based in the United States and also randomizing to atorvastatin or placebo, that will have an estimated 20,000 older patients and completion in 5 years. The primary endpoint is new dementia or persistent disability.

Both trials “are powered to enable firm conclusions concerning any statin effects,” said Dr. Ballantyne and Dr. Nambi. “In the meantime, practicing clinicians can have confidence and share with their patients that short-term lipid-lowering therapy in older patients, including with statins, is unlikely to have a major impact on cognition.”

ASPREE was supported by grants from the U.S. National Institute on Aging and the National Cancer Institute and the National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia, by Monash University, and by the Victorian Cancer Agency. Dr. Nelson reported receiving honoraria from Sanofi and Amgen; support from Bayer for ASPREE; and grant support for STAREE. Disclosures for the other authors are in the report. Dr. Ballantyne disclosed grant and research support from Abbott Diagnostic, Akcea, Amgen, Esperion, Ionis, Novartis, Regeneron, and Roche Diagnostics; and consulting for Abbott Diagnostics, Althera, Amarin, Amgen, Arrowhead, AstraZeneca, Corvidia, Denka Seiken, Esperion, Genentech, Gilead, Matinas BioPharma, New Amsterdam, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Pfizer, Regeneron, Roche Diagnostics, and Sanofi-Synthelabo. Dr. Nambi is a coinvestigator on a provisional patent along with Baylor College of Medicine and Roche on the use of biomarkers to predict heart failure, and a site principal investigator for studies sponsored by Amgen and Merck. Dr. Stone had no disclosures.

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

Statin therapy likely didn’t lead to dementia or even mild cognitive impairment (MCI) in older patients taking the drugs for cardiovascular (CV) primary prevention in a post hoc analysis of a trial that required normal cognitive ability for entry.

Nor did statins, whether lipophilic or hydrophilic, appear to influence changes in cognition or affect separate domains of mental performance, such as memory, language ability, or executive function, over the trial’s follow-up, which averaged almost 5 years.

Although such findings aren’t novel – they are consistent with observations from a number of earlier studies – the new analysis included a possible signal for a statin association with new-onset dementia in a subgroup of more than 18,000 patients. Researchers attribute the retrospective finding, from a trial not designed to explore the issue, to confounding or chance.

Still, the adjusted risk for dementia seemed to go up by a third among statin users who at baseline placed in the lowest quartile for cognitive function, based on a composite test score, in the ASPREE trial, a test of primary-prevention low-dose aspirin in patients 65 or older. The better the baseline cognitive score by quartile, the lower the risk for dementia ( interaction P < .001).

The bottom-quartile association of statins with dementia was driven by new diagnoses of Alzheimer’s disease, as opposed to the study’s other “mixed presentation” dementia subtype, wrote the authors of analysis, published June 21, 2021, in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology), led by Zhen Zhou, PhD, Menzies Institute for Medical Research, University of Tasmania, Hobart, Australia.

“I wouldn’t overinterpret that,” said senior author Mark R. Nelson, MBBS, PhD, of the same institution. Indeed, it should be “reassuring” for physicians prescribing statins to older patients that there was no overall statin effect on cognition or new-onset dementia, he said in an interview.

“This is a post hoc analysis within a dataset, although a very-high-quality dataset, it must be said.” The patients were prospectively followed for a range of cognition domains, and the results were adjudicated, Dr. Nelson observed. Although the question of statins and dementia risk is thought to be largely settled, the analysis “was just too tempting not to do.”

On the basis of the current analysis and the bulk of preceding evidence, “lipid lowering in the short term does not appear to result in improvement or deterioration of cognition irrespective of baseline LDL cholesterol levels and medication used,” Christie M. Ballantyne, MD, and Vijay Nambi, MD, PhD, both from Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, wrote in an accompanying editorial.

The current study “provides additional information that the lipo- or hydrophilicity of the statin does not affect changes in cognition. However, the potential increased risk for Alzheimer’s disease, especially among patients with baseline cognitive impairment, requires further investigation.”

The current analysis is reassuring that the likelihood of such statin effects on cognition “is vanishingly small,” Neil J. Stone MD, Northwestern University, Chicago, said in an interview. In fact, its primary finding of no such association “best summarizes what we know in 2021 about statin therapy” after exploration of the issue in a number of prospective trials and systematic reviews, said Dr. Stone, who was not a coauthor on the report.

The observed interaction between statin use and baseline neurocognitive ability “is hypothesis raising at best. It should be explored in randomized, controlled trials that can look at this question in an unbiased manner,” he agreed.

If patients believe or suspect that a statin is causing symptoms that suggest cognitive dysfunction, “what they really need to do is to stop it for 3 weeks and check out other causes. And in rechallenging, the guidelines say, if they think that it’s causing a memory problem that occurs anecdotally, then they can be given another statin, usually, which doesn’t cause it.”

ASPREE compared daily low-dose aspirin with placebo in a community-based older population numbering about 19,000 in Australia and the United States. Patients were initially without known CV disease, dementia, or physical disabilities. It did not randomize patients by statin therapy.

Of note, entry to the trial required a score of at least 78 on the Modified Mini-Mental State Examination (3MS), corresponding to normal cognition.

Aspirin showed no significant benefit for disability-free survival, an endpoint that included death and dementia, or CV events over a median of 4.7 years. It was associated with slightly more cases of major hemorrhage, as previously reported.

A subsequent ASPREE analysis suggested that the aspirin had no effect on risks of mild cognitive impairment, cognitive decline, or dementia.

Of the 18,846 patients in the current post hoc analysis, the average age of the patients was 74 years, and 56.4% were women; 31.3% were taking statins at baseline. The incidence of dementia per 1,000 person-years for those taking statins in comparison with those not taking statins was 6.91 and 6.48, respectively. Any cognitive changes were tracked by the 3MS and three other validated tests in different domains of cognition, with results contributing to the composite score.

The corresponding incidence of dementia considered probable Alzheimer’s disease was 2.97 and 2.65 for those receiving versus not receiving statins, respectively. The incidence of dementia with mixed presentation was 3.94 and 3.84, respectively.

There were no significant differences in risk for dementia overall or for either dementia subtype in multivariate analyses. Adjustments included demographics, CV lifestyle risk factors, family medical history, including dementia, ASPREE randomization group, and individual scores on the four tests of cognition.

Results for development of MCI mirrored those for dementia, as did results stratified for baseline lipids and for use of lipophilic statins, such as atorvastatin or simvastatin versus hydrophilic statins, including pravastatin and rosuvastatin.

Significant interactions were observed between composite cognitive scores and statin therapy at baseline; as scores increased, indicating better cognitive performance, the risks for dementia and its subtypes went down. Statins were associated with incident dementia at the lowest cognitive performance quartile.

That association is probably a function of the cohort’s advanced age, Dr. Nelson said. “If you get into old age, and you’ve got high cognitive scores, you’ve probably got protective factors. That’s how I would interpret that.”

Dr. Ballantyne and Dr. Nambi also emphasized the difficulties of controlling for potential biases even with extensive covariate adjustments. The statin dosages at which patients were treated were not part of the analysis, “and achieved LDL [cholesterol levels over the study period were not known,” they wrote.

“Furthermore, patients who were treated with statins were more likely to have diabetes, hypertension, chronic kidney disease, and obesity, all of which are known to increase risk for cognitive decline, and, as might have been predicted, statin users therefore had significantly lower scores for global cognition and episodic memory.”

Dr. Nelson pointed to an ongoing prospective atorvastatin trial that includes dementia in its primary endpoint and should be “the definitive study.” STAREE (Statin Therapy for Reducing Events in the Elderly) is running throughout Australia with a projected enrollment of 18,000 and primary completion by the end of 2022. “We’ve already enrolled 8,000 patients.”

Less far along is the PREVENTABLE (Pragmatic Evaluation of Events and Benefits of Lipid-Lowering in Older Adults) trial, based in the United States and also randomizing to atorvastatin or placebo, that will have an estimated 20,000 older patients and completion in 5 years. The primary endpoint is new dementia or persistent disability.

Both trials “are powered to enable firm conclusions concerning any statin effects,” said Dr. Ballantyne and Dr. Nambi. “In the meantime, practicing clinicians can have confidence and share with their patients that short-term lipid-lowering therapy in older patients, including with statins, is unlikely to have a major impact on cognition.”

ASPREE was supported by grants from the U.S. National Institute on Aging and the National Cancer Institute and the National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia, by Monash University, and by the Victorian Cancer Agency. Dr. Nelson reported receiving honoraria from Sanofi and Amgen; support from Bayer for ASPREE; and grant support for STAREE. Disclosures for the other authors are in the report. Dr. Ballantyne disclosed grant and research support from Abbott Diagnostic, Akcea, Amgen, Esperion, Ionis, Novartis, Regeneron, and Roche Diagnostics; and consulting for Abbott Diagnostics, Althera, Amarin, Amgen, Arrowhead, AstraZeneca, Corvidia, Denka Seiken, Esperion, Genentech, Gilead, Matinas BioPharma, New Amsterdam, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Pfizer, Regeneron, Roche Diagnostics, and Sanofi-Synthelabo. Dr. Nambi is a coinvestigator on a provisional patent along with Baylor College of Medicine and Roche on the use of biomarkers to predict heart failure, and a site principal investigator for studies sponsored by Amgen and Merck. Dr. Stone had no disclosures.

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

Statin therapy likely didn’t lead to dementia or even mild cognitive impairment (MCI) in older patients taking the drugs for cardiovascular (CV) primary prevention in a post hoc analysis of a trial that required normal cognitive ability for entry.

Nor did statins, whether lipophilic or hydrophilic, appear to influence changes in cognition or affect separate domains of mental performance, such as memory, language ability, or executive function, over the trial’s follow-up, which averaged almost 5 years.

Although such findings aren’t novel – they are consistent with observations from a number of earlier studies – the new analysis included a possible signal for a statin association with new-onset dementia in a subgroup of more than 18,000 patients. Researchers attribute the retrospective finding, from a trial not designed to explore the issue, to confounding or chance.

Still, the adjusted risk for dementia seemed to go up by a third among statin users who at baseline placed in the lowest quartile for cognitive function, based on a composite test score, in the ASPREE trial, a test of primary-prevention low-dose aspirin in patients 65 or older. The better the baseline cognitive score by quartile, the lower the risk for dementia ( interaction P < .001).

The bottom-quartile association of statins with dementia was driven by new diagnoses of Alzheimer’s disease, as opposed to the study’s other “mixed presentation” dementia subtype, wrote the authors of analysis, published June 21, 2021, in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology), led by Zhen Zhou, PhD, Menzies Institute for Medical Research, University of Tasmania, Hobart, Australia.

“I wouldn’t overinterpret that,” said senior author Mark R. Nelson, MBBS, PhD, of the same institution. Indeed, it should be “reassuring” for physicians prescribing statins to older patients that there was no overall statin effect on cognition or new-onset dementia, he said in an interview.

“This is a post hoc analysis within a dataset, although a very-high-quality dataset, it must be said.” The patients were prospectively followed for a range of cognition domains, and the results were adjudicated, Dr. Nelson observed. Although the question of statins and dementia risk is thought to be largely settled, the analysis “was just too tempting not to do.”

On the basis of the current analysis and the bulk of preceding evidence, “lipid lowering in the short term does not appear to result in improvement or deterioration of cognition irrespective of baseline LDL cholesterol levels and medication used,” Christie M. Ballantyne, MD, and Vijay Nambi, MD, PhD, both from Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, wrote in an accompanying editorial.

The current study “provides additional information that the lipo- or hydrophilicity of the statin does not affect changes in cognition. However, the potential increased risk for Alzheimer’s disease, especially among patients with baseline cognitive impairment, requires further investigation.”

The current analysis is reassuring that the likelihood of such statin effects on cognition “is vanishingly small,” Neil J. Stone MD, Northwestern University, Chicago, said in an interview. In fact, its primary finding of no such association “best summarizes what we know in 2021 about statin therapy” after exploration of the issue in a number of prospective trials and systematic reviews, said Dr. Stone, who was not a coauthor on the report.

The observed interaction between statin use and baseline neurocognitive ability “is hypothesis raising at best. It should be explored in randomized, controlled trials that can look at this question in an unbiased manner,” he agreed.

If patients believe or suspect that a statin is causing symptoms that suggest cognitive dysfunction, “what they really need to do is to stop it for 3 weeks and check out other causes. And in rechallenging, the guidelines say, if they think that it’s causing a memory problem that occurs anecdotally, then they can be given another statin, usually, which doesn’t cause it.”

ASPREE compared daily low-dose aspirin with placebo in a community-based older population numbering about 19,000 in Australia and the United States. Patients were initially without known CV disease, dementia, or physical disabilities. It did not randomize patients by statin therapy.

Of note, entry to the trial required a score of at least 78 on the Modified Mini-Mental State Examination (3MS), corresponding to normal cognition.

Aspirin showed no significant benefit for disability-free survival, an endpoint that included death and dementia, or CV events over a median of 4.7 years. It was associated with slightly more cases of major hemorrhage, as previously reported.

A subsequent ASPREE analysis suggested that the aspirin had no effect on risks of mild cognitive impairment, cognitive decline, or dementia.

Of the 18,846 patients in the current post hoc analysis, the average age of the patients was 74 years, and 56.4% were women; 31.3% were taking statins at baseline. The incidence of dementia per 1,000 person-years for those taking statins in comparison with those not taking statins was 6.91 and 6.48, respectively. Any cognitive changes were tracked by the 3MS and three other validated tests in different domains of cognition, with results contributing to the composite score.

The corresponding incidence of dementia considered probable Alzheimer’s disease was 2.97 and 2.65 for those receiving versus not receiving statins, respectively. The incidence of dementia with mixed presentation was 3.94 and 3.84, respectively.

There were no significant differences in risk for dementia overall or for either dementia subtype in multivariate analyses. Adjustments included demographics, CV lifestyle risk factors, family medical history, including dementia, ASPREE randomization group, and individual scores on the four tests of cognition.

Results for development of MCI mirrored those for dementia, as did results stratified for baseline lipids and for use of lipophilic statins, such as atorvastatin or simvastatin versus hydrophilic statins, including pravastatin and rosuvastatin.

Significant interactions were observed between composite cognitive scores and statin therapy at baseline; as scores increased, indicating better cognitive performance, the risks for dementia and its subtypes went down. Statins were associated with incident dementia at the lowest cognitive performance quartile.

That association is probably a function of the cohort’s advanced age, Dr. Nelson said. “If you get into old age, and you’ve got high cognitive scores, you’ve probably got protective factors. That’s how I would interpret that.”

Dr. Ballantyne and Dr. Nambi also emphasized the difficulties of controlling for potential biases even with extensive covariate adjustments. The statin dosages at which patients were treated were not part of the analysis, “and achieved LDL [cholesterol levels over the study period were not known,” they wrote.

“Furthermore, patients who were treated with statins were more likely to have diabetes, hypertension, chronic kidney disease, and obesity, all of which are known to increase risk for cognitive decline, and, as might have been predicted, statin users therefore had significantly lower scores for global cognition and episodic memory.”

Dr. Nelson pointed to an ongoing prospective atorvastatin trial that includes dementia in its primary endpoint and should be “the definitive study.” STAREE (Statin Therapy for Reducing Events in the Elderly) is running throughout Australia with a projected enrollment of 18,000 and primary completion by the end of 2022. “We’ve already enrolled 8,000 patients.”

Less far along is the PREVENTABLE (Pragmatic Evaluation of Events and Benefits of Lipid-Lowering in Older Adults) trial, based in the United States and also randomizing to atorvastatin or placebo, that will have an estimated 20,000 older patients and completion in 5 years. The primary endpoint is new dementia or persistent disability.

Both trials “are powered to enable firm conclusions concerning any statin effects,” said Dr. Ballantyne and Dr. Nambi. “In the meantime, practicing clinicians can have confidence and share with their patients that short-term lipid-lowering therapy in older patients, including with statins, is unlikely to have a major impact on cognition.”

ASPREE was supported by grants from the U.S. National Institute on Aging and the National Cancer Institute and the National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia, by Monash University, and by the Victorian Cancer Agency. Dr. Nelson reported receiving honoraria from Sanofi and Amgen; support from Bayer for ASPREE; and grant support for STAREE. Disclosures for the other authors are in the report. Dr. Ballantyne disclosed grant and research support from Abbott Diagnostic, Akcea, Amgen, Esperion, Ionis, Novartis, Regeneron, and Roche Diagnostics; and consulting for Abbott Diagnostics, Althera, Amarin, Amgen, Arrowhead, AstraZeneca, Corvidia, Denka Seiken, Esperion, Genentech, Gilead, Matinas BioPharma, New Amsterdam, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Pfizer, Regeneron, Roche Diagnostics, and Sanofi-Synthelabo. Dr. Nambi is a coinvestigator on a provisional patent along with Baylor College of Medicine and Roche on the use of biomarkers to predict heart failure, and a site principal investigator for studies sponsored by Amgen and Merck. Dr. Stone had no disclosures.

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

Type 2 diabetes patients hospitalized for worsening heart failure who took sotagliflozin remained alive and out of the hospital for more days after discharge than ones who took placebo, according to a new analysis.

The outcome measure –days alive and out of the hospital – may be a meaningful, patient-centered way of capturing disease burden, the researchers wrote in their paper, published in Annals of Internal Medicine.

“The question was: Can we keep patients alive and out of the hospital for any reason, accounting for the duration of each hospitalization?” author Michael Szarek, PhD, a visiting professor in the division of cardiology at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora, said in an interview.

“For every 100 days of follow-up, patients in the sotagliflozin group were alive and out of the hospital 3% more days in relative terms or 2.9 days in absolute terms than those in the placebo group (91.8 vs. 88.9 days),” the researchers reported in their analysis of data from the SOLOIST-WHF trial.

“If you translate that to over the course of a year, that’s more than 10 days,” said Dr. Szarek, who is also a faculty member of CPC Clinical Research, an academic research organization affiliated with the University of Colorado.

Most patients in both groups survived to the end of the study without hospitalization, according to the paper.

Sotagliflozin, a sodium-glucose cotransporter 1 and SGLT2 inhibitor, is not approved in the United States. In 2019, the Food and Drug Administration rejected sotagliflozin as an adjunct to insulin for the treatment of type 1 diabetes after members of an advisory committee expressed concerns about an increased risk for diabetic ketoacidosis with the drug.
 

Methods and results

To examine whether sotagliflozin increased days alive and out of the hospital in the SOLOIST-WHF trial, Dr. Szarek and colleagues analyzed data from this randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study. The trial’s primary results were published in the New England Journal of Medicine in January 2021. Researchers conducted SOLOIST-WHF at more than 300 sites in 32 countries. The trial included 1,222 patients with type 2 diabetes and reduced or preserved ejection fraction who were recently hospitalized for worsening heart failure.

In the new analysis the researchers looked at hospitalizations for any reason and the duration of hospital admissions after randomization. They analyzed days alive and out of the hospital using prespecified models.

Similar proportions of patients who received sotagliflozin and placebo were hospitalized at least once (38.5% vs. 41.4%) during a median follow-up of 9 months. Fewer patients who received sotagliflozin were hospitalized more than once (16.3% vs. 22.1%). In all, 64 patients in the sotagliflozin group and 76 patients in the placebo group died.

The reason for each hospitalization was unspecified, except for cases of heart failure, the authors noted. About 62% of hospitalizations during the trial were for reasons other than heart failure.
 

Outside expert cites similarities to initial trial

The results for days alive and out of the hospital are “not particularly surprising given the previous publication” of the trial’s primary results, but the new analysis provides a “different view of outcomes that might be clinically meaningful for patients,” commented Frank Brosius, MD, a professor of medicine at the University of Arizona, Tucson.

The SOLOIST-WHF trial indicated that doctors may be able to effectively treat patients with relatively new heart failure with sotagliflozin as long as patients are relatively stable, said Dr. Brosius, who coauthored an editorial in the New England Journal of Medicine that accompanied the initial results from the SOLOIST-WHF trial. It appears that previously reported benefits with regard to heart failure outcomes “showed up in these other indicators” in the secondary analysis.

Still, the effect sizes in the new analysis were relatively small and “probably more studies will be necessary” to examine these end points, he added.

SOLOIST-WHF was funded by Sanofi at initiation and by Lexicon Pharmaceuticals at completion. Dr. Szarek disclosed grants from Lexicon and grants and personal fees from Sanofi, as well as personal fees from other companies. His coauthors included employees of Lexicon and other researchers with financial ties to Lexicon and other pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Brosius disclosed personal fees from the American Diabetes Association and is a member of the Diabetic Kidney Disease Collaborative task force for the American Society of Nephrology that is broadly advocating the use of SGLT2 inhibitors by patients with diabetic kidney diseases. He also has participated in an advisory group for treatment of diabetic kidney disease for Gilead.

jremaly@mdedge.com

Type 2 diabetes patients hospitalized for worsening heart failure who took sotagliflozin remained alive and out of the hospital for more days after discharge than ones who took placebo, according to a new analysis.

The outcome measure –days alive and out of the hospital – may be a meaningful, patient-centered way of capturing disease burden, the researchers wrote in their paper, published in Annals of Internal Medicine.

“The question was: Can we keep patients alive and out of the hospital for any reason, accounting for the duration of each hospitalization?” author Michael Szarek, PhD, a visiting professor in the division of cardiology at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora, said in an interview.

“For every 100 days of follow-up, patients in the sotagliflozin group were alive and out of the hospital 3% more days in relative terms or 2.9 days in absolute terms than those in the placebo group (91.8 vs. 88.9 days),” the researchers reported in their analysis of data from the SOLOIST-WHF trial.

“If you translate that to over the course of a year, that’s more than 10 days,” said Dr. Szarek, who is also a faculty member of CPC Clinical Research, an academic research organization affiliated with the University of Colorado.

Most patients in both groups survived to the end of the study without hospitalization, according to the paper.

Sotagliflozin, a sodium-glucose cotransporter 1 and SGLT2 inhibitor, is not approved in the United States. In 2019, the Food and Drug Administration rejected sotagliflozin as an adjunct to insulin for the treatment of type 1 diabetes after members of an advisory committee expressed concerns about an increased risk for diabetic ketoacidosis with the drug.
 

Methods and results

To examine whether sotagliflozin increased days alive and out of the hospital in the SOLOIST-WHF trial, Dr. Szarek and colleagues analyzed data from this randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study. The trial’s primary results were published in the New England Journal of Medicine in January 2021. Researchers conducted SOLOIST-WHF at more than 300 sites in 32 countries. The trial included 1,222 patients with type 2 diabetes and reduced or preserved ejection fraction who were recently hospitalized for worsening heart failure.

In the new analysis the researchers looked at hospitalizations for any reason and the duration of hospital admissions after randomization. They analyzed days alive and out of the hospital using prespecified models.

Similar proportions of patients who received sotagliflozin and placebo were hospitalized at least once (38.5% vs. 41.4%) during a median follow-up of 9 months. Fewer patients who received sotagliflozin were hospitalized more than once (16.3% vs. 22.1%). In all, 64 patients in the sotagliflozin group and 76 patients in the placebo group died.

The reason for each hospitalization was unspecified, except for cases of heart failure, the authors noted. About 62% of hospitalizations during the trial were for reasons other than heart failure.
 

Outside expert cites similarities to initial trial

The results for days alive and out of the hospital are “not particularly surprising given the previous publication” of the trial’s primary results, but the new analysis provides a “different view of outcomes that might be clinically meaningful for patients,” commented Frank Brosius, MD, a professor of medicine at the University of Arizona, Tucson.

The SOLOIST-WHF trial indicated that doctors may be able to effectively treat patients with relatively new heart failure with sotagliflozin as long as patients are relatively stable, said Dr. Brosius, who coauthored an editorial in the New England Journal of Medicine that accompanied the initial results from the SOLOIST-WHF trial. It appears that previously reported benefits with regard to heart failure outcomes “showed up in these other indicators” in the secondary analysis.

Still, the effect sizes in the new analysis were relatively small and “probably more studies will be necessary” to examine these end points, he added.

SOLOIST-WHF was funded by Sanofi at initiation and by Lexicon Pharmaceuticals at completion. Dr. Szarek disclosed grants from Lexicon and grants and personal fees from Sanofi, as well as personal fees from other companies. His coauthors included employees of Lexicon and other researchers with financial ties to Lexicon and other pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Brosius disclosed personal fees from the American Diabetes Association and is a member of the Diabetic Kidney Disease Collaborative task force for the American Society of Nephrology that is broadly advocating the use of SGLT2 inhibitors by patients with diabetic kidney diseases. He also has participated in an advisory group for treatment of diabetic kidney disease for Gilead.

jremaly@mdedge.com

Type 2 diabetes patients hospitalized for worsening heart failure who took sotagliflozin remained alive and out of the hospital for more days after discharge than ones who took placebo, according to a new analysis.

The outcome measure –days alive and out of the hospital – may be a meaningful, patient-centered way of capturing disease burden, the researchers wrote in their paper, published in Annals of Internal Medicine.

“The question was: Can we keep patients alive and out of the hospital for any reason, accounting for the duration of each hospitalization?” author Michael Szarek, PhD, a visiting professor in the division of cardiology at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora, said in an interview.

“For every 100 days of follow-up, patients in the sotagliflozin group were alive and out of the hospital 3% more days in relative terms or 2.9 days in absolute terms than those in the placebo group (91.8 vs. 88.9 days),” the researchers reported in their analysis of data from the SOLOIST-WHF trial.

“If you translate that to over the course of a year, that’s more than 10 days,” said Dr. Szarek, who is also a faculty member of CPC Clinical Research, an academic research organization affiliated with the University of Colorado.

Most patients in both groups survived to the end of the study without hospitalization, according to the paper.

Sotagliflozin, a sodium-glucose cotransporter 1 and SGLT2 inhibitor, is not approved in the United States. In 2019, the Food and Drug Administration rejected sotagliflozin as an adjunct to insulin for the treatment of type 1 diabetes after members of an advisory committee expressed concerns about an increased risk for diabetic ketoacidosis with the drug.
 

Methods and results

To examine whether sotagliflozin increased days alive and out of the hospital in the SOLOIST-WHF trial, Dr. Szarek and colleagues analyzed data from this randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study. The trial’s primary results were published in the New England Journal of Medicine in January 2021. Researchers conducted SOLOIST-WHF at more than 300 sites in 32 countries. The trial included 1,222 patients with type 2 diabetes and reduced or preserved ejection fraction who were recently hospitalized for worsening heart failure.

In the new analysis the researchers looked at hospitalizations for any reason and the duration of hospital admissions after randomization. They analyzed days alive and out of the hospital using prespecified models.

Similar proportions of patients who received sotagliflozin and placebo were hospitalized at least once (38.5% vs. 41.4%) during a median follow-up of 9 months. Fewer patients who received sotagliflozin were hospitalized more than once (16.3% vs. 22.1%). In all, 64 patients in the sotagliflozin group and 76 patients in the placebo group died.

The reason for each hospitalization was unspecified, except for cases of heart failure, the authors noted. About 62% of hospitalizations during the trial were for reasons other than heart failure.
 

Outside expert cites similarities to initial trial

The results for days alive and out of the hospital are “not particularly surprising given the previous publication” of the trial’s primary results, but the new analysis provides a “different view of outcomes that might be clinically meaningful for patients,” commented Frank Brosius, MD, a professor of medicine at the University of Arizona, Tucson.

The SOLOIST-WHF trial indicated that doctors may be able to effectively treat patients with relatively new heart failure with sotagliflozin as long as patients are relatively stable, said Dr. Brosius, who coauthored an editorial in the New England Journal of Medicine that accompanied the initial results from the SOLOIST-WHF trial. It appears that previously reported benefits with regard to heart failure outcomes “showed up in these other indicators” in the secondary analysis.

Still, the effect sizes in the new analysis were relatively small and “probably more studies will be necessary” to examine these end points, he added.

SOLOIST-WHF was funded by Sanofi at initiation and by Lexicon Pharmaceuticals at completion. Dr. Szarek disclosed grants from Lexicon and grants and personal fees from Sanofi, as well as personal fees from other companies. His coauthors included employees of Lexicon and other researchers with financial ties to Lexicon and other pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Brosius disclosed personal fees from the American Diabetes Association and is a member of the Diabetic Kidney Disease Collaborative task force for the American Society of Nephrology that is broadly advocating the use of SGLT2 inhibitors by patients with diabetic kidney diseases. He also has participated in an advisory group for treatment of diabetic kidney disease for Gilead.

jremaly@mdedge.com

There’s abundant evidence linking higher alcohol intake levels to greater stroke risk and, separately, increasing risk for new-onset atrial fibrillation (AFib). Less settled is whether moderate to heavy drinking worsens the risk for stroke in patients already in AFib and whether giving up alcohol can attenuate that risk. A new observational study suggests the answer to both questions is yes.

The risk for ischemic stroke was only around 1% over about 5 years in a Korean nationwide cohort of almost 98,000 patients with new-onset AFib. About half the patients followed were nondrinkers, as they had been before the study, 13% became abstinent soon after their AFib diagnosis, and 36% were currently drinkers.

But stroke risk went up about 30% with “moderate” current alcohol intake, compared with no intake, and by more than 40% for current drinkers reporting “heavy” alcohol intake, researchers found in an adjusted analysis.

However, abstainers who had mild to moderate alcohol-intake levels before their AFib diagnosis “had a similar risk of ischemic stroke as nondrinkers,” write the authors, led by So-Ryoung Lee, MD, PhD, and colleagues, Seoul National University Hospital, Republic of Korea, in their report published June 7 in the European Heart Journal. In a secondary analysis, binge drinking was also independently associated with risk for ischemic stroke.

The findings suggest that “alcohol abstinence after the diagnosis of AFib could reduce the risk of ischemic stroke,” they conclude. “Lifestyle interventions, including attention to alcohol consumption, should be encouraged as part of a comprehensive approach in the management of patients with a new diagnosis of AFib” for lowering the risk for stroke and other clinical outcomes.

“These results are pretty comparable to those obtained in the more general population,” David Conen, MD, MPH, not connected to the analysis, told this news organization.

In the study’s population with new-onset AFib, there is an alcohol-dependent risk for stroke “that goes up with increasing alcohol intake, which is more or less similar to that found without atrial fibrillation in previous studies,” said Dr. Conen, from the Population Health Research Institute, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont.

The study, “which overall I think is very well done,” he said, is noteworthy for also suggesting that binge drinking, which was scrutinized in a secondary analysis, appeared independently to worsen the risk for stroke in its AFib population.

Dr. Conen said the observed 1% overall risk for stroke was very similar to the rate he and his colleagues saw in a recent combined analysis of two European cohorts with AFib that was usually longer standing; the median was 3 years. That analysis, in contrast, showed no significant association between increasing levels of alcohol intake and risk for stroke or systemic embolism.

However, “our confidence limits did not exclude the possibility of a small to moderate association,” he said. Given that, and the current study from Korea, there might indeed be “a weak association between alcohol consumption and stroke” in patients with AFib.

“Their results are just more precise because of the larger sample size. That’s why they were able to show those associations,” said Dr. Conen, who was senior author on the earlier report, which covered a pooled analysis of 3,852 patients with AFib in the BEAT-AF and SWISS-AF cohort studies. It was published January 25 in CMAJ, with lead author Philipp Reddiess, MD, Cardiovascular Research Institute Basel, Switzerland.

The two published studies contrast in other ways that are worth noting and together suggest the stroke rate might have been 1% in both by chance, Dr. Conen said. “The populations were pretty different.”

In the earlier study, for example, the overwhelmingly European patients had more comorbidities and had been in AFib for much longer; their mean age was 71 years; and 84% were on oral anticoagulation (OAC).

In contrast, the Korean cohort averaged 61 years in age and only about 24% were taking oral anticoagulants. Given their distribution of CHA2DS2-VASc scores and mean score of 2.3, more than twice as many should have been on OAC, Dr. Conen speculated. “Even if you take into account that some patients may have contraindications, this is clearly an underanticoagulated population.”

The European cohort might have been “a little bit more representative because atrial fibrillation is a disease of the elderly,” Dr. Conen said, but “the Korean paper has the advantage of being a population-based study.”

It involved 97,869 patients from a Korean national data base who were newly diagnosed with AFib from 2010 to 2016. Of the total, 49,781 (51%) were continuously nondrinkers before and after their diagnosis; 12,789 (13%) abstained from alcohol only after their AFib diagnosis; and 35,299 (36%) were drinkers during the follow-up, either because they continued to drink or newly started after their diagnosis.

Of the cohort, 3,120 were diagnosed with new ischemic stroke over a follow-up of 310,926 person-years, for a rate of 1 per 100 person-years.

The adjusted hazard ratio (HR) for ischemic stroke over a 5-year follow-up, compared with nondrinkers, was:

• 1.127 (95% confidence interval, 1.003-1.266) among abstainers
• 1.280 (95% CI, 1.166-1.405) for current drinkers

The corresponding HR, compared with current drinkers, was:

• 0.781 (95% CI, 0.712-0.858) for nondrinkers
• 0.880 (95% CI, 0.782-0.990) among abstainers

No significant interactions with ischemic stroke risk were observed in groups by sex, age, CHA2DS2-VASc score, or smoking status. The risk rose consistently with current drinking levels.

The overall stroke rate of 1% per year is “very low,” and “the absolute differences are small, even though there is a clear significant trend from nondrinking to drinking,” Dr. Conen said.

However, “the difference becomes more sizable when you compare heavy drinking to abstinence.”

Dr. Lee reports no conflicts of interest; disclosures for the other authors are in their report. Dr. Conen reports receiving speaker fees from Servier Canada; disclosures for the other authors are in their report.

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

There’s abundant evidence linking higher alcohol intake levels to greater stroke risk and, separately, increasing risk for new-onset atrial fibrillation (AFib). Less settled is whether moderate to heavy drinking worsens the risk for stroke in patients already in AFib and whether giving up alcohol can attenuate that risk. A new observational study suggests the answer to both questions is yes.

The risk for ischemic stroke was only around 1% over about 5 years in a Korean nationwide cohort of almost 98,000 patients with new-onset AFib. About half the patients followed were nondrinkers, as they had been before the study, 13% became abstinent soon after their AFib diagnosis, and 36% were currently drinkers.

But stroke risk went up about 30% with “moderate” current alcohol intake, compared with no intake, and by more than 40% for current drinkers reporting “heavy” alcohol intake, researchers found in an adjusted analysis.

However, abstainers who had mild to moderate alcohol-intake levels before their AFib diagnosis “had a similar risk of ischemic stroke as nondrinkers,” write the authors, led by So-Ryoung Lee, MD, PhD, and colleagues, Seoul National University Hospital, Republic of Korea, in their report published June 7 in the European Heart Journal. In a secondary analysis, binge drinking was also independently associated with risk for ischemic stroke.

The findings suggest that “alcohol abstinence after the diagnosis of AFib could reduce the risk of ischemic stroke,” they conclude. “Lifestyle interventions, including attention to alcohol consumption, should be encouraged as part of a comprehensive approach in the management of patients with a new diagnosis of AFib” for lowering the risk for stroke and other clinical outcomes.

“These results are pretty comparable to those obtained in the more general population,” David Conen, MD, MPH, not connected to the analysis, told this news organization.

In the study’s population with new-onset AFib, there is an alcohol-dependent risk for stroke “that goes up with increasing alcohol intake, which is more or less similar to that found without atrial fibrillation in previous studies,” said Dr. Conen, from the Population Health Research Institute, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont.

The study, “which overall I think is very well done,” he said, is noteworthy for also suggesting that binge drinking, which was scrutinized in a secondary analysis, appeared independently to worsen the risk for stroke in its AFib population.

Dr. Conen said the observed 1% overall risk for stroke was very similar to the rate he and his colleagues saw in a recent combined analysis of two European cohorts with AFib that was usually longer standing; the median was 3 years. That analysis, in contrast, showed no significant association between increasing levels of alcohol intake and risk for stroke or systemic embolism.

However, “our confidence limits did not exclude the possibility of a small to moderate association,” he said. Given that, and the current study from Korea, there might indeed be “a weak association between alcohol consumption and stroke” in patients with AFib.

“Their results are just more precise because of the larger sample size. That’s why they were able to show those associations,” said Dr. Conen, who was senior author on the earlier report, which covered a pooled analysis of 3,852 patients with AFib in the BEAT-AF and SWISS-AF cohort studies. It was published January 25 in CMAJ, with lead author Philipp Reddiess, MD, Cardiovascular Research Institute Basel, Switzerland.

The two published studies contrast in other ways that are worth noting and together suggest the stroke rate might have been 1% in both by chance, Dr. Conen said. “The populations were pretty different.”

In the earlier study, for example, the overwhelmingly European patients had more comorbidities and had been in AFib for much longer; their mean age was 71 years; and 84% were on oral anticoagulation (OAC).

In contrast, the Korean cohort averaged 61 years in age and only about 24% were taking oral anticoagulants. Given their distribution of CHA2DS2-VASc scores and mean score of 2.3, more than twice as many should have been on OAC, Dr. Conen speculated. “Even if you take into account that some patients may have contraindications, this is clearly an underanticoagulated population.”

The European cohort might have been “a little bit more representative because atrial fibrillation is a disease of the elderly,” Dr. Conen said, but “the Korean paper has the advantage of being a population-based study.”

It involved 97,869 patients from a Korean national data base who were newly diagnosed with AFib from 2010 to 2016. Of the total, 49,781 (51%) were continuously nondrinkers before and after their diagnosis; 12,789 (13%) abstained from alcohol only after their AFib diagnosis; and 35,299 (36%) were drinkers during the follow-up, either because they continued to drink or newly started after their diagnosis.

Of the cohort, 3,120 were diagnosed with new ischemic stroke over a follow-up of 310,926 person-years, for a rate of 1 per 100 person-years.

The adjusted hazard ratio (HR) for ischemic stroke over a 5-year follow-up, compared with nondrinkers, was:

• 1.127 (95% confidence interval, 1.003-1.266) among abstainers
• 1.280 (95% CI, 1.166-1.405) for current drinkers

The corresponding HR, compared with current drinkers, was:

• 0.781 (95% CI, 0.712-0.858) for nondrinkers
• 0.880 (95% CI, 0.782-0.990) among abstainers

No significant interactions with ischemic stroke risk were observed in groups by sex, age, CHA2DS2-VASc score, or smoking status. The risk rose consistently with current drinking levels.

The overall stroke rate of 1% per year is “very low,” and “the absolute differences are small, even though there is a clear significant trend from nondrinking to drinking,” Dr. Conen said.

However, “the difference becomes more sizable when you compare heavy drinking to abstinence.”

Dr. Lee reports no conflicts of interest; disclosures for the other authors are in their report. Dr. Conen reports receiving speaker fees from Servier Canada; disclosures for the other authors are in their report.

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

There’s abundant evidence linking higher alcohol intake levels to greater stroke risk and, separately, increasing risk for new-onset atrial fibrillation (AFib). Less settled is whether moderate to heavy drinking worsens the risk for stroke in patients already in AFib and whether giving up alcohol can attenuate that risk. A new observational study suggests the answer to both questions is yes.

The risk for ischemic stroke was only around 1% over about 5 years in a Korean nationwide cohort of almost 98,000 patients with new-onset AFib. About half the patients followed were nondrinkers, as they had been before the study, 13% became abstinent soon after their AFib diagnosis, and 36% were currently drinkers.

But stroke risk went up about 30% with “moderate” current alcohol intake, compared with no intake, and by more than 40% for current drinkers reporting “heavy” alcohol intake, researchers found in an adjusted analysis.

However, abstainers who had mild to moderate alcohol-intake levels before their AFib diagnosis “had a similar risk of ischemic stroke as nondrinkers,” write the authors, led by So-Ryoung Lee, MD, PhD, and colleagues, Seoul National University Hospital, Republic of Korea, in their report published June 7 in the European Heart Journal. In a secondary analysis, binge drinking was also independently associated with risk for ischemic stroke.

The findings suggest that “alcohol abstinence after the diagnosis of AFib could reduce the risk of ischemic stroke,” they conclude. “Lifestyle interventions, including attention to alcohol consumption, should be encouraged as part of a comprehensive approach in the management of patients with a new diagnosis of AFib” for lowering the risk for stroke and other clinical outcomes.

“These results are pretty comparable to those obtained in the more general population,” David Conen, MD, MPH, not connected to the analysis, told this news organization.

In the study’s population with new-onset AFib, there is an alcohol-dependent risk for stroke “that goes up with increasing alcohol intake, which is more or less similar to that found without atrial fibrillation in previous studies,” said Dr. Conen, from the Population Health Research Institute, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont.

The study, “which overall I think is very well done,” he said, is noteworthy for also suggesting that binge drinking, which was scrutinized in a secondary analysis, appeared independently to worsen the risk for stroke in its AFib population.

Dr. Conen said the observed 1% overall risk for stroke was very similar to the rate he and his colleagues saw in a recent combined analysis of two European cohorts with AFib that was usually longer standing; the median was 3 years. That analysis, in contrast, showed no significant association between increasing levels of alcohol intake and risk for stroke or systemic embolism.

However, “our confidence limits did not exclude the possibility of a small to moderate association,” he said. Given that, and the current study from Korea, there might indeed be “a weak association between alcohol consumption and stroke” in patients with AFib.

“Their results are just more precise because of the larger sample size. That’s why they were able to show those associations,” said Dr. Conen, who was senior author on the earlier report, which covered a pooled analysis of 3,852 patients with AFib in the BEAT-AF and SWISS-AF cohort studies. It was published January 25 in CMAJ, with lead author Philipp Reddiess, MD, Cardiovascular Research Institute Basel, Switzerland.

The two published studies contrast in other ways that are worth noting and together suggest the stroke rate might have been 1% in both by chance, Dr. Conen said. “The populations were pretty different.”

In the earlier study, for example, the overwhelmingly European patients had more comorbidities and had been in AFib for much longer; their mean age was 71 years; and 84% were on oral anticoagulation (OAC).

In contrast, the Korean cohort averaged 61 years in age and only about 24% were taking oral anticoagulants. Given their distribution of CHA2DS2-VASc scores and mean score of 2.3, more than twice as many should have been on OAC, Dr. Conen speculated. “Even if you take into account that some patients may have contraindications, this is clearly an underanticoagulated population.”

The European cohort might have been “a little bit more representative because atrial fibrillation is a disease of the elderly,” Dr. Conen said, but “the Korean paper has the advantage of being a population-based study.”

It involved 97,869 patients from a Korean national data base who were newly diagnosed with AFib from 2010 to 2016. Of the total, 49,781 (51%) were continuously nondrinkers before and after their diagnosis; 12,789 (13%) abstained from alcohol only after their AFib diagnosis; and 35,299 (36%) were drinkers during the follow-up, either because they continued to drink or newly started after their diagnosis.

Of the cohort, 3,120 were diagnosed with new ischemic stroke over a follow-up of 310,926 person-years, for a rate of 1 per 100 person-years.

The adjusted hazard ratio (HR) for ischemic stroke over a 5-year follow-up, compared with nondrinkers, was:

• 1.127 (95% confidence interval, 1.003-1.266) among abstainers
• 1.280 (95% CI, 1.166-1.405) for current drinkers

The corresponding HR, compared with current drinkers, was:

• 0.781 (95% CI, 0.712-0.858) for nondrinkers
• 0.880 (95% CI, 0.782-0.990) among abstainers

No significant interactions with ischemic stroke risk were observed in groups by sex, age, CHA2DS2-VASc score, or smoking status. The risk rose consistently with current drinking levels.

The overall stroke rate of 1% per year is “very low,” and “the absolute differences are small, even though there is a clear significant trend from nondrinking to drinking,” Dr. Conen said.

However, “the difference becomes more sizable when you compare heavy drinking to abstinence.”

Dr. Lee reports no conflicts of interest; disclosures for the other authors are in their report. Dr. Conen reports receiving speaker fees from Servier Canada; disclosures for the other authors are in their report.

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

Your article, “Is an underlying cardiac condition causing your patient’s palpitations?” (J Fam Pract. 2021;70:60-68), listed a number of causes of palpitations in the table on page 62. However, 1 cause was noticeably missing: underlying genetic disorders, such as amyloidosis. Genetic disorders can affect the cardiac muscle and lead to increased rates of both cardiac arrhythmias and palpitations.

I recently treated a 43-year-old man who presented with shortness of breath and presyncopal episodes; his medical history included anxiety and gastritis. He previously had undergone a cervical spine fusion and was postoperatively given a diagnosis of bigeminy and frequent premature ventricular contractions (PVCs). An echocardiogram was ordered and came back negative, while a Holter monitor showed PVCs > 30%. Genetic testing was performed only after the family history offered some clues. The diagnosis was hereditary transthyretin (ATTR) amyloidosis. Now, he is awaiting cardiac magnetic resonance imaging to determine whether muscle or pericardium has been affected. 
 

Genetic disorders can affect the cardiac muscle and lead to increased rates of both cardiac arrhythmias and palpitations.

When I discussed the findings with the patient, he wisely stated, “Perhaps it is more common than studies show if patients are not normally tested until elderly or hospitalized.” This resonated with me when I considered that routine lab work done in an office would miss amyloidosis. This definitely reinforced my philosophy to always listen to the patient and take symptoms seriously, as sometimes we just haven’t figured out the true diagnosis yet. 

Your article, “Is an underlying cardiac condition causing your patient’s palpitations?” (J Fam Pract. 2021;70:60-68), listed a number of causes of palpitations in the table on page 62. However, 1 cause was noticeably missing: underlying genetic disorders, such as amyloidosis. Genetic disorders can affect the cardiac muscle and lead to increased rates of both cardiac arrhythmias and palpitations.

I recently treated a 43-year-old man who presented with shortness of breath and presyncopal episodes; his medical history included anxiety and gastritis. He previously had undergone a cervical spine fusion and was postoperatively given a diagnosis of bigeminy and frequent premature ventricular contractions (PVCs). An echocardiogram was ordered and came back negative, while a Holter monitor showed PVCs > 30%. Genetic testing was performed only after the family history offered some clues. The diagnosis was hereditary transthyretin (ATTR) amyloidosis. Now, he is awaiting cardiac magnetic resonance imaging to determine whether muscle or pericardium has been affected. 
 

Genetic disorders can affect the cardiac muscle and lead to increased rates of both cardiac arrhythmias and palpitations.

When I discussed the findings with the patient, he wisely stated, “Perhaps it is more common than studies show if patients are not normally tested until elderly or hospitalized.” This resonated with me when I considered that routine lab work done in an office would miss amyloidosis. This definitely reinforced my philosophy to always listen to the patient and take symptoms seriously, as sometimes we just haven’t figured out the true diagnosis yet. 

Your article, “Is an underlying cardiac condition causing your patient’s palpitations?” (J Fam Pract. 2021;70:60-68), listed a number of causes of palpitations in the table on page 62. However, 1 cause was noticeably missing: underlying genetic disorders, such as amyloidosis. Genetic disorders can affect the cardiac muscle and lead to increased rates of both cardiac arrhythmias and palpitations.

I recently treated a 43-year-old man who presented with shortness of breath and presyncopal episodes; his medical history included anxiety and gastritis. He previously had undergone a cervical spine fusion and was postoperatively given a diagnosis of bigeminy and frequent premature ventricular contractions (PVCs). An echocardiogram was ordered and came back negative, while a Holter monitor showed PVCs > 30%. Genetic testing was performed only after the family history offered some clues. The diagnosis was hereditary transthyretin (ATTR) amyloidosis. Now, he is awaiting cardiac magnetic resonance imaging to determine whether muscle or pericardium has been affected. 
 

Genetic disorders can affect the cardiac muscle and lead to increased rates of both cardiac arrhythmias and palpitations.

When I discussed the findings with the patient, he wisely stated, “Perhaps it is more common than studies show if patients are not normally tested until elderly or hospitalized.” This resonated with me when I considered that routine lab work done in an office would miss amyloidosis. This definitely reinforced my philosophy to always listen to the patient and take symptoms seriously, as sometimes we just haven’t figured out the true diagnosis yet. 

In this issue of JFP, Smith et al recommend following guidelines from the American Academy of Pediatrics to annually screen children for hypertension (see page 220). This recommendation appears to be at odds with the recent US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) statement that concluded there is insufficient evidence for screening children and adolescents for hypertension. But an “I” recommendation from the USPSTF is not the same as a “D” recommendation. “D” means don’t do it, because the evidence indicates that the harms outweigh the benefits. “I” means we don’t have enough evidence to weigh the harms and benefits, so it is up to you and your patients to decide what to do.

So whose recommendations should we follow?

Our decision should be based on a thorough understanding of the evidence, and that evidence is well summarized in the recent USPSTF report.¹ The reviewers found no studies that evaluated the benefits and harms of screening children and adolescents for hypertension and no studies evaluating disease outcomes from treating hypertension in these patients.

What we can all agree on is that, when hypertension is identified in a child or adolescent, it is important to determine if there is a treatable cause.

There is, however, an association between elevated blood pressure in childhood and outcomes such as left ventricular hypertrophy and carotid intimal thickness.² Some physicians contend that these “disease-oriented outcomes” are sufficient reason to identify and treat hypertension in children and adolescents.³ The USPSTF, however, requires a higher level of evidence that includes patient-oriented outcomes, such as a lower risk of congestive heart failure, renal failure, or death, before recommending treatment. Physicians and patients have to choose what level of evidence is sufficient to take action.

Dr. Smith comments: “As noted in their report, the USPSTF acknowledges that observational studies indicate an association between hypertension in childhood and hypertension in adulthood, but there have been no randomized trials to determine if treating hypertension in children and adolescents reduces risk of cardiovascular events. Although it is a cohort study, not a randomized trial, the ongoing i3C Consortium Outcomes Study⁴ may provide better information to guide decision-making for children and adolescents with elevated blood pressure.”

What we can all agree on is that, when hypertension is identified in a child or adolescent, it is important to determine if there is a treatable cause of elevated blood pressure such as coarctation of the aorta or renal disease. It is also important to address risk factors for elevated blood pressure and cardiovascular disease, such as obesity, poor dietary habits, and smoking. The treatment is lifestyle modification with diet, exercise, and smoking cessation. 

In this issue of JFP, Smith et al recommend following guidelines from the American Academy of Pediatrics to annually screen children for hypertension (see page 220). This recommendation appears to be at odds with the recent US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) statement that concluded there is insufficient evidence for screening children and adolescents for hypertension. But an “I” recommendation from the USPSTF is not the same as a “D” recommendation. “D” means don’t do it, because the evidence indicates that the harms outweigh the benefits. “I” means we don’t have enough evidence to weigh the harms and benefits, so it is up to you and your patients to decide what to do.

So whose recommendations should we follow?

Our decision should be based on a thorough understanding of the evidence, and that evidence is well summarized in the recent USPSTF report.¹ The reviewers found no studies that evaluated the benefits and harms of screening children and adolescents for hypertension and no studies evaluating disease outcomes from treating hypertension in these patients.

What we can all agree on is that, when hypertension is identified in a child or adolescent, it is important to determine if there is a treatable cause.

There is, however, an association between elevated blood pressure in childhood and outcomes such as left ventricular hypertrophy and carotid intimal thickness.² Some physicians contend that these “disease-oriented outcomes” are sufficient reason to identify and treat hypertension in children and adolescents.³ The USPSTF, however, requires a higher level of evidence that includes patient-oriented outcomes, such as a lower risk of congestive heart failure, renal failure, or death, before recommending treatment. Physicians and patients have to choose what level of evidence is sufficient to take action.

Dr. Smith comments: “As noted in their report, the USPSTF acknowledges that observational studies indicate an association between hypertension in childhood and hypertension in adulthood, but there have been no randomized trials to determine if treating hypertension in children and adolescents reduces risk of cardiovascular events. Although it is a cohort study, not a randomized trial, the ongoing i3C Consortium Outcomes Study⁴ may provide better information to guide decision-making for children and adolescents with elevated blood pressure.”

What we can all agree on is that, when hypertension is identified in a child or adolescent, it is important to determine if there is a treatable cause of elevated blood pressure such as coarctation of the aorta or renal disease. It is also important to address risk factors for elevated blood pressure and cardiovascular disease, such as obesity, poor dietary habits, and smoking. The treatment is lifestyle modification with diet, exercise, and smoking cessation. 

In this issue of JFP, Smith et al recommend following guidelines from the American Academy of Pediatrics to annually screen children for hypertension (see page 220). This recommendation appears to be at odds with the recent US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) statement that concluded there is insufficient evidence for screening children and adolescents for hypertension. But an “I” recommendation from the USPSTF is not the same as a “D” recommendation. “D” means don’t do it, because the evidence indicates that the harms outweigh the benefits. “I” means we don’t have enough evidence to weigh the harms and benefits, so it is up to you and your patients to decide what to do.

So whose recommendations should we follow?

Our decision should be based on a thorough understanding of the evidence, and that evidence is well summarized in the recent USPSTF report.¹ The reviewers found no studies that evaluated the benefits and harms of screening children and adolescents for hypertension and no studies evaluating disease outcomes from treating hypertension in these patients.

What we can all agree on is that, when hypertension is identified in a child or adolescent, it is important to determine if there is a treatable cause.

There is, however, an association between elevated blood pressure in childhood and outcomes such as left ventricular hypertrophy and carotid intimal thickness.² Some physicians contend that these “disease-oriented outcomes” are sufficient reason to identify and treat hypertension in children and adolescents.³ The USPSTF, however, requires a higher level of evidence that includes patient-oriented outcomes, such as a lower risk of congestive heart failure, renal failure, or death, before recommending treatment. Physicians and patients have to choose what level of evidence is sufficient to take action.

Dr. Smith comments: “As noted in their report, the USPSTF acknowledges that observational studies indicate an association between hypertension in childhood and hypertension in adulthood, but there have been no randomized trials to determine if treating hypertension in children and adolescents reduces risk of cardiovascular events. Although it is a cohort study, not a randomized trial, the ongoing i3C Consortium Outcomes Study⁴ may provide better information to guide decision-making for children and adolescents with elevated blood pressure.”

What we can all agree on is that, when hypertension is identified in a child or adolescent, it is important to determine if there is a treatable cause of elevated blood pressure such as coarctation of the aorta or renal disease. It is also important to address risk factors for elevated blood pressure and cardiovascular disease, such as obesity, poor dietary habits, and smoking. The treatment is lifestyle modification with diet, exercise, and smoking cessation.