Cardiology

Bariatric surgery is a safe and effective means for obese patients with advanced heart failure supported by a left ventricular assist device to qualify for heart transplantation, Praneet Wander, MD, reported in an abstract released as part of the annual Digestive Disease Week^®.

She presented a systematic review and meta-analysis of nine retrospective or cross-sectional cohort studies totaling 86 patients with a left ventricular assist device (LVAD) and advanced heart failure who had a mean body mass index (BMI) of 44.8 kg/m² when they underwent bariatric surgery at an average age of 44 years and 33.2 kg/m² at follow-up a mean of 14.3 months later.

Of the 86 patients, 50 (58%) were able to drop their BMI below 35, a requirement for inclusion on the heart transplant waiting list, noted Dr. Wander, a gastroenterology fellow at Hofstra University, Hempstead, N.Y., and North Shore LIJ Hospital in Manhasset, N.Y.

“A lot of bariatric surgeons don’t feel comfortable operating on patients who have a low ejection fraction,” she explained in an interview. “This study should encourage bariatric surgeons to do procedures even in patients with advanced heart failure so they can meet the BMI requirement for heart transplantation.”

Even if patients don’t actually undergo heart transplantation because of the perpetual donor organ shortage or inability to meet non–BMI-related eligibility criteria, they gain other major benefits from bariatric surgery: Their blood pressure goes down, their diabetes improves, and they become better able to engage in physical activity, she added.

Of the 86 patients in the meta-analysis, 84 underwent laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy. That’s the preferred bariatric operation in patients with advanced heart failure at the Mayo Clinic as well, according to Andres J. Acosta, MD, PhD, a gastroenterologist at the medical center in Rochester, Minn.

There’s less weight loss achieved than with an open Roux-en-Y gastric bypass, but it’s a simpler operation in these high-risk patients, who typically have multiple comorbid conditions, he explained.

He predicted that Dr. Wander’s study will indeed influence bariatric surgeons at tertiary medical centers around the country to become more willing to consider weight-loss surgery in patients with advanced heart failure, while those in community practice will likely continue to be most comfortable operating on more stable patients with minimal comorbidities aside from their obesity.

“Data such as [these] will be reassuring to bariatric surgery programs such as ours, where we’re able to say: ‘Yes, there are risks, but these patients will benefit in the long term if we assume those risks,’ ” Dr. Acosta said.

He’s confident that, in the near future, the preferred form of bariatric surgery in patients with advanced heart failure will be a minimally invasive procedure performed endoscopically by gastroenterologists. He and his Mayo Clinic colleagues have already established a track record of success with endoscopic sleeve gastrectomy in patients with advanced kidney, liver, or lung disease in order to make them eligible for transplantation, as well as for the ancillary benefits provided by massive weight loss.

“There’s a little less weight loss than with laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy, but it’s a significantly less risky operation. Shorter operative time, shorter hospital length of stay, less risk of infections and leaks,” he said in an interview. “We haven’t done it yet in heart disease, but I think based on this study this should be the next step at Mayo.”

Radha Gopalan, MD, director of heart failure and transplantation at Banner–University Medical Center in Phoenix, pronounced Dr. Wander’s meta-analysis “a positive study that’s very supportive of what we’re doing at our center.

“At a busy heart transplant center like ours, we are comfortable managing these patients, so the bariatric surgeons are reassured that the heart failure team is behind them. The risk of the procedure is mitigated by the availability of the multidisciplinary team to get the patient with obesity and heart failure through the surgery,” he explained.

Dr. Gopalan heads a novel bariatric heart failure program at Banner. While Dr. Wander’s meta-analysis focused on bariatric surgery in heart failure patients on LVAD circulatory support, Dr. Gopalan and colleagues are moving the intervention upstream. Roughly roughly 80% of patients in his bariatric heart failure program who meet criteria for LVAD implantation are now offered bariatric surgery before an LVAD is put in.

“I am moving away from putting the LVAD in first and then doing bariatric surgery. We have gotten comfortable taking these patients for bariatric surgery with inotropic support before going to the LVAD, which has the potential to even eliminate the requirement for an LVAD. Some patients get so much better that they become transplant ineligible,” Dr. Gopalan said.

Dr. Wander reported having no financial conflicts regarding her study, conducted free of commercial support.

bjancin@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Wander P. DDW 2020 Abstract, #Mo2010.

Bariatric surgery is a safe and effective means for obese patients with advanced heart failure supported by a left ventricular assist device to qualify for heart transplantation, Praneet Wander, MD, reported in an abstract released as part of the annual Digestive Disease Week^®.

She presented a systematic review and meta-analysis of nine retrospective or cross-sectional cohort studies totaling 86 patients with a left ventricular assist device (LVAD) and advanced heart failure who had a mean body mass index (BMI) of 44.8 kg/m² when they underwent bariatric surgery at an average age of 44 years and 33.2 kg/m² at follow-up a mean of 14.3 months later.

Of the 86 patients, 50 (58%) were able to drop their BMI below 35, a requirement for inclusion on the heart transplant waiting list, noted Dr. Wander, a gastroenterology fellow at Hofstra University, Hempstead, N.Y., and North Shore LIJ Hospital in Manhasset, N.Y.

“A lot of bariatric surgeons don’t feel comfortable operating on patients who have a low ejection fraction,” she explained in an interview. “This study should encourage bariatric surgeons to do procedures even in patients with advanced heart failure so they can meet the BMI requirement for heart transplantation.”

Even if patients don’t actually undergo heart transplantation because of the perpetual donor organ shortage or inability to meet non–BMI-related eligibility criteria, they gain other major benefits from bariatric surgery: Their blood pressure goes down, their diabetes improves, and they become better able to engage in physical activity, she added.

Of the 86 patients in the meta-analysis, 84 underwent laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy. That’s the preferred bariatric operation in patients with advanced heart failure at the Mayo Clinic as well, according to Andres J. Acosta, MD, PhD, a gastroenterologist at the medical center in Rochester, Minn.

There’s less weight loss achieved than with an open Roux-en-Y gastric bypass, but it’s a simpler operation in these high-risk patients, who typically have multiple comorbid conditions, he explained.

He predicted that Dr. Wander’s study will indeed influence bariatric surgeons at tertiary medical centers around the country to become more willing to consider weight-loss surgery in patients with advanced heart failure, while those in community practice will likely continue to be most comfortable operating on more stable patients with minimal comorbidities aside from their obesity.

“Data such as [these] will be reassuring to bariatric surgery programs such as ours, where we’re able to say: ‘Yes, there are risks, but these patients will benefit in the long term if we assume those risks,’ ” Dr. Acosta said.

He’s confident that, in the near future, the preferred form of bariatric surgery in patients with advanced heart failure will be a minimally invasive procedure performed endoscopically by gastroenterologists. He and his Mayo Clinic colleagues have already established a track record of success with endoscopic sleeve gastrectomy in patients with advanced kidney, liver, or lung disease in order to make them eligible for transplantation, as well as for the ancillary benefits provided by massive weight loss.

“There’s a little less weight loss than with laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy, but it’s a significantly less risky operation. Shorter operative time, shorter hospital length of stay, less risk of infections and leaks,” he said in an interview. “We haven’t done it yet in heart disease, but I think based on this study this should be the next step at Mayo.”

Radha Gopalan, MD, director of heart failure and transplantation at Banner–University Medical Center in Phoenix, pronounced Dr. Wander’s meta-analysis “a positive study that’s very supportive of what we’re doing at our center.

“At a busy heart transplant center like ours, we are comfortable managing these patients, so the bariatric surgeons are reassured that the heart failure team is behind them. The risk of the procedure is mitigated by the availability of the multidisciplinary team to get the patient with obesity and heart failure through the surgery,” he explained.

Dr. Gopalan heads a novel bariatric heart failure program at Banner. While Dr. Wander’s meta-analysis focused on bariatric surgery in heart failure patients on LVAD circulatory support, Dr. Gopalan and colleagues are moving the intervention upstream. Roughly roughly 80% of patients in his bariatric heart failure program who meet criteria for LVAD implantation are now offered bariatric surgery before an LVAD is put in.

“I am moving away from putting the LVAD in first and then doing bariatric surgery. We have gotten comfortable taking these patients for bariatric surgery with inotropic support before going to the LVAD, which has the potential to even eliminate the requirement for an LVAD. Some patients get so much better that they become transplant ineligible,” Dr. Gopalan said.

Dr. Wander reported having no financial conflicts regarding her study, conducted free of commercial support.

bjancin@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Wander P. DDW 2020 Abstract, #Mo2010.

Bariatric surgery is a safe and effective means for obese patients with advanced heart failure supported by a left ventricular assist device to qualify for heart transplantation, Praneet Wander, MD, reported in an abstract released as part of the annual Digestive Disease Week^®.

She presented a systematic review and meta-analysis of nine retrospective or cross-sectional cohort studies totaling 86 patients with a left ventricular assist device (LVAD) and advanced heart failure who had a mean body mass index (BMI) of 44.8 kg/m² when they underwent bariatric surgery at an average age of 44 years and 33.2 kg/m² at follow-up a mean of 14.3 months later.

Of the 86 patients, 50 (58%) were able to drop their BMI below 35, a requirement for inclusion on the heart transplant waiting list, noted Dr. Wander, a gastroenterology fellow at Hofstra University, Hempstead, N.Y., and North Shore LIJ Hospital in Manhasset, N.Y.

“A lot of bariatric surgeons don’t feel comfortable operating on patients who have a low ejection fraction,” she explained in an interview. “This study should encourage bariatric surgeons to do procedures even in patients with advanced heart failure so they can meet the BMI requirement for heart transplantation.”

Even if patients don’t actually undergo heart transplantation because of the perpetual donor organ shortage or inability to meet non–BMI-related eligibility criteria, they gain other major benefits from bariatric surgery: Their blood pressure goes down, their diabetes improves, and they become better able to engage in physical activity, she added.

Of the 86 patients in the meta-analysis, 84 underwent laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy. That’s the preferred bariatric operation in patients with advanced heart failure at the Mayo Clinic as well, according to Andres J. Acosta, MD, PhD, a gastroenterologist at the medical center in Rochester, Minn.

There’s less weight loss achieved than with an open Roux-en-Y gastric bypass, but it’s a simpler operation in these high-risk patients, who typically have multiple comorbid conditions, he explained.

He predicted that Dr. Wander’s study will indeed influence bariatric surgeons at tertiary medical centers around the country to become more willing to consider weight-loss surgery in patients with advanced heart failure, while those in community practice will likely continue to be most comfortable operating on more stable patients with minimal comorbidities aside from their obesity.

“Data such as [these] will be reassuring to bariatric surgery programs such as ours, where we’re able to say: ‘Yes, there are risks, but these patients will benefit in the long term if we assume those risks,’ ” Dr. Acosta said.

He’s confident that, in the near future, the preferred form of bariatric surgery in patients with advanced heart failure will be a minimally invasive procedure performed endoscopically by gastroenterologists. He and his Mayo Clinic colleagues have already established a track record of success with endoscopic sleeve gastrectomy in patients with advanced kidney, liver, or lung disease in order to make them eligible for transplantation, as well as for the ancillary benefits provided by massive weight loss.

“There’s a little less weight loss than with laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy, but it’s a significantly less risky operation. Shorter operative time, shorter hospital length of stay, less risk of infections and leaks,” he said in an interview. “We haven’t done it yet in heart disease, but I think based on this study this should be the next step at Mayo.”

Radha Gopalan, MD, director of heart failure and transplantation at Banner–University Medical Center in Phoenix, pronounced Dr. Wander’s meta-analysis “a positive study that’s very supportive of what we’re doing at our center.

“At a busy heart transplant center like ours, we are comfortable managing these patients, so the bariatric surgeons are reassured that the heart failure team is behind them. The risk of the procedure is mitigated by the availability of the multidisciplinary team to get the patient with obesity and heart failure through the surgery,” he explained.

Dr. Gopalan heads a novel bariatric heart failure program at Banner. While Dr. Wander’s meta-analysis focused on bariatric surgery in heart failure patients on LVAD circulatory support, Dr. Gopalan and colleagues are moving the intervention upstream. Roughly roughly 80% of patients in his bariatric heart failure program who meet criteria for LVAD implantation are now offered bariatric surgery before an LVAD is put in.

“I am moving away from putting the LVAD in first and then doing bariatric surgery. We have gotten comfortable taking these patients for bariatric surgery with inotropic support before going to the LVAD, which has the potential to even eliminate the requirement for an LVAD. Some patients get so much better that they become transplant ineligible,” Dr. Gopalan said.

Dr. Wander reported having no financial conflicts regarding her study, conducted free of commercial support.

bjancin@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Wander P. DDW 2020 Abstract, #Mo2010.

Potential risks of cardiac injury posed by coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) infection warrant a cautious return-to-play for highly active people and competitive athletes who test positive, according to leading sports cardiologists.

To prevent cardiac injury, athletes should rest for at least 2 weeks after symptoms resolve, then undergo cardiac testing before returning high-level competitive sports, reported lead author Dermot Phelan, MD, PhD, of Atrium Health in Charlotte, N.C., and colleagues.

These recommendations, which were published in JAMA Cardiology, are part of a clinical algorithm that sorts athletes based on coronavirus test status and symptom severity. The algorithm offers a clear timeline for resumption of activity, with management decisions for symptomatic individuals based on additional diagnostics, such as high-sensitivity troponin testing and electrocardiogram.

Despite a scarcity of relevant clinical data, Dr. Phelan said that he and his colleagues wanted to offer their best recommendations to the athletic community, who had been reaching out for help.

“We were getting calls and messages from amateur and professional sporting organizations from around the country asking for guidance about what to do,” Dr. Phelan said. “So a number of us from the American College of Cardiology Sports and Exercise Council decided that we really should provide some guidance even in the absence of good, strong data, for what we feel is a reasonable approach.”

The recommendations were based on what is known of other viral infections, as well as risks posed by COVID-19 that may be worsened by athletic activity.

“We know that, when people have an active infection, vigorous exercise can lower immunity, and that can make the infection worse,” Dr. Phelan said. “That really applies very strongly in people who have had myocarditis. If you exercise when you have myocarditis, it actually increases viral replication and results in increased necrosis of the heart muscle. We really want to avoid exercising during that active infection phase.”

Myocarditis is one of the top causes of sudden cardiac death among young athletes, Dr. Phelan said, “so that’s a major concern for us.”

According to Dr. Phelan, existing data suggest a wide range of incidence of 7%-33% for cardiac injury among patients hospitalized for COVID-19. Even the low end of this range, at 7%, is significantly higher than the incidence rate of 1% found in patients with non–COVID-19 acute viral infections.

“This particular virus appears to cause more cardiac insults than other viruses,” Dr. Phelan said.

The incidence of cardiac injury among nonhospitalized patients remains unknown, leaving a wide knowledge gap that shaped the conservative nature of the present recommendations.

With more information, however, the guidance may “change dramatically,” Dr. Phelan said.

“If the data come back and show that no nonhospitalized patients got cardiac injury, then we would be much more comfortable allowing return to play without the need for cardiac testing,” he said.

Conversely, if cardiac injury is more common than anticipated, then more extensive testing may be needed, he added.

As the algorithm stands, high-sensitivity troponin testing and/or cardiac studies are recommended for all symptomatic athletes; if troponin levels are greater than the 99th percentile or a cardiac study is abnormal, then clinicians should follow return-to-play guidelines for myocarditis. For athletes with normal tests, slow resumption of activity is recommended, including close monitoring for clinical deterioration.

As Dr. Phelan discussed these recommendations in a broader context, he emphasized the need for caution, both preventively, and for cardiologists working with recovering athletes.

“For the early stage of this reentry into normal life while this is still an active pandemic, we need to be cautious,” Dr. Phelan said. “We need to follow the regular CDC guidelines, in terms of social distancing and handwashing, but we also need to consider that those people who have suffered from COVID-19 may have had cardiac injury. We don’t know that yet. But we need to be cautious with these individuals and test them before they return to high-level competitive sports.”

One author disclosed a relationship with the Atlanta Falcons.

SOURCE: Phelan D et al. JAMA Cardiology. 2020 Apr 13. doi: 10.1001/jamacardio.2020.2136.

Potential risks of cardiac injury posed by coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) infection warrant a cautious return-to-play for highly active people and competitive athletes who test positive, according to leading sports cardiologists.

To prevent cardiac injury, athletes should rest for at least 2 weeks after symptoms resolve, then undergo cardiac testing before returning high-level competitive sports, reported lead author Dermot Phelan, MD, PhD, of Atrium Health in Charlotte, N.C., and colleagues.

These recommendations, which were published in JAMA Cardiology, are part of a clinical algorithm that sorts athletes based on coronavirus test status and symptom severity. The algorithm offers a clear timeline for resumption of activity, with management decisions for symptomatic individuals based on additional diagnostics, such as high-sensitivity troponin testing and electrocardiogram.

Despite a scarcity of relevant clinical data, Dr. Phelan said that he and his colleagues wanted to offer their best recommendations to the athletic community, who had been reaching out for help.

“We were getting calls and messages from amateur and professional sporting organizations from around the country asking for guidance about what to do,” Dr. Phelan said. “So a number of us from the American College of Cardiology Sports and Exercise Council decided that we really should provide some guidance even in the absence of good, strong data, for what we feel is a reasonable approach.”

The recommendations were based on what is known of other viral infections, as well as risks posed by COVID-19 that may be worsened by athletic activity.

“We know that, when people have an active infection, vigorous exercise can lower immunity, and that can make the infection worse,” Dr. Phelan said. “That really applies very strongly in people who have had myocarditis. If you exercise when you have myocarditis, it actually increases viral replication and results in increased necrosis of the heart muscle. We really want to avoid exercising during that active infection phase.”

Myocarditis is one of the top causes of sudden cardiac death among young athletes, Dr. Phelan said, “so that’s a major concern for us.”

According to Dr. Phelan, existing data suggest a wide range of incidence of 7%-33% for cardiac injury among patients hospitalized for COVID-19. Even the low end of this range, at 7%, is significantly higher than the incidence rate of 1% found in patients with non–COVID-19 acute viral infections.

“This particular virus appears to cause more cardiac insults than other viruses,” Dr. Phelan said.

The incidence of cardiac injury among nonhospitalized patients remains unknown, leaving a wide knowledge gap that shaped the conservative nature of the present recommendations.

With more information, however, the guidance may “change dramatically,” Dr. Phelan said.

“If the data come back and show that no nonhospitalized patients got cardiac injury, then we would be much more comfortable allowing return to play without the need for cardiac testing,” he said.

Conversely, if cardiac injury is more common than anticipated, then more extensive testing may be needed, he added.

As the algorithm stands, high-sensitivity troponin testing and/or cardiac studies are recommended for all symptomatic athletes; if troponin levels are greater than the 99th percentile or a cardiac study is abnormal, then clinicians should follow return-to-play guidelines for myocarditis. For athletes with normal tests, slow resumption of activity is recommended, including close monitoring for clinical deterioration.

As Dr. Phelan discussed these recommendations in a broader context, he emphasized the need for caution, both preventively, and for cardiologists working with recovering athletes.

“For the early stage of this reentry into normal life while this is still an active pandemic, we need to be cautious,” Dr. Phelan said. “We need to follow the regular CDC guidelines, in terms of social distancing and handwashing, but we also need to consider that those people who have suffered from COVID-19 may have had cardiac injury. We don’t know that yet. But we need to be cautious with these individuals and test them before they return to high-level competitive sports.”

One author disclosed a relationship with the Atlanta Falcons.

SOURCE: Phelan D et al. JAMA Cardiology. 2020 Apr 13. doi: 10.1001/jamacardio.2020.2136.

Potential risks of cardiac injury posed by coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) infection warrant a cautious return-to-play for highly active people and competitive athletes who test positive, according to leading sports cardiologists.

To prevent cardiac injury, athletes should rest for at least 2 weeks after symptoms resolve, then undergo cardiac testing before returning high-level competitive sports, reported lead author Dermot Phelan, MD, PhD, of Atrium Health in Charlotte, N.C., and colleagues.

These recommendations, which were published in JAMA Cardiology, are part of a clinical algorithm that sorts athletes based on coronavirus test status and symptom severity. The algorithm offers a clear timeline for resumption of activity, with management decisions for symptomatic individuals based on additional diagnostics, such as high-sensitivity troponin testing and electrocardiogram.

Despite a scarcity of relevant clinical data, Dr. Phelan said that he and his colleagues wanted to offer their best recommendations to the athletic community, who had been reaching out for help.

“We were getting calls and messages from amateur and professional sporting organizations from around the country asking for guidance about what to do,” Dr. Phelan said. “So a number of us from the American College of Cardiology Sports and Exercise Council decided that we really should provide some guidance even in the absence of good, strong data, for what we feel is a reasonable approach.”

The recommendations were based on what is known of other viral infections, as well as risks posed by COVID-19 that may be worsened by athletic activity.

“We know that, when people have an active infection, vigorous exercise can lower immunity, and that can make the infection worse,” Dr. Phelan said. “That really applies very strongly in people who have had myocarditis. If you exercise when you have myocarditis, it actually increases viral replication and results in increased necrosis of the heart muscle. We really want to avoid exercising during that active infection phase.”

Myocarditis is one of the top causes of sudden cardiac death among young athletes, Dr. Phelan said, “so that’s a major concern for us.”

According to Dr. Phelan, existing data suggest a wide range of incidence of 7%-33% for cardiac injury among patients hospitalized for COVID-19. Even the low end of this range, at 7%, is significantly higher than the incidence rate of 1% found in patients with non–COVID-19 acute viral infections.

“This particular virus appears to cause more cardiac insults than other viruses,” Dr. Phelan said.

The incidence of cardiac injury among nonhospitalized patients remains unknown, leaving a wide knowledge gap that shaped the conservative nature of the present recommendations.

With more information, however, the guidance may “change dramatically,” Dr. Phelan said.

“If the data come back and show that no nonhospitalized patients got cardiac injury, then we would be much more comfortable allowing return to play without the need for cardiac testing,” he said.

Conversely, if cardiac injury is more common than anticipated, then more extensive testing may be needed, he added.

As the algorithm stands, high-sensitivity troponin testing and/or cardiac studies are recommended for all symptomatic athletes; if troponin levels are greater than the 99th percentile or a cardiac study is abnormal, then clinicians should follow return-to-play guidelines for myocarditis. For athletes with normal tests, slow resumption of activity is recommended, including close monitoring for clinical deterioration.

As Dr. Phelan discussed these recommendations in a broader context, he emphasized the need for caution, both preventively, and for cardiologists working with recovering athletes.

“For the early stage of this reentry into normal life while this is still an active pandemic, we need to be cautious,” Dr. Phelan said. “We need to follow the regular CDC guidelines, in terms of social distancing and handwashing, but we also need to consider that those people who have suffered from COVID-19 may have had cardiac injury. We don’t know that yet. But we need to be cautious with these individuals and test them before they return to high-level competitive sports.”

One author disclosed a relationship with the Atlanta Falcons.

SOURCE: Phelan D et al. JAMA Cardiology. 2020 Apr 13. doi: 10.1001/jamacardio.2020.2136.

A polygenic risk score based on analysis of 29 discrete genetic variants linked with abdominal aortic aneurysms appeared better than the current criteria that clinicians use to identify people to screen for this disorder, potentially paving the way for more efficient use of screening resources.

Ryuji Suzuki

Future screening guidelines for abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAA) “should consider including individuals with high polygenic risk for screening ultrasonography,” Derek Klarin, MD, said at the virtual Vascular Discovery Scientific Sessions 2020, organized by the American Heart Association.

The data he reported showed that when researchers applied the polygenic risk score (PRS) to men aged older than 50 years in three independent validation cohorts of people with primarily European ancestry, those with scores in the top 5 percentile within each cohort had a collective AAA prevalence rate of 8.6% (95% CI 7.3%-9.8%).

This 8.6% pick-up rate using the PRS to help identify screening candidates for this male demographic subgroup compared favorably with previously reported prevalence rates of AAA detected by ultrasonography (defined as aneurysms of at least 3.0 cm in diameter) in men aged 65 years or older with a history of ever smoking. Last year, the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force issued an updated recommendation to perform a one-time ultrasound screening of 65- to 75-year-old men who ever smoked and cited five reported screening studies that found prevalence rates in these people of 3.3%-7.6% (JAMA. 2019 Dec 10;322[22]:2211-8). An earlier review of the topic by the task force cited an average estimated prevalence of 6%-7% in men at least 65 years old and with a smoking history (Ann Intern Med. 2014 Aug 19;161[4]: 281-90).

“You can use [the PRS] with other risk factors to increase the yield of identifying those at high risk,” Dr. Klarin said during a discussion of his report. He noted the possibility of using it to identify people at-risk early on, at birth, “prior to other risk factors being present,” as well as using the PRS as an add-on to known risk factors when assessing adults. He stressed that validations he has run so far still leave the PRS a step away from routine use, although it is “quite close,” said Dr. Klarin, a vascular surgeon at the University of Florida in Gainesville.

For use in routine practice, the PRS needs “further validation,” including further assessment of its performance in other age groups, in a wider range of ethnic groups, and in women, said Chris Semsarian, MBBS, professor of medicine at the University of Sydney and head of the Molecular Cardiology Program at its Centenary Institute. However, Dr. Semsarian also said that he saw great promise for the potential of the PRS, and its development so far had been solid.

“The study was meticulously undertaken, with a large number of AAA cases and controls. Both the derivation and validation are robust. There is great potential to use such a genetic risk score in the clinical setting, along with other risk factors such as smoking, high blood pressure, and lipid levels. The PRS adds another piece in the puzzle of risk of AAA by adding in genetic or inherited risk. An additional 1%-2% in pick-up rate would still lead to many thousands more AAA detected and lives saved. The PRS doesn’t replace environmental factors that contribute to AAA risk but adds a genetic component” when estimating a person’s overall risk and the appropriateness of screening ultrasound, Dr. Semsarian said in an interview.

The derivation analysis that Dr. Klarin and associates ran used data from the Million Veteran Program that included 7,642 people with AAA and matched them with more than 172,000 controls from the same database. This generated three alternative PRSs that involved testing for 29, 301, or 3,699 different mutations or polymorphisms that discriminated cases from controls. They compared these three scoring formulas in 1,000 AAA cases and 7,700 matched controls from the Mayo Clinic’s patient database, which showed that the 29-item PRS performed best, boosting identification of cases with a statistically significant odds ratio of 1.26.

They then ran the 29-item PRS in four additional large data banks, three that included mostly people of European ancestry and one that included mostly people with an African heritage. In the three data banks with people of mostly European background, the 29-item PRS performed even better than it did using the Mayo Clinic data, but this PRS was less informative in people with African ancestry. The analyses also suggested that the PRS identified elevated AAA risk independently of information on a family history of AAA, Dr. Klarin said.

The study had no commercial funding. Dr. Klarin has been a consultant to Regeneron.

mzoler@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Klarin D et al. Vascular Discovery 2020, abstract 170.

A polygenic risk score based on analysis of 29 discrete genetic variants linked with abdominal aortic aneurysms appeared better than the current criteria that clinicians use to identify people to screen for this disorder, potentially paving the way for more efficient use of screening resources.

Ryuji Suzuki

Future screening guidelines for abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAA) “should consider including individuals with high polygenic risk for screening ultrasonography,” Derek Klarin, MD, said at the virtual Vascular Discovery Scientific Sessions 2020, organized by the American Heart Association.

The data he reported showed that when researchers applied the polygenic risk score (PRS) to men aged older than 50 years in three independent validation cohorts of people with primarily European ancestry, those with scores in the top 5 percentile within each cohort had a collective AAA prevalence rate of 8.6% (95% CI 7.3%-9.8%).

This 8.6% pick-up rate using the PRS to help identify screening candidates for this male demographic subgroup compared favorably with previously reported prevalence rates of AAA detected by ultrasonography (defined as aneurysms of at least 3.0 cm in diameter) in men aged 65 years or older with a history of ever smoking. Last year, the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force issued an updated recommendation to perform a one-time ultrasound screening of 65- to 75-year-old men who ever smoked and cited five reported screening studies that found prevalence rates in these people of 3.3%-7.6% (JAMA. 2019 Dec 10;322[22]:2211-8). An earlier review of the topic by the task force cited an average estimated prevalence of 6%-7% in men at least 65 years old and with a smoking history (Ann Intern Med. 2014 Aug 19;161[4]: 281-90).

“You can use [the PRS] with other risk factors to increase the yield of identifying those at high risk,” Dr. Klarin said during a discussion of his report. He noted the possibility of using it to identify people at-risk early on, at birth, “prior to other risk factors being present,” as well as using the PRS as an add-on to known risk factors when assessing adults. He stressed that validations he has run so far still leave the PRS a step away from routine use, although it is “quite close,” said Dr. Klarin, a vascular surgeon at the University of Florida in Gainesville.

For use in routine practice, the PRS needs “further validation,” including further assessment of its performance in other age groups, in a wider range of ethnic groups, and in women, said Chris Semsarian, MBBS, professor of medicine at the University of Sydney and head of the Molecular Cardiology Program at its Centenary Institute. However, Dr. Semsarian also said that he saw great promise for the potential of the PRS, and its development so far had been solid.

“The study was meticulously undertaken, with a large number of AAA cases and controls. Both the derivation and validation are robust. There is great potential to use such a genetic risk score in the clinical setting, along with other risk factors such as smoking, high blood pressure, and lipid levels. The PRS adds another piece in the puzzle of risk of AAA by adding in genetic or inherited risk. An additional 1%-2% in pick-up rate would still lead to many thousands more AAA detected and lives saved. The PRS doesn’t replace environmental factors that contribute to AAA risk but adds a genetic component” when estimating a person’s overall risk and the appropriateness of screening ultrasound, Dr. Semsarian said in an interview.

The derivation analysis that Dr. Klarin and associates ran used data from the Million Veteran Program that included 7,642 people with AAA and matched them with more than 172,000 controls from the same database. This generated three alternative PRSs that involved testing for 29, 301, or 3,699 different mutations or polymorphisms that discriminated cases from controls. They compared these three scoring formulas in 1,000 AAA cases and 7,700 matched controls from the Mayo Clinic’s patient database, which showed that the 29-item PRS performed best, boosting identification of cases with a statistically significant odds ratio of 1.26.

They then ran the 29-item PRS in four additional large data banks, three that included mostly people of European ancestry and one that included mostly people with an African heritage. In the three data banks with people of mostly European background, the 29-item PRS performed even better than it did using the Mayo Clinic data, but this PRS was less informative in people with African ancestry. The analyses also suggested that the PRS identified elevated AAA risk independently of information on a family history of AAA, Dr. Klarin said.

The study had no commercial funding. Dr. Klarin has been a consultant to Regeneron.

mzoler@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Klarin D et al. Vascular Discovery 2020, abstract 170.

A polygenic risk score based on analysis of 29 discrete genetic variants linked with abdominal aortic aneurysms appeared better than the current criteria that clinicians use to identify people to screen for this disorder, potentially paving the way for more efficient use of screening resources.

Ryuji Suzuki

Future screening guidelines for abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAA) “should consider including individuals with high polygenic risk for screening ultrasonography,” Derek Klarin, MD, said at the virtual Vascular Discovery Scientific Sessions 2020, organized by the American Heart Association.

The data he reported showed that when researchers applied the polygenic risk score (PRS) to men aged older than 50 years in three independent validation cohorts of people with primarily European ancestry, those with scores in the top 5 percentile within each cohort had a collective AAA prevalence rate of 8.6% (95% CI 7.3%-9.8%).

This 8.6% pick-up rate using the PRS to help identify screening candidates for this male demographic subgroup compared favorably with previously reported prevalence rates of AAA detected by ultrasonography (defined as aneurysms of at least 3.0 cm in diameter) in men aged 65 years or older with a history of ever smoking. Last year, the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force issued an updated recommendation to perform a one-time ultrasound screening of 65- to 75-year-old men who ever smoked and cited five reported screening studies that found prevalence rates in these people of 3.3%-7.6% (JAMA. 2019 Dec 10;322[22]:2211-8). An earlier review of the topic by the task force cited an average estimated prevalence of 6%-7% in men at least 65 years old and with a smoking history (Ann Intern Med. 2014 Aug 19;161[4]: 281-90).

“You can use [the PRS] with other risk factors to increase the yield of identifying those at high risk,” Dr. Klarin said during a discussion of his report. He noted the possibility of using it to identify people at-risk early on, at birth, “prior to other risk factors being present,” as well as using the PRS as an add-on to known risk factors when assessing adults. He stressed that validations he has run so far still leave the PRS a step away from routine use, although it is “quite close,” said Dr. Klarin, a vascular surgeon at the University of Florida in Gainesville.

For use in routine practice, the PRS needs “further validation,” including further assessment of its performance in other age groups, in a wider range of ethnic groups, and in women, said Chris Semsarian, MBBS, professor of medicine at the University of Sydney and head of the Molecular Cardiology Program at its Centenary Institute. However, Dr. Semsarian also said that he saw great promise for the potential of the PRS, and its development so far had been solid.

“The study was meticulously undertaken, with a large number of AAA cases and controls. Both the derivation and validation are robust. There is great potential to use such a genetic risk score in the clinical setting, along with other risk factors such as smoking, high blood pressure, and lipid levels. The PRS adds another piece in the puzzle of risk of AAA by adding in genetic or inherited risk. An additional 1%-2% in pick-up rate would still lead to many thousands more AAA detected and lives saved. The PRS doesn’t replace environmental factors that contribute to AAA risk but adds a genetic component” when estimating a person’s overall risk and the appropriateness of screening ultrasound, Dr. Semsarian said in an interview.

The derivation analysis that Dr. Klarin and associates ran used data from the Million Veteran Program that included 7,642 people with AAA and matched them with more than 172,000 controls from the same database. This generated three alternative PRSs that involved testing for 29, 301, or 3,699 different mutations or polymorphisms that discriminated cases from controls. They compared these three scoring formulas in 1,000 AAA cases and 7,700 matched controls from the Mayo Clinic’s patient database, which showed that the 29-item PRS performed best, boosting identification of cases with a statistically significant odds ratio of 1.26.

They then ran the 29-item PRS in four additional large data banks, three that included mostly people of European ancestry and one that included mostly people with an African heritage. In the three data banks with people of mostly European background, the 29-item PRS performed even better than it did using the Mayo Clinic data, but this PRS was less informative in people with African ancestry. The analyses also suggested that the PRS identified elevated AAA risk independently of information on a family history of AAA, Dr. Klarin said.

The study had no commercial funding. Dr. Klarin has been a consultant to Regeneron.

mzoler@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Klarin D et al. Vascular Discovery 2020, abstract 170.

Patients with obstructive hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (HCM) who took an investigational agent that targets cardiac myosin over about 7 months showed across-the-board improvements in functional capacity, symptoms, and left ventricular outflow obstruction in a randomized, controlled trial.

Treatment with the oral drug mavacamten (or MYK-461) was well tolerated and showed no untoward safety issues, compared with placebo in the phase 3 EXPLORER-HCM trial, its developer, MyoKardia, announced in a press release. The top-line trial results were made public in advance of a more expansive presentation at a later date.

The company describes mavacamten as an allosteric modulator of cardiac myosin that “reduces cardiac muscle contractility by inhibiting excessive myosin-actin cross-bridge formation that results in hypercontractility, left ventricular hypertrophy and reduced compliance.”

In the EXPLORER-HCM trial, with its 251 patients with symptomatic obstructive HCM, 37% of those randomly assigned to receive once-daily mavacamten and 17% of those given placebo (P =.0005) reached the functional primary endpoint by 30 weeks, the company reported.

The primary endpoint was a composite of either a ≥1.5 mL/kg per min improvement in peak VO2 along with symptomatic improvement or ≥3.0 mL/kg per min improvement without deterioration of symptom status.

Patients taking mavacamten also showed significant improvement in the secondary endpoints of left ventricular outflow tract peak gradient after exercise, NYHA functional class, Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire Clinical Summary scores, and HCM Symptom Questionnaire Shortness of Breath Domain score, all at P = .0001, and peak VO₂ at P = .0006, MyoKardia reported.

The company said beyond its bid to have the drug approved for obstructive HCM, based on its mechanism of action it foresees the drug as a potential treatment for nonobstructive HCM and for some patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Patients with obstructive hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (HCM) who took an investigational agent that targets cardiac myosin over about 7 months showed across-the-board improvements in functional capacity, symptoms, and left ventricular outflow obstruction in a randomized, controlled trial.

Treatment with the oral drug mavacamten (or MYK-461) was well tolerated and showed no untoward safety issues, compared with placebo in the phase 3 EXPLORER-HCM trial, its developer, MyoKardia, announced in a press release. The top-line trial results were made public in advance of a more expansive presentation at a later date.

The company describes mavacamten as an allosteric modulator of cardiac myosin that “reduces cardiac muscle contractility by inhibiting excessive myosin-actin cross-bridge formation that results in hypercontractility, left ventricular hypertrophy and reduced compliance.”

In the EXPLORER-HCM trial, with its 251 patients with symptomatic obstructive HCM, 37% of those randomly assigned to receive once-daily mavacamten and 17% of those given placebo (P =.0005) reached the functional primary endpoint by 30 weeks, the company reported.

The primary endpoint was a composite of either a ≥1.5 mL/kg per min improvement in peak VO2 along with symptomatic improvement or ≥3.0 mL/kg per min improvement without deterioration of symptom status.

Patients taking mavacamten also showed significant improvement in the secondary endpoints of left ventricular outflow tract peak gradient after exercise, NYHA functional class, Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire Clinical Summary scores, and HCM Symptom Questionnaire Shortness of Breath Domain score, all at P = .0001, and peak VO₂ at P = .0006, MyoKardia reported.

The company said beyond its bid to have the drug approved for obstructive HCM, based on its mechanism of action it foresees the drug as a potential treatment for nonobstructive HCM and for some patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Patients with obstructive hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (HCM) who took an investigational agent that targets cardiac myosin over about 7 months showed across-the-board improvements in functional capacity, symptoms, and left ventricular outflow obstruction in a randomized, controlled trial.

Treatment with the oral drug mavacamten (or MYK-461) was well tolerated and showed no untoward safety issues, compared with placebo in the phase 3 EXPLORER-HCM trial, its developer, MyoKardia, announced in a press release. The top-line trial results were made public in advance of a more expansive presentation at a later date.

The company describes mavacamten as an allosteric modulator of cardiac myosin that “reduces cardiac muscle contractility by inhibiting excessive myosin-actin cross-bridge formation that results in hypercontractility, left ventricular hypertrophy and reduced compliance.”

In the EXPLORER-HCM trial, with its 251 patients with symptomatic obstructive HCM, 37% of those randomly assigned to receive once-daily mavacamten and 17% of those given placebo (P =.0005) reached the functional primary endpoint by 30 weeks, the company reported.

The primary endpoint was a composite of either a ≥1.5 mL/kg per min improvement in peak VO2 along with symptomatic improvement or ≥3.0 mL/kg per min improvement without deterioration of symptom status.

Patients taking mavacamten also showed significant improvement in the secondary endpoints of left ventricular outflow tract peak gradient after exercise, NYHA functional class, Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire Clinical Summary scores, and HCM Symptom Questionnaire Shortness of Breath Domain score, all at P = .0001, and peak VO₂ at P = .0006, MyoKardia reported.

The company said beyond its bid to have the drug approved for obstructive HCM, based on its mechanism of action it foresees the drug as a potential treatment for nonobstructive HCM and for some patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Many planned randomized trials to test the efficacy of hydroxychloroquine or related drugs for preventing COVID-19 infection have, as of the end of April 2020, failed to include ECG assessment to either exclude people at the highest risk for possibly developing a life-threatening cardiac arrhythmia or to flag people who achieve a dangerous QTc interval on treatment, according to an analysis of the posted designs of several dozen studies.

“It is not only inexplicable, but also inexcusable that clinical investigators would dare to include healthy individuals in a clinical trial involving QT-prolonging medications without bothering to screen their electrocardiogram,” commented Sami Viskin, MD, an electrophysiologist at Tel Aviv Sourasky Medical Center. “The fact that we needed Dr. Gollob to ring this alarm is, itself, shocking,” he said in an interview.

“ECG screening is a good option to minimize the risk. You don’t eliminate the risk, but you can minimize it,” commented Arthur Wilde, MD, a cardiac electrophysiologist and professor of medicine at the Academic Medical Center in Amsterdam. Both Dr. Viskin and Dr. Wilde agreed with the QTc interval thresholds Dr. Gollob recommended using for excluding or discontinuing study participants.

In his commentary, Dr. Gollob estimated that if 85,000 otherwise healthy adults were randomized to received a drug that can increase the QTc interval, as many as about 3,400 people (4%) in the group could statistically be expected to have an especially high vulnerability to QT prolongation because of genetic variants they might carry that collectively have roughly this prevalence. In some people of African heritage, the prevalence of genetic risk for excessive QTc lengthening can be even higher, approaching about 10%, noted Dr. Wilde.

Dr. Gollob hoped the concerns he raised will prompt the organizers of many of these studies to revise their design, and he said he already knew of one study based in Toronto that recently added an ECG-monitoring strategy in response to the concerns he raised. He expressed optimism that more studies will follow.

“It’s a real issue to have these trials designed without ECG exclusions or monitoring. I’m glad that Dr. Gollob sent this warning, because he is right. ECG monitoring during treatment is important so you can stop the treatment in time,” Dr. Wilde said. Dr. Wilde also noted that many, if not most, of the studies listed on clinicaltrials.gov may not actually launch.

In April, representatives from several cardiology societies coauthored a document of considerations when using hydroxychloroquine, chloroquine, or azithromycin to treat patients with a diagnosed COVID-19 infection, and highlighted a QTc interval of 500 msec or greater as flagging patients who should no longer receive these drugs (J Am Coll Cardiol. 2020 Apr 10. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2020.04.016). For patients who do not yet have COVID-19 disease and the goal from treatment is prevention the potential efficacy of these drugs is reasonable to explore, but “does not exclude the need to minimize risk to research participants, especially when enrolling healthy subjects,” Dr. Gollob said.

Dr. Gollob, Dr. Viskin, and Dr. Wilde had no relevant financial disclosures.

mzoler@mdedge.com

Many planned randomized trials to test the efficacy of hydroxychloroquine or related drugs for preventing COVID-19 infection have, as of the end of April 2020, failed to include ECG assessment to either exclude people at the highest risk for possibly developing a life-threatening cardiac arrhythmia or to flag people who achieve a dangerous QTc interval on treatment, according to an analysis of the posted designs of several dozen studies.

“It is not only inexplicable, but also inexcusable that clinical investigators would dare to include healthy individuals in a clinical trial involving QT-prolonging medications without bothering to screen their electrocardiogram,” commented Sami Viskin, MD, an electrophysiologist at Tel Aviv Sourasky Medical Center. “The fact that we needed Dr. Gollob to ring this alarm is, itself, shocking,” he said in an interview.

“ECG screening is a good option to minimize the risk. You don’t eliminate the risk, but you can minimize it,” commented Arthur Wilde, MD, a cardiac electrophysiologist and professor of medicine at the Academic Medical Center in Amsterdam. Both Dr. Viskin and Dr. Wilde agreed with the QTc interval thresholds Dr. Gollob recommended using for excluding or discontinuing study participants.

In his commentary, Dr. Gollob estimated that if 85,000 otherwise healthy adults were randomized to received a drug that can increase the QTc interval, as many as about 3,400 people (4%) in the group could statistically be expected to have an especially high vulnerability to QT prolongation because of genetic variants they might carry that collectively have roughly this prevalence. In some people of African heritage, the prevalence of genetic risk for excessive QTc lengthening can be even higher, approaching about 10%, noted Dr. Wilde.

Dr. Gollob hoped the concerns he raised will prompt the organizers of many of these studies to revise their design, and he said he already knew of one study based in Toronto that recently added an ECG-monitoring strategy in response to the concerns he raised. He expressed optimism that more studies will follow.

“It’s a real issue to have these trials designed without ECG exclusions or monitoring. I’m glad that Dr. Gollob sent this warning, because he is right. ECG monitoring during treatment is important so you can stop the treatment in time,” Dr. Wilde said. Dr. Wilde also noted that many, if not most, of the studies listed on clinicaltrials.gov may not actually launch.

In April, representatives from several cardiology societies coauthored a document of considerations when using hydroxychloroquine, chloroquine, or azithromycin to treat patients with a diagnosed COVID-19 infection, and highlighted a QTc interval of 500 msec or greater as flagging patients who should no longer receive these drugs (J Am Coll Cardiol. 2020 Apr 10. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2020.04.016). For patients who do not yet have COVID-19 disease and the goal from treatment is prevention the potential efficacy of these drugs is reasonable to explore, but “does not exclude the need to minimize risk to research participants, especially when enrolling healthy subjects,” Dr. Gollob said.

Dr. Gollob, Dr. Viskin, and Dr. Wilde had no relevant financial disclosures.

mzoler@mdedge.com

Many planned randomized trials to test the efficacy of hydroxychloroquine or related drugs for preventing COVID-19 infection have, as of the end of April 2020, failed to include ECG assessment to either exclude people at the highest risk for possibly developing a life-threatening cardiac arrhythmia or to flag people who achieve a dangerous QTc interval on treatment, according to an analysis of the posted designs of several dozen studies.

“It is not only inexplicable, but also inexcusable that clinical investigators would dare to include healthy individuals in a clinical trial involving QT-prolonging medications without bothering to screen their electrocardiogram,” commented Sami Viskin, MD, an electrophysiologist at Tel Aviv Sourasky Medical Center. “The fact that we needed Dr. Gollob to ring this alarm is, itself, shocking,” he said in an interview.

“ECG screening is a good option to minimize the risk. You don’t eliminate the risk, but you can minimize it,” commented Arthur Wilde, MD, a cardiac electrophysiologist and professor of medicine at the Academic Medical Center in Amsterdam. Both Dr. Viskin and Dr. Wilde agreed with the QTc interval thresholds Dr. Gollob recommended using for excluding or discontinuing study participants.

In his commentary, Dr. Gollob estimated that if 85,000 otherwise healthy adults were randomized to received a drug that can increase the QTc interval, as many as about 3,400 people (4%) in the group could statistically be expected to have an especially high vulnerability to QT prolongation because of genetic variants they might carry that collectively have roughly this prevalence. In some people of African heritage, the prevalence of genetic risk for excessive QTc lengthening can be even higher, approaching about 10%, noted Dr. Wilde.

Dr. Gollob hoped the concerns he raised will prompt the organizers of many of these studies to revise their design, and he said he already knew of one study based in Toronto that recently added an ECG-monitoring strategy in response to the concerns he raised. He expressed optimism that more studies will follow.

“It’s a real issue to have these trials designed without ECG exclusions or monitoring. I’m glad that Dr. Gollob sent this warning, because he is right. ECG monitoring during treatment is important so you can stop the treatment in time,” Dr. Wilde said. Dr. Wilde also noted that many, if not most, of the studies listed on clinicaltrials.gov may not actually launch.

In April, representatives from several cardiology societies coauthored a document of considerations when using hydroxychloroquine, chloroquine, or azithromycin to treat patients with a diagnosed COVID-19 infection, and highlighted a QTc interval of 500 msec or greater as flagging patients who should no longer receive these drugs (J Am Coll Cardiol. 2020 Apr 10. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2020.04.016). For patients who do not yet have COVID-19 disease and the goal from treatment is prevention the potential efficacy of these drugs is reasonable to explore, but “does not exclude the need to minimize risk to research participants, especially when enrolling healthy subjects,” Dr. Gollob said.

Dr. Gollob, Dr. Viskin, and Dr. Wilde had no relevant financial disclosures.

mzoler@mdedge.com

The younger an ICU patient with severe COVID-19 is, the more obese that patient tends to be, according to a new analysis published in The Lancet.

“By itself, obesity seems to be a sufficient risk factor to start seeing younger people landing in the ICU,” said the study’s lead author, David Kass, MD, a professor of cardiology and medicine at Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine in Baltimore, Maryland.

“In that sense, there’s a simple message: If you’re very, very overweight, don’t think that if you’re 35 you’re that much safer [from severe COVID-19] than your mother or grandparents or others in their 60s or 70s,” Kass told Medscape Medical News.

The findings, which Kass describes as a “2-week snapshot” of 265 patients (58% male) in late March and early April at a handful of university hospitals in the United States reinforces other recent research indicating that obesity is one of the biggest risk factors for severe COVID-19 disease, particularly among younger patients. In addition, a large British study showed that, after adjusting for comorbidities, obesity was a significant factor associated with in-hospital death in COVID-19.

But this new analysis stands out as the only dataset to date that specifically “asks the question relative to age” of whether severe COVID-19 disease correlates to ICU treatment, he said.

The mean age of his study population of ICU patients was 55, Kass said, “and that was young, not what we were expecting.”

“Even with the first 20 patients, we were already seeing younger people and they definitely were heavier, with plenty of patients with a BMI over 35 kg/m²,” he added. “The relationship was pretty tight, pretty quick.”

“Just don’t make the assumption that any of us are too young to be vulnerable if, in fact, this is an aspect of our bodies,” he said.

Steven Heymsfield, MD, past president and a spokesperson for the Obesity Society, agrees with Kass’ conclusions.

“One thing we’ve had on our minds is that the prototype of a person with this disease is older...but now if we get [a patient] who’s symptomatic and 40 and obese, we shouldn’t assume they have some other disease,” Heymsfield told Medscape Medical News.

“We should think of them as a susceptible population.”

Kass and colleagues agree. “Public messaging to younger adults, reducing the threshold for virus testing in obese individuals, and maintaining greater vigilance for this at-risk population should reduce the prevalence of severe COVID-19 disease [among those with obesity],” they state.

“I think it’s a mental adjustment from a health care standpoint, which might hopefully help target the folks who are at higher risk before they get into trouble,” Kass told Medscape Medical News.
 

Trio of mechanisms explain obesity’s extra COVID-19 risks

Kass and coauthors write that, in analyzing their data, they anticipated similar results to the largest study of 1591 ICU patients from Italy in which only 203 were younger than 51 years. Common comorbidities among those patients included hypertension, cardiovascular disease, and type 2 diabetes, with similar data reported from China.

When the COVID-19 epidemic accelerated in the United States, older age was also identified as a risk factor. Obesity had not yet been added to this list, Kass noted. But following informal discussions with colleagues in other ICUs around the country, he decided to investigate further as to whether it was an underappreciated risk factor.

Kass and colleagues did a quick evaluation of the link between BMI and age of patients with COVID-19 admitted to ICUs at Johns Hopkins, University of Cincinnati, New York University, University of Washington, Florida Health, and University of Pennsylvania.

The “significant inverse correlation between age and BMI” showed younger ICU patients were more likely to be obese, with no difference by gender.

Median BMI among study participants was 29.3 kg/m², with only a quarter having a BMI lower than 26 kg/m² and another 25% having a BMI higher than 34.7 kg/m².

Kass acknowledged that it wasn’t possible with this simple dataset to account for any other potential confounders, but he told Medscape Medical News that, “while diabetes, cardiovascular disease, and hypertension, for example, can occur with obesity, this is generally less so in younger populations as it takes time for the other comorbidities to develop.”

He said several mechanisms could explain why obesity predisposes patients with COVID-19 to severe disease.

For one, obesity places extra pressure on the diaphragm while lying on the back, restricting breathing.

“Morbid obesity itself is sort of proinflammatory,” he continued.

“Here we’ve got a viral infection where the early reports suggest that cytokine storms and immune mishandling of the virus are why it’s so much more severe than other forms of coronavirus we’ve seen before. So if you have someone with an already underlying proinflammatory state, this could be a reason there’s higher risk.”

Additionally, the angiotensin-converting enzyme-2 (ACE-2) receptor to which the SARS-CoV-2 virus that causes COVID-19 attaches is expressed in higher amounts in adipose tissue than the lungs, Kass noted.

“This could turn into kind of a viral replication depot,” he explained. “You may well be brewing more virus as a component of obesity.”
 

Sensitivity needed in public messaging about risks, but test sooner

With an obesity rate of about 40% in the United States, the results are particularly relevant for Americans, Kass and Heymsfield say, noting that the country’s “obesity belt” runs through the South.

Heymsfield, who wasn’t part of the new analysis, notes that public messaging around severe COVID-19 risks to younger adults with obesity is “tricky,” especially because the virus is “still pretty common in nonobese people.”

Kass agrees, noting, “it’s difficult to turn to 40% of the population and say: ‘You guys have to watch it.’ ”

But the mounting research findings necessitate linking obesity with severe COVID-19 disease and perhaps testing patients in this category for the virus sooner before symptoms become severe.

And of note, since shortness of breath is common among people with obesity regardless of illness, similar COVID-19 symptoms might catch these individuals unaware, pointed out Heymsfield, who is also a professor in the Metabolism and Body Composition Lab at Pennington Biomedical Research Center at Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge.

“They may find themselves literally unable to breathe, and the concern would be that they wait much too long to come in” for treatment, he said. Typically, people can deteriorate between day 7 and 10 of the COVID-19 infection.

Individuals with obesity “need to be educated to recognize the serious complications of COVID-19 often appear suddenly, although the virus has sometimes been working its way through the body for a long time,” he concluded.

Kass and Heymsfield have declared no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The younger an ICU patient with severe COVID-19 is, the more obese that patient tends to be, according to a new analysis published in The Lancet.

“By itself, obesity seems to be a sufficient risk factor to start seeing younger people landing in the ICU,” said the study’s lead author, David Kass, MD, a professor of cardiology and medicine at Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine in Baltimore, Maryland.

“In that sense, there’s a simple message: If you’re very, very overweight, don’t think that if you’re 35 you’re that much safer [from severe COVID-19] than your mother or grandparents or others in their 60s or 70s,” Kass told Medscape Medical News.

The findings, which Kass describes as a “2-week snapshot” of 265 patients (58% male) in late March and early April at a handful of university hospitals in the United States reinforces other recent research indicating that obesity is one of the biggest risk factors for severe COVID-19 disease, particularly among younger patients. In addition, a large British study showed that, after adjusting for comorbidities, obesity was a significant factor associated with in-hospital death in COVID-19.

But this new analysis stands out as the only dataset to date that specifically “asks the question relative to age” of whether severe COVID-19 disease correlates to ICU treatment, he said.

The mean age of his study population of ICU patients was 55, Kass said, “and that was young, not what we were expecting.”

“Even with the first 20 patients, we were already seeing younger people and they definitely were heavier, with plenty of patients with a BMI over 35 kg/m²,” he added. “The relationship was pretty tight, pretty quick.”

“Just don’t make the assumption that any of us are too young to be vulnerable if, in fact, this is an aspect of our bodies,” he said.

Steven Heymsfield, MD, past president and a spokesperson for the Obesity Society, agrees with Kass’ conclusions.

“One thing we’ve had on our minds is that the prototype of a person with this disease is older...but now if we get [a patient] who’s symptomatic and 40 and obese, we shouldn’t assume they have some other disease,” Heymsfield told Medscape Medical News.

“We should think of them as a susceptible population.”

Kass and colleagues agree. “Public messaging to younger adults, reducing the threshold for virus testing in obese individuals, and maintaining greater vigilance for this at-risk population should reduce the prevalence of severe COVID-19 disease [among those with obesity],” they state.

“I think it’s a mental adjustment from a health care standpoint, which might hopefully help target the folks who are at higher risk before they get into trouble,” Kass told Medscape Medical News.
 

Trio of mechanisms explain obesity’s extra COVID-19 risks

Kass and coauthors write that, in analyzing their data, they anticipated similar results to the largest study of 1591 ICU patients from Italy in which only 203 were younger than 51 years. Common comorbidities among those patients included hypertension, cardiovascular disease, and type 2 diabetes, with similar data reported from China.

When the COVID-19 epidemic accelerated in the United States, older age was also identified as a risk factor. Obesity had not yet been added to this list, Kass noted. But following informal discussions with colleagues in other ICUs around the country, he decided to investigate further as to whether it was an underappreciated risk factor.

Kass and colleagues did a quick evaluation of the link between BMI and age of patients with COVID-19 admitted to ICUs at Johns Hopkins, University of Cincinnati, New York University, University of Washington, Florida Health, and University of Pennsylvania.

The “significant inverse correlation between age and BMI” showed younger ICU patients were more likely to be obese, with no difference by gender.

Median BMI among study participants was 29.3 kg/m², with only a quarter having a BMI lower than 26 kg/m² and another 25% having a BMI higher than 34.7 kg/m².

Kass acknowledged that it wasn’t possible with this simple dataset to account for any other potential confounders, but he told Medscape Medical News that, “while diabetes, cardiovascular disease, and hypertension, for example, can occur with obesity, this is generally less so in younger populations as it takes time for the other comorbidities to develop.”

He said several mechanisms could explain why obesity predisposes patients with COVID-19 to severe disease.

For one, obesity places extra pressure on the diaphragm while lying on the back, restricting breathing.

“Morbid obesity itself is sort of proinflammatory,” he continued.

“Here we’ve got a viral infection where the early reports suggest that cytokine storms and immune mishandling of the virus are why it’s so much more severe than other forms of coronavirus we’ve seen before. So if you have someone with an already underlying proinflammatory state, this could be a reason there’s higher risk.”

Additionally, the angiotensin-converting enzyme-2 (ACE-2) receptor to which the SARS-CoV-2 virus that causes COVID-19 attaches is expressed in higher amounts in adipose tissue than the lungs, Kass noted.

“This could turn into kind of a viral replication depot,” he explained. “You may well be brewing more virus as a component of obesity.”
 

Sensitivity needed in public messaging about risks, but test sooner

With an obesity rate of about 40% in the United States, the results are particularly relevant for Americans, Kass and Heymsfield say, noting that the country’s “obesity belt” runs through the South.

Heymsfield, who wasn’t part of the new analysis, notes that public messaging around severe COVID-19 risks to younger adults with obesity is “tricky,” especially because the virus is “still pretty common in nonobese people.”

Kass agrees, noting, “it’s difficult to turn to 40% of the population and say: ‘You guys have to watch it.’ ”

But the mounting research findings necessitate linking obesity with severe COVID-19 disease and perhaps testing patients in this category for the virus sooner before symptoms become severe.

And of note, since shortness of breath is common among people with obesity regardless of illness, similar COVID-19 symptoms might catch these individuals unaware, pointed out Heymsfield, who is also a professor in the Metabolism and Body Composition Lab at Pennington Biomedical Research Center at Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge.

“They may find themselves literally unable to breathe, and the concern would be that they wait much too long to come in” for treatment, he said. Typically, people can deteriorate between day 7 and 10 of the COVID-19 infection.

Individuals with obesity “need to be educated to recognize the serious complications of COVID-19 often appear suddenly, although the virus has sometimes been working its way through the body for a long time,” he concluded.

Kass and Heymsfield have declared no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The younger an ICU patient with severe COVID-19 is, the more obese that patient tends to be, according to a new analysis published in The Lancet.

“By itself, obesity seems to be a sufficient risk factor to start seeing younger people landing in the ICU,” said the study’s lead author, David Kass, MD, a professor of cardiology and medicine at Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine in Baltimore, Maryland.

“In that sense, there’s a simple message: If you’re very, very overweight, don’t think that if you’re 35 you’re that much safer [from severe COVID-19] than your mother or grandparents or others in their 60s or 70s,” Kass told Medscape Medical News.

The findings, which Kass describes as a “2-week snapshot” of 265 patients (58% male) in late March and early April at a handful of university hospitals in the United States reinforces other recent research indicating that obesity is one of the biggest risk factors for severe COVID-19 disease, particularly among younger patients. In addition, a large British study showed that, after adjusting for comorbidities, obesity was a significant factor associated with in-hospital death in COVID-19.

But this new analysis stands out as the only dataset to date that specifically “asks the question relative to age” of whether severe COVID-19 disease correlates to ICU treatment, he said.

The mean age of his study population of ICU patients was 55, Kass said, “and that was young, not what we were expecting.”

“Even with the first 20 patients, we were already seeing younger people and they definitely were heavier, with plenty of patients with a BMI over 35 kg/m²,” he added. “The relationship was pretty tight, pretty quick.”

“Just don’t make the assumption that any of us are too young to be vulnerable if, in fact, this is an aspect of our bodies,” he said.

Steven Heymsfield, MD, past president and a spokesperson for the Obesity Society, agrees with Kass’ conclusions.

“One thing we’ve had on our minds is that the prototype of a person with this disease is older...but now if we get [a patient] who’s symptomatic and 40 and obese, we shouldn’t assume they have some other disease,” Heymsfield told Medscape Medical News.

“We should think of them as a susceptible population.”

Kass and colleagues agree. “Public messaging to younger adults, reducing the threshold for virus testing in obese individuals, and maintaining greater vigilance for this at-risk population should reduce the prevalence of severe COVID-19 disease [among those with obesity],” they state.

“I think it’s a mental adjustment from a health care standpoint, which might hopefully help target the folks who are at higher risk before they get into trouble,” Kass told Medscape Medical News.
 

Trio of mechanisms explain obesity’s extra COVID-19 risks

Kass and coauthors write that, in analyzing their data, they anticipated similar results to the largest study of 1591 ICU patients from Italy in which only 203 were younger than 51 years. Common comorbidities among those patients included hypertension, cardiovascular disease, and type 2 diabetes, with similar data reported from China.

When the COVID-19 epidemic accelerated in the United States, older age was also identified as a risk factor. Obesity had not yet been added to this list, Kass noted. But following informal discussions with colleagues in other ICUs around the country, he decided to investigate further as to whether it was an underappreciated risk factor.

Kass and colleagues did a quick evaluation of the link between BMI and age of patients with COVID-19 admitted to ICUs at Johns Hopkins, University of Cincinnati, New York University, University of Washington, Florida Health, and University of Pennsylvania.

The “significant inverse correlation between age and BMI” showed younger ICU patients were more likely to be obese, with no difference by gender.

Median BMI among study participants was 29.3 kg/m², with only a quarter having a BMI lower than 26 kg/m² and another 25% having a BMI higher than 34.7 kg/m².

Kass acknowledged that it wasn’t possible with this simple dataset to account for any other potential confounders, but he told Medscape Medical News that, “while diabetes, cardiovascular disease, and hypertension, for example, can occur with obesity, this is generally less so in younger populations as it takes time for the other comorbidities to develop.”

He said several mechanisms could explain why obesity predisposes patients with COVID-19 to severe disease.

For one, obesity places extra pressure on the diaphragm while lying on the back, restricting breathing.

“Morbid obesity itself is sort of proinflammatory,” he continued.

“Here we’ve got a viral infection where the early reports suggest that cytokine storms and immune mishandling of the virus are why it’s so much more severe than other forms of coronavirus we’ve seen before. So if you have someone with an already underlying proinflammatory state, this could be a reason there’s higher risk.”

Additionally, the angiotensin-converting enzyme-2 (ACE-2) receptor to which the SARS-CoV-2 virus that causes COVID-19 attaches is expressed in higher amounts in adipose tissue than the lungs, Kass noted.

“This could turn into kind of a viral replication depot,” he explained. “You may well be brewing more virus as a component of obesity.”
 

Sensitivity needed in public messaging about risks, but test sooner

With an obesity rate of about 40% in the United States, the results are particularly relevant for Americans, Kass and Heymsfield say, noting that the country’s “obesity belt” runs through the South.

Heymsfield, who wasn’t part of the new analysis, notes that public messaging around severe COVID-19 risks to younger adults with obesity is “tricky,” especially because the virus is “still pretty common in nonobese people.”

Kass agrees, noting, “it’s difficult to turn to 40% of the population and say: ‘You guys have to watch it.’ ”

But the mounting research findings necessitate linking obesity with severe COVID-19 disease and perhaps testing patients in this category for the virus sooner before symptoms become severe.

And of note, since shortness of breath is common among people with obesity regardless of illness, similar COVID-19 symptoms might catch these individuals unaware, pointed out Heymsfield, who is also a professor in the Metabolism and Body Composition Lab at Pennington Biomedical Research Center at Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge.

“They may find themselves literally unable to breathe, and the concern would be that they wait much too long to come in” for treatment, he said. Typically, people can deteriorate between day 7 and 10 of the COVID-19 infection.

Individuals with obesity “need to be educated to recognize the serious complications of COVID-19 often appear suddenly, although the virus has sometimes been working its way through the body for a long time,” he concluded.

Kass and Heymsfield have declared no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Evolocumab proved effective, well tolerated, and safe for the treatment of refractory dyslipidemia in persons living with HIV in the phase 3, randomized, double-blind BEIJERINCK study.

At 24 weeks, nearly three-quarters of patients randomized to evolocumab (Repatha) achieved at least a 50% reduction in LDL cholesterol while on maximally tolerated background lipid lowering with a statin and/or other drugs. This was accompanied by significant reductions in other atherogenic lipids, Franck Boccara, MD, PhD, reported at the joint scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology and the World Heart Federation. The meeting was conducted online after its cancellation because of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Evolocumab thus shows the potential to help fill a major unmet need for more effective treatment of dyslipidemia in HIV-positive patients, who number an estimated 38 million worldwide, including 1.1 million in the United States. Access to highly active antiretroviral therapies has transformed HIV infection into a chronic manageable disease, but this major advance has been accompanied by a rate of premature atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease that’s nearly twice that of the general population, observed Dr. Boccara, a cardiologist at Sorbonne University, Paris.

The BEIJERINCK study included 464 HIV-infected patients in the United States and 14 other countries on five continents. Participants had a mean baseline LDL cholesterol of 133 mg/dL and triglycerides of about 190 mg/dL while on maximally tolerated lipid-lowering therapy. They had been diagnosed with HIV an average of 18 years earlier. One-third of them had known atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease. More than one-quarter of participants were cigarette smokers. Patients were randomized 2:1 to 24 weeks of double-blind subcutaneous evolocumab at 420 mg once monthly or placebo, then an additional 24 weeks of open-label evolocumab for all.

The primary endpoint was change in LDL from baseline to week 24: a 56.2% reduction in the evolocumab group and a 0.7% increase with placebo. About 73% of patients on evolocumab achieved at least a 50% reduction in LDL cholesterol, as did less than 1% of controls. Likewise, 73% of the evolocumab group got their LDL cholesterol below 70 mg/dL, compared with 7.9% with placebo.

The evolocumab group also experienced favorable placebo-subtracted differences from baseline of 23% in triglycerides, 27% in lipoprotein(a), and 22% in very-low-density lipoprotein cholesterol.

As was the case in the earlier, much larger landmark clinical trials, evolocumab was well tolerated in BEIJERINCK, with a side effect profile similar to placebo. Notably, there was no increase in liver abnormalities in evolocumab-treated patients on highly active antiretroviral therapy, and no one developed evolocumab neutralizing antibodies.

Dr. Boccara reported receiving a research grant from Amgen, the study sponsor, as well as lecture fees from several other pharmaceutical companies.

Simultaneous with the presentation at ACC 2020, the primary results of the BEIJERINCK study were published online (J Am Coll Cardiol. 2020 Mar 19. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2020.03.025).

bjancin@mdedge.com

Evolocumab proved effective, well tolerated, and safe for the treatment of refractory dyslipidemia in persons living with HIV in the phase 3, randomized, double-blind BEIJERINCK study.

At 24 weeks, nearly three-quarters of patients randomized to evolocumab (Repatha) achieved at least a 50% reduction in LDL cholesterol while on maximally tolerated background lipid lowering with a statin and/or other drugs. This was accompanied by significant reductions in other atherogenic lipids, Franck Boccara, MD, PhD, reported at the joint scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology and the World Heart Federation. The meeting was conducted online after its cancellation because of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Evolocumab thus shows the potential to help fill a major unmet need for more effective treatment of dyslipidemia in HIV-positive patients, who number an estimated 38 million worldwide, including 1.1 million in the United States. Access to highly active antiretroviral therapies has transformed HIV infection into a chronic manageable disease, but this major advance has been accompanied by a rate of premature atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease that’s nearly twice that of the general population, observed Dr. Boccara, a cardiologist at Sorbonne University, Paris.

The BEIJERINCK study included 464 HIV-infected patients in the United States and 14 other countries on five continents. Participants had a mean baseline LDL cholesterol of 133 mg/dL and triglycerides of about 190 mg/dL while on maximally tolerated lipid-lowering therapy. They had been diagnosed with HIV an average of 18 years earlier. One-third of them had known atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease. More than one-quarter of participants were cigarette smokers. Patients were randomized 2:1 to 24 weeks of double-blind subcutaneous evolocumab at 420 mg once monthly or placebo, then an additional 24 weeks of open-label evolocumab for all.

The primary endpoint was change in LDL from baseline to week 24: a 56.2% reduction in the evolocumab group and a 0.7% increase with placebo. About 73% of patients on evolocumab achieved at least a 50% reduction in LDL cholesterol, as did less than 1% of controls. Likewise, 73% of the evolocumab group got their LDL cholesterol below 70 mg/dL, compared with 7.9% with placebo.

The evolocumab group also experienced favorable placebo-subtracted differences from baseline of 23% in triglycerides, 27% in lipoprotein(a), and 22% in very-low-density lipoprotein cholesterol.

As was the case in the earlier, much larger landmark clinical trials, evolocumab was well tolerated in BEIJERINCK, with a side effect profile similar to placebo. Notably, there was no increase in liver abnormalities in evolocumab-treated patients on highly active antiretroviral therapy, and no one developed evolocumab neutralizing antibodies.

Dr. Boccara reported receiving a research grant from Amgen, the study sponsor, as well as lecture fees from several other pharmaceutical companies.

Simultaneous with the presentation at ACC 2020, the primary results of the BEIJERINCK study were published online (J Am Coll Cardiol. 2020 Mar 19. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2020.03.025).

bjancin@mdedge.com

Evolocumab proved effective, well tolerated, and safe for the treatment of refractory dyslipidemia in persons living with HIV in the phase 3, randomized, double-blind BEIJERINCK study.

At 24 weeks, nearly three-quarters of patients randomized to evolocumab (Repatha) achieved at least a 50% reduction in LDL cholesterol while on maximally tolerated background lipid lowering with a statin and/or other drugs. This was accompanied by significant reductions in other atherogenic lipids, Franck Boccara, MD, PhD, reported at the joint scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology and the World Heart Federation. The meeting was conducted online after its cancellation because of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Evolocumab thus shows the potential to help fill a major unmet need for more effective treatment of dyslipidemia in HIV-positive patients, who number an estimated 38 million worldwide, including 1.1 million in the United States. Access to highly active antiretroviral therapies has transformed HIV infection into a chronic manageable disease, but this major advance has been accompanied by a rate of premature atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease that’s nearly twice that of the general population, observed Dr. Boccara, a cardiologist at Sorbonne University, Paris.

The BEIJERINCK study included 464 HIV-infected patients in the United States and 14 other countries on five continents. Participants had a mean baseline LDL cholesterol of 133 mg/dL and triglycerides of about 190 mg/dL while on maximally tolerated lipid-lowering therapy. They had been diagnosed with HIV an average of 18 years earlier. One-third of them had known atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease. More than one-quarter of participants were cigarette smokers. Patients were randomized 2:1 to 24 weeks of double-blind subcutaneous evolocumab at 420 mg once monthly or placebo, then an additional 24 weeks of open-label evolocumab for all.

The primary endpoint was change in LDL from baseline to week 24: a 56.2% reduction in the evolocumab group and a 0.7% increase with placebo. About 73% of patients on evolocumab achieved at least a 50% reduction in LDL cholesterol, as did less than 1% of controls. Likewise, 73% of the evolocumab group got their LDL cholesterol below 70 mg/dL, compared with 7.9% with placebo.

The evolocumab group also experienced favorable placebo-subtracted differences from baseline of 23% in triglycerides, 27% in lipoprotein(a), and 22% in very-low-density lipoprotein cholesterol.

As was the case in the earlier, much larger landmark clinical trials, evolocumab was well tolerated in BEIJERINCK, with a side effect profile similar to placebo. Notably, there was no increase in liver abnormalities in evolocumab-treated patients on highly active antiretroviral therapy, and no one developed evolocumab neutralizing antibodies.

Dr. Boccara reported receiving a research grant from Amgen, the study sponsor, as well as lecture fees from several other pharmaceutical companies.

Simultaneous with the presentation at ACC 2020, the primary results of the BEIJERINCK study were published online (J Am Coll Cardiol. 2020 Mar 19. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2020.03.025).

bjancin@mdedge.com

The implantable defibrillator with subcutaneous leads, designed in part to minimize the risk for potentially serious lead-related complications, has reached a milestone by turning in a “noninferior” performance when it was compared with transvenous-lead devices in a first-of-its-kind head-to-head study.

Patients implanted with the subcutaneous-lead S-ICD (Boston Scientific) defibrillator showed a 4-year risk for inappropriate shocks or device-related complications similar to that seen with standard transvenous-lead implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICD) in a randomized comparison.

At the same time, the S-ICD did its job by showing a highly significant three-fourths reduction in risk for lead-related complications, compared with ICDs with standard leads, in the trial with more than 800 patients, called PRAETORIAN.

The study population represented a mix of patients seen in “real-world” practice who have an ICD indication, of whom about two-thirds had ischemic cardiomyopathy, said Reinoud Knops, MD, PhD, Academic Medical Center, Hilversum, the Netherlands. About 80% received the devices for primary prevention.

Knops, the trial’s principal investigator, presented the results online May 8 as one of the Heart Rhythm Society 2020 Scientific Sessions virtual presentations.

“I think the PRAETORIAN trial has really shown now, in a conventional ICD population – the real-world patients that we treat with ICD therapy, the single-chamber ICD cohort – that the S-ICD is a really good alternative option,” he said to reporters during a media briefing.

“The main conclusion is that the S-ICD should be considered in all patients who need an ICD who do not have a pacing indication,” Knops said.

This latter part is critical, because the S-ICD does not provide pacing therapy, including antitachycardia pacing (ATP) and cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT), and the trial did not enter patients considered likely to benefit from it. For example, it excluded anyone with bradycardia or treatment-refractory monomorphic ventricular tachycardia (VT) and patients considered appropriate for CRT.

In fact, there are a lot reasons clinicians might prefer a transvenous-lead ICD over the S-ICD, observed Anne B. Curtis, MD, University at Buffalo, State University of New York, who is not associated with PRAETORIAN.

A transvenous-lead system might be preferred in older patients, those with heart failure, and those with a lot of comorbidities. “A lot of these patients already have cardiomyopathies, so they’re more likely to develop atrial fibrillation or a need for CRT,” conditions that might make a transvenous-lead system the better choice, Curtis told theheart.org | Medscape Cardiology.

“For a lot of patients, you’re always thinking that you may have a need for that kind of therapy.”

In contrast, younger patients who perhaps have survived cardiac arrest and probably don’t have heart failure, and so may be less likely to benefit from pacing therapy, Curtis said, “are the kind of patient who you would probably lean very strongly toward for an S-ICD rather than a transvenous ICD.”

Remaining patients, those who might be considered candidates for either kind of device, are actually “a fairly limited subset,” she said.

The trial randomized 849 patients in Europe and the United States, from March 2011 to January 2017, who had a class I or IIa indication for an ICD but no bradycardia or need for CRT or ATP, to be implanted with an S-ICD or a transvenous-lead ICD.

The rates of the primary end point, a composite of device-related complications and inappropriate shocks at a median follow-up of 4 years, were comparable, at 15.1% in the S-ICD group and 15.7% for those with transvenous-lead ICDs.

The incidence of device-related complications numerically favored the S-ICD group, and the incidence of inappropriate shocks numerically favored the transvenous-lead group, but neither difference reached significance.

Knops said the PRAETORIAN researchers are seeking addition funding to extend the follow-up to 8 years. “We will get more insight into the durability of the S-ICD when we follow these patients longer,” he told theheart.org | Medscape Cardiology.

The investigator-initiated trial received support from Boston Scientific. Knops discloses receiving consultancy fees and research grants from Abbott, Boston Scientific, Medtronic, and Cairdac, and holding stock options from AtaCor Medical.
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The implantable defibrillator with subcutaneous leads, designed in part to minimize the risk for potentially serious lead-related complications, has reached a milestone by turning in a “noninferior” performance when it was compared with transvenous-lead devices in a first-of-its-kind head-to-head study.

Patients implanted with the subcutaneous-lead S-ICD (Boston Scientific) defibrillator showed a 4-year risk for inappropriate shocks or device-related complications similar to that seen with standard transvenous-lead implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICD) in a randomized comparison.

At the same time, the S-ICD did its job by showing a highly significant three-fourths reduction in risk for lead-related complications, compared with ICDs with standard leads, in the trial with more than 800 patients, called PRAETORIAN.

The study population represented a mix of patients seen in “real-world” practice who have an ICD indication, of whom about two-thirds had ischemic cardiomyopathy, said Reinoud Knops, MD, PhD, Academic Medical Center, Hilversum, the Netherlands. About 80% received the devices for primary prevention.

Knops, the trial’s principal investigator, presented the results online May 8 as one of the Heart Rhythm Society 2020 Scientific Sessions virtual presentations.

“I think the PRAETORIAN trial has really shown now, in a conventional ICD population – the real-world patients that we treat with ICD therapy, the single-chamber ICD cohort – that the S-ICD is a really good alternative option,” he said to reporters during a media briefing.

“The main conclusion is that the S-ICD should be considered in all patients who need an ICD who do not have a pacing indication,” Knops said.

This latter part is critical, because the S-ICD does not provide pacing therapy, including antitachycardia pacing (ATP) and cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT), and the trial did not enter patients considered likely to benefit from it. For example, it excluded anyone with bradycardia or treatment-refractory monomorphic ventricular tachycardia (VT) and patients considered appropriate for CRT.

In fact, there are a lot reasons clinicians might prefer a transvenous-lead ICD over the S-ICD, observed Anne B. Curtis, MD, University at Buffalo, State University of New York, who is not associated with PRAETORIAN.

A transvenous-lead system might be preferred in older patients, those with heart failure, and those with a lot of comorbidities. “A lot of these patients already have cardiomyopathies, so they’re more likely to develop atrial fibrillation or a need for CRT,” conditions that might make a transvenous-lead system the better choice, Curtis told theheart.org | Medscape Cardiology.

“For a lot of patients, you’re always thinking that you may have a need for that kind of therapy.”

In contrast, younger patients who perhaps have survived cardiac arrest and probably don’t have heart failure, and so may be less likely to benefit from pacing therapy, Curtis said, “are the kind of patient who you would probably lean very strongly toward for an S-ICD rather than a transvenous ICD.”

Remaining patients, those who might be considered candidates for either kind of device, are actually “a fairly limited subset,” she said.

The trial randomized 849 patients in Europe and the United States, from March 2011 to January 2017, who had a class I or IIa indication for an ICD but no bradycardia or need for CRT or ATP, to be implanted with an S-ICD or a transvenous-lead ICD.

The rates of the primary end point, a composite of device-related complications and inappropriate shocks at a median follow-up of 4 years, were comparable, at 15.1% in the S-ICD group and 15.7% for those with transvenous-lead ICDs.

The incidence of device-related complications numerically favored the S-ICD group, and the incidence of inappropriate shocks numerically favored the transvenous-lead group, but neither difference reached significance.

Knops said the PRAETORIAN researchers are seeking addition funding to extend the follow-up to 8 years. “We will get more insight into the durability of the S-ICD when we follow these patients longer,” he told theheart.org | Medscape Cardiology.

The investigator-initiated trial received support from Boston Scientific. Knops discloses receiving consultancy fees and research grants from Abbott, Boston Scientific, Medtronic, and Cairdac, and holding stock options from AtaCor Medical.
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The implantable defibrillator with subcutaneous leads, designed in part to minimize the risk for potentially serious lead-related complications, has reached a milestone by turning in a “noninferior” performance when it was compared with transvenous-lead devices in a first-of-its-kind head-to-head study.

Patients implanted with the subcutaneous-lead S-ICD (Boston Scientific) defibrillator showed a 4-year risk for inappropriate shocks or device-related complications similar to that seen with standard transvenous-lead implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICD) in a randomized comparison.

At the same time, the S-ICD did its job by showing a highly significant three-fourths reduction in risk for lead-related complications, compared with ICDs with standard leads, in the trial with more than 800 patients, called PRAETORIAN.

The study population represented a mix of patients seen in “real-world” practice who have an ICD indication, of whom about two-thirds had ischemic cardiomyopathy, said Reinoud Knops, MD, PhD, Academic Medical Center, Hilversum, the Netherlands. About 80% received the devices for primary prevention.

Knops, the trial’s principal investigator, presented the results online May 8 as one of the Heart Rhythm Society 2020 Scientific Sessions virtual presentations.

“I think the PRAETORIAN trial has really shown now, in a conventional ICD population – the real-world patients that we treat with ICD therapy, the single-chamber ICD cohort – that the S-ICD is a really good alternative option,” he said to reporters during a media briefing.

“The main conclusion is that the S-ICD should be considered in all patients who need an ICD who do not have a pacing indication,” Knops said.

This latter part is critical, because the S-ICD does not provide pacing therapy, including antitachycardia pacing (ATP) and cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT), and the trial did not enter patients considered likely to benefit from it. For example, it excluded anyone with bradycardia or treatment-refractory monomorphic ventricular tachycardia (VT) and patients considered appropriate for CRT.

In fact, there are a lot reasons clinicians might prefer a transvenous-lead ICD over the S-ICD, observed Anne B. Curtis, MD, University at Buffalo, State University of New York, who is not associated with PRAETORIAN.

A transvenous-lead system might be preferred in older patients, those with heart failure, and those with a lot of comorbidities. “A lot of these patients already have cardiomyopathies, so they’re more likely to develop atrial fibrillation or a need for CRT,” conditions that might make a transvenous-lead system the better choice, Curtis told theheart.org | Medscape Cardiology.

“For a lot of patients, you’re always thinking that you may have a need for that kind of therapy.”

In contrast, younger patients who perhaps have survived cardiac arrest and probably don’t have heart failure, and so may be less likely to benefit from pacing therapy, Curtis said, “are the kind of patient who you would probably lean very strongly toward for an S-ICD rather than a transvenous ICD.”

Remaining patients, those who might be considered candidates for either kind of device, are actually “a fairly limited subset,” she said.

The trial randomized 849 patients in Europe and the United States, from March 2011 to January 2017, who had a class I or IIa indication for an ICD but no bradycardia or need for CRT or ATP, to be implanted with an S-ICD or a transvenous-lead ICD.

The rates of the primary end point, a composite of device-related complications and inappropriate shocks at a median follow-up of 4 years, were comparable, at 15.1% in the S-ICD group and 15.7% for those with transvenous-lead ICDs.

The incidence of device-related complications numerically favored the S-ICD group, and the incidence of inappropriate shocks numerically favored the transvenous-lead group, but neither difference reached significance.

Knops said the PRAETORIAN researchers are seeking addition funding to extend the follow-up to 8 years. “We will get more insight into the durability of the S-ICD when we follow these patients longer,” he told theheart.org | Medscape Cardiology.

The investigator-initiated trial received support from Boston Scientific. Knops discloses receiving consultancy fees and research grants from Abbott, Boston Scientific, Medtronic, and Cairdac, and holding stock options from AtaCor Medical.
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Patients with atrial fibrillation, even those on oral anticoagulant therapy, developed clinically silent brain infarctions at a striking rate of close to 3% per year, according to results from SWISS-AF, a prospective of study of 1,227 Swiss patients followed with serial MR brain scans over a 2 year period.

The results also showed that these brain infarctions – which occurred in 68 (5.5%) of the atrial fibrillation (AFib) patients, including 58 (85%) who did not have any strokes or transient ischemic attacks during follow-up – appeared to represent enough pathology to link with a small but statistically significant decline in three separate cognitive measures, compared with patients who did not develop brain infarctions during follow-up.

“Cognitive decline may go unrecognized for a long time in clinical practice because usually no one tests for it,” plus “the absolute declines were small and probably not appreciable” in the everyday behavior of affected patients, David Conen, MD, said at the annual scientific sessions of the Heart Rhythm Society, held online because of COVID-19. But “we were surprised to see a significant change after just 2 years. We expect much larger effects to develop over time,” he said during a press briefing.

Another key finding was that roughly half the patients had large cortical or noncortical infarcts, which usually have a thromboembolic cause, but the other half had small noncortical infarcts that likely have a different etiology involving the microvasculature. Causes for those small infarcts might include localized atherosclerotic disease or amyloidosis, proposed Dr. Conen, a cardiologist at McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont.

This finding also suggests that, as a consequence, anticoagulation alone may not be enough to prevent this brain damage in Afib patients. “It calls for a more comprehensive approach to prevention,” with attention to atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease risk factors in AFib patients, including interventions that address hypertension, diabetes, hyperlipidemia, and smoking cessation. “Anticoagulation in AFib patients is critical, but it also is not enough,” Dr. Conen said.

These data “are very important. The two pillars for taking care of AFib patients have traditionally been to manage the patient’s stroke risk and to treat symptoms. Dr. Conen’s data suggest that simply starting anticoagulation is not sufficient, and it stresses the importance of continued management of hypertension, diabetes, and other medical and social issues,” commented Fred Kusumoto, MD, director of heart rhythm services at the Mayo Clinic in Jacksonville, Fla.

“The risk factors associated with the development of cardiovascular disease are similar to those associated with the development of AFib and heart failure. It is important to understand the importance of managing hypertension, diabetes, and obesity; encouraging exercise and a healthy diet; and stopping smoking in all AFib patients as well as in the general population. Many clinicians have not emphasized the importance of continually addressing these behaviors,” Dr. Kusumoto said in an interview.

The SWISS-AF (Swiss Atrial Fibrillation Cohort) study enrolled 2,415 AFib patients at 14 Swiss centers during 2014-2017, and obtained both a baseline brain MR scan and baseline cognitive-test results for 1,737 patients (J Am Coll Cardiol. 2019 Mar;73[9]:989-99). Patients retook the cognitive tests annually, and 1,227 had a second MR brain scan after 2 years in the study, the cohort that supplied the data Dr. Conen presented. At baseline, these patients averaged 71 years of age, just over a quarter were women, and 90% were on an oral anticoagulant, with 84% on an oral anticoagulant at 2-year follow-up. Treatment split roughly equally between direct-acting oral anticoagulants and vitamin K antagonists like warfarin.

Among the 68 patients with evidence for an incident brain infarct after 2 years, 59 (87%) were on treatment with an OAC, and 51 (75%) who were both on treatment with a direct-acting oral anticoagulant and developed their brain infarct without also having a stroke or transient ischemic attack, which Dr. Conen called a “silent event.” The cognitive tests that showed statistically significant declines after 2 years in the patients with silent brain infarcts compared with those without a new infarct were the Trail Making Test parts A and B, and the animal-naming verbal fluency test. The two other tests applied were the Montreal Cognitive Assessment and the Digital Symbol Substitution Test.

Results from several prior studies also indicated a relationship between AFib and cognitive decline, but SWISS-AF is “the largest study to rigorously examine the incidence of silent brain infarcts in AFib patients,” commented Christine M. Albert, MD, chair of cardiology at the Smidt Heart Institute of Cedars-Sinai Medical Center in Los Angeles. “Silent infarcts could be the cause, at least in part, for the cognitive decline and dementia associated with AFib,” she noted. But divining the therapeutic implications of the finding will require further investigation that looks at factors such as the impact of anticoagulant type, other treatment that addresses AFib such as ablation and rate control, the duration and type of AFib, and the prevalence of hypertension and other stroke risk factors, she said as a designated discussant for Dr. Conen’s report.

SWISS-AF received no commercial funding. Dr. Conen has been a speaker on behalf of Servier. Dr. Kusumoto had no disclosures. Dr. Albert has been a consultant to Roche Diagnostics and has received research funding from Abbott, Roche Diagnostics, and St. Jude Medical.

mzoler@mdedge.com

Patients with atrial fibrillation, even those on oral anticoagulant therapy, developed clinically silent brain infarctions at a striking rate of close to 3% per year, according to results from SWISS-AF, a prospective of study of 1,227 Swiss patients followed with serial MR brain scans over a 2 year period.

The results also showed that these brain infarctions – which occurred in 68 (5.5%) of the atrial fibrillation (AFib) patients, including 58 (85%) who did not have any strokes or transient ischemic attacks during follow-up – appeared to represent enough pathology to link with a small but statistically significant decline in three separate cognitive measures, compared with patients who did not develop brain infarctions during follow-up.

“Cognitive decline may go unrecognized for a long time in clinical practice because usually no one tests for it,” plus “the absolute declines were small and probably not appreciable” in the everyday behavior of affected patients, David Conen, MD, said at the annual scientific sessions of the Heart Rhythm Society, held online because of COVID-19. But “we were surprised to see a significant change after just 2 years. We expect much larger effects to develop over time,” he said during a press briefing.

Another key finding was that roughly half the patients had large cortical or noncortical infarcts, which usually have a thromboembolic cause, but the other half had small noncortical infarcts that likely have a different etiology involving the microvasculature. Causes for those small infarcts might include localized atherosclerotic disease or amyloidosis, proposed Dr. Conen, a cardiologist at McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont.

This finding also suggests that, as a consequence, anticoagulation alone may not be enough to prevent this brain damage in Afib patients. “It calls for a more comprehensive approach to prevention,” with attention to atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease risk factors in AFib patients, including interventions that address hypertension, diabetes, hyperlipidemia, and smoking cessation. “Anticoagulation in AFib patients is critical, but it also is not enough,” Dr. Conen said.

These data “are very important. The two pillars for taking care of AFib patients have traditionally been to manage the patient’s stroke risk and to treat symptoms. Dr. Conen’s data suggest that simply starting anticoagulation is not sufficient, and it stresses the importance of continued management of hypertension, diabetes, and other medical and social issues,” commented Fred Kusumoto, MD, director of heart rhythm services at the Mayo Clinic in Jacksonville, Fla.

“The risk factors associated with the development of cardiovascular disease are similar to those associated with the development of AFib and heart failure. It is important to understand the importance of managing hypertension, diabetes, and obesity; encouraging exercise and a healthy diet; and stopping smoking in all AFib patients as well as in the general population. Many clinicians have not emphasized the importance of continually addressing these behaviors,” Dr. Kusumoto said in an interview.

The SWISS-AF (Swiss Atrial Fibrillation Cohort) study enrolled 2,415 AFib patients at 14 Swiss centers during 2014-2017, and obtained both a baseline brain MR scan and baseline cognitive-test results for 1,737 patients (J Am Coll Cardiol. 2019 Mar;73[9]:989-99). Patients retook the cognitive tests annually, and 1,227 had a second MR brain scan after 2 years in the study, the cohort that supplied the data Dr. Conen presented. At baseline, these patients averaged 71 years of age, just over a quarter were women, and 90% were on an oral anticoagulant, with 84% on an oral anticoagulant at 2-year follow-up. Treatment split roughly equally between direct-acting oral anticoagulants and vitamin K antagonists like warfarin.

Among the 68 patients with evidence for an incident brain infarct after 2 years, 59 (87%) were on treatment with an OAC, and 51 (75%) who were both on treatment with a direct-acting oral anticoagulant and developed their brain infarct without also having a stroke or transient ischemic attack, which Dr. Conen called a “silent event.” The cognitive tests that showed statistically significant declines after 2 years in the patients with silent brain infarcts compared with those without a new infarct were the Trail Making Test parts A and B, and the animal-naming verbal fluency test. The two other tests applied were the Montreal Cognitive Assessment and the Digital Symbol Substitution Test.

Results from several prior studies also indicated a relationship between AFib and cognitive decline, but SWISS-AF is “the largest study to rigorously examine the incidence of silent brain infarcts in AFib patients,” commented Christine M. Albert, MD, chair of cardiology at the Smidt Heart Institute of Cedars-Sinai Medical Center in Los Angeles. “Silent infarcts could be the cause, at least in part, for the cognitive decline and dementia associated with AFib,” she noted. But divining the therapeutic implications of the finding will require further investigation that looks at factors such as the impact of anticoagulant type, other treatment that addresses AFib such as ablation and rate control, the duration and type of AFib, and the prevalence of hypertension and other stroke risk factors, she said as a designated discussant for Dr. Conen’s report.

SWISS-AF received no commercial funding. Dr. Conen has been a speaker on behalf of Servier. Dr. Kusumoto had no disclosures. Dr. Albert has been a consultant to Roche Diagnostics and has received research funding from Abbott, Roche Diagnostics, and St. Jude Medical.

mzoler@mdedge.com

Patients with atrial fibrillation, even those on oral anticoagulant therapy, developed clinically silent brain infarctions at a striking rate of close to 3% per year, according to results from SWISS-AF, a prospective of study of 1,227 Swiss patients followed with serial MR brain scans over a 2 year period.

The results also showed that these brain infarctions – which occurred in 68 (5.5%) of the atrial fibrillation (AFib) patients, including 58 (85%) who did not have any strokes or transient ischemic attacks during follow-up – appeared to represent enough pathology to link with a small but statistically significant decline in three separate cognitive measures, compared with patients who did not develop brain infarctions during follow-up.

“Cognitive decline may go unrecognized for a long time in clinical practice because usually no one tests for it,” plus “the absolute declines were small and probably not appreciable” in the everyday behavior of affected patients, David Conen, MD, said at the annual scientific sessions of the Heart Rhythm Society, held online because of COVID-19. But “we were surprised to see a significant change after just 2 years. We expect much larger effects to develop over time,” he said during a press briefing.

Another key finding was that roughly half the patients had large cortical or noncortical infarcts, which usually have a thromboembolic cause, but the other half had small noncortical infarcts that likely have a different etiology involving the microvasculature. Causes for those small infarcts might include localized atherosclerotic disease or amyloidosis, proposed Dr. Conen, a cardiologist at McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont.

This finding also suggests that, as a consequence, anticoagulation alone may not be enough to prevent this brain damage in Afib patients. “It calls for a more comprehensive approach to prevention,” with attention to atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease risk factors in AFib patients, including interventions that address hypertension, diabetes, hyperlipidemia, and smoking cessation. “Anticoagulation in AFib patients is critical, but it also is not enough,” Dr. Conen said.

These data “are very important. The two pillars for taking care of AFib patients have traditionally been to manage the patient’s stroke risk and to treat symptoms. Dr. Conen’s data suggest that simply starting anticoagulation is not sufficient, and it stresses the importance of continued management of hypertension, diabetes, and other medical and social issues,” commented Fred Kusumoto, MD, director of heart rhythm services at the Mayo Clinic in Jacksonville, Fla.

“The risk factors associated with the development of cardiovascular disease are similar to those associated with the development of AFib and heart failure. It is important to understand the importance of managing hypertension, diabetes, and obesity; encouraging exercise and a healthy diet; and stopping smoking in all AFib patients as well as in the general population. Many clinicians have not emphasized the importance of continually addressing these behaviors,” Dr. Kusumoto said in an interview.

The SWISS-AF (Swiss Atrial Fibrillation Cohort) study enrolled 2,415 AFib patients at 14 Swiss centers during 2014-2017, and obtained both a baseline brain MR scan and baseline cognitive-test results for 1,737 patients (J Am Coll Cardiol. 2019 Mar;73[9]:989-99). Patients retook the cognitive tests annually, and 1,227 had a second MR brain scan after 2 years in the study, the cohort that supplied the data Dr. Conen presented. At baseline, these patients averaged 71 years of age, just over a quarter were women, and 90% were on an oral anticoagulant, with 84% on an oral anticoagulant at 2-year follow-up. Treatment split roughly equally between direct-acting oral anticoagulants and vitamin K antagonists like warfarin.

Among the 68 patients with evidence for an incident brain infarct after 2 years, 59 (87%) were on treatment with an OAC, and 51 (75%) who were both on treatment with a direct-acting oral anticoagulant and developed their brain infarct without also having a stroke or transient ischemic attack, which Dr. Conen called a “silent event.” The cognitive tests that showed statistically significant declines after 2 years in the patients with silent brain infarcts compared with those without a new infarct were the Trail Making Test parts A and B, and the animal-naming verbal fluency test. The two other tests applied were the Montreal Cognitive Assessment and the Digital Symbol Substitution Test.

Results from several prior studies also indicated a relationship between AFib and cognitive decline, but SWISS-AF is “the largest study to rigorously examine the incidence of silent brain infarcts in AFib patients,” commented Christine M. Albert, MD, chair of cardiology at the Smidt Heart Institute of Cedars-Sinai Medical Center in Los Angeles. “Silent infarcts could be the cause, at least in part, for the cognitive decline and dementia associated with AFib,” she noted. But divining the therapeutic implications of the finding will require further investigation that looks at factors such as the impact of anticoagulant type, other treatment that addresses AFib such as ablation and rate control, the duration and type of AFib, and the prevalence of hypertension and other stroke risk factors, she said as a designated discussant for Dr. Conen’s report.

SWISS-AF received no commercial funding. Dr. Conen has been a speaker on behalf of Servier. Dr. Kusumoto had no disclosures. Dr. Albert has been a consultant to Roche Diagnostics and has received research funding from Abbott, Roche Diagnostics, and St. Jude Medical.

mzoler@mdedge.com

CASE 1

Tyler M, age 40, otherwise healthy, and with a body mass index (BMI) of 30, presents to your office for his annual physical examination. He does not have a history of alcohol or tobacco use.

Mr. M’s obesity raises concern about metabolic syndrome, which warrants evaluation for hypertriglyceridemia (HTG). You offer him lipid testing to estimate his risk of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD).

The only abnormal value on the lipid panel is a triglyceride (TG) level of 264 mg/dL (normal, < 175 mg/dL). Mr. M’s 10-yr ASCVD risk is determined to be < 5%.

What, if any, intervention would be triggered by the finding of moderate HTG?

© ALICIA BUELOW

CASE 2

Alicia F, age 30, with a BMI of 28 and ASCVD risk < 7.5%, comes to the clinic for evaluation of anxiety and insomnia. She reports eating a high-carbohydrate diet and drinking 3 to 5 alcoholic beverages nightly to help her sleep.

Ms. F’s daily alcohol use prompts evaluation for HTG. Results show a TG level of 1300 mg/dL and a high-density lipoprotein (HDL) level of 25 mg/dL (healthy HDL levels: adult females, ≥ 50 mg/dL; adult males, ≥ 40 mg/dL). Other test results are normal, except for elevated transaminase levels (just under twice normal).

What, if any, action would be prompted by the patient’s severe HTG and below-normal HDL level?

Continue to: How HTG is defined

 

 

How HTG is defined: Causes, cutoffs, signs

HTG is most commonly caused by obesity and a sedentary lifestyle; certain associated comorbid medical conditions can also be a precipitant (Table 1^1,2). Because the condition is a result of polygenic phenotypic expression, even a genetically low-risk patient can present with HTG when exposed to certain medical conditions and environmental causes.

Primary HTG (genetic or familial) is rare. Genetic testing may be considered for patients with TG > 1000 mg/dL (severely elevated TG = 500 to 1999 mg/dL, measured in fasting state*) or a family history of early ASCVD (TABLE 1^1,2).^2,3

Even a genetically low-risk patient can present with hypertriglyceridemia when exposed to certain medical conditions and environmental causes.

Typically, HTG is asymptomatic. Xanthelasmas, xanthomas, and lipemia retinalis are found in hereditary disorders of elevated TGs. Occasionally, HTG manifests as chylomicronemia syndrome, characterized by recurrent abdominal pain, nausea, vomiting, and, in severe HTG, pancreatitis.³

Fine points of TG measurement

Triglycerides are a component of a complete lipid profile, which also includes total cholesterol, calculated low-density lipoprotein (LDL-C), and HDL.⁴ As in both case vignettes, detection of HTG is often incidental, when a lipid profile is ordered to evaluate the risk of ASCVD. (Of note, for people older than 20 years, the US Preventive Services Task Force no longer addresses the question, “Which population should be screened for dyslipidemia?” Instead, current recommendations answer the question, “For which population should statin therapy be prescribed?”⁵)

Effect on ASCVD risk assessment. TG levels are known to vary, depending on fasting or nonfasting status, with lower levels reported when fasting. An elevated TG level can lead to inaccurate calculation of LDL when using the Friedewald formula⁶:

LDL = total cholesterol – (triglycerides/5) – HDL

Continue to: The purpose of testing...

The purpose of testing lipids in a fasting state (> 9 hours) is to minimize the effects of an elevated TG level on the calculated LDL. In severe HTG, beta-quantitation by ultracentrifugation and electrophoresis can be performed to determine the LDL level directly.

Advantage of nonfasting measurement. When LDL-C is not a concern, there is, in fact, value in measuring TGs in the nonfasting state. Why? Because a nonfasting TG level is a better indicator of a patient’s average TG status: Studies have found a higher ASCVD risk in the setting of an elevated postprandial TG level accompanied by a low HDL level.⁷

Studies have found a higher ASCVD risk in the setting of an elevated postprandial triglyceride level accompanied by a low HDL level.

The Copenhagen City Heart Study identified postprandial HTG as an independent risk factor for atherogenicity, even in the setting of a normal fasting TG level.⁸ American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists and American College of Endocrinology guidelines endorse testing the nonfasting TG level when the fasting TG level is elevated in a lipid profile; if the nonfasting TG level is > 500 mg/dL, evaluation for secondary causes is warranted^9,10 (Table 1^1,2).

In a practical sense, therefore, offering patients nonfasting lipid testing allows more people to obtain access to timely care.

Pancreatitis. Acute pancreatitis commonly prompts an evaluation for HTG. The risk of acute pancreatitis in the general population is 0.04%, but that risk increases to 8% to 31% for a person with HTG.¹¹ Incidence when the TG level is > 500 mg/dL is thought to be increased because chylomicrons, acting as a TG carrier in the bloodstream, are responsible for pancreatitis.³ Treating HTG can reduce both the risk and recurrence of pancreatitis^12,13; given that the postprandial TG level can change rapidly from severe to very severe (> 2000 mg/dL), multiple guidelines recommend pharmacotherapy to a TG goal of < 500-1000 mg/dL.^1,9,13,14

Continue to: An ASCVD risk-HTG connection?

An ASCVD risk–HTG connection? In the population already at higher risk of ASCVD (> 7.5%), HTG is recognized as a risk-enhancing factor because of its atherogenic potential (Table 2²); however, there is insufficient evidence that TGs have a role as an independent risk factor for ASCVD. In a population-based study of 58,000 people, 40 to 65 years of age, conducted at Copenhagen [Denmark] University Hospital, investigators found that those who did not meet criteria for statin treatment and who had a TG level > 264 mg/dL had a 10-year risk of a major adverse cardiovascular event similar to that of people who did meet criteria for statin therapy.¹⁵

The FIELD (Fenofibrate Intervention and Event Lowering in Diabetes) and AIM-HIGH (Atherothrombosis Intervention in Metabolic Syndrome with Low HDL/High Triglycerides and Impact on Global Health Outcomes) studies, among others, have failed to show a significant reduction in coronary events by treating HTG.¹⁰

That said, it’s worth considering the findings of other trials:

• In the PROVE IT-TIMI 22 (Pravastatin or Atorvastatin Evaluation and Infection Therapy–Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction 22) trial, an overall 28% reduction in endpoint events (myocardial infarction, acute coronary syndrome) was seen with high-intensity statin therapy, compared to moderate-intensity therapy.¹⁰ However, there was a sizeable residual risk identified that was theorized by investigators to be associated with high non-HDL lipoproteins, including TGs.
• A 2016 study in Israel, in which 22 years of data on 15,355 patients with established ASCVD were studied, revealed that elevated TGs are associated with an increased long-term mortality risk that is independent of the HDL level.¹⁶
• A cross-sectional study, nested in the prospective Copenhagen City Heart Study, demonstrated that HTG is associated with an increase in ischemic stroke events.¹⁷

Treatment

Therapeutic lifestyle changes

Changes in lifestyle are the foundation of management of, and recommended first-line treatment for, all patients with HTG. Patients with a moderately elevated TG level (175-499 mg/dL, measured in a fasting or nonfasting state) can be treated with therapeutic lifestyle changes alone^1,2; a trial of 3 to 6 months (see specific interventions below) is recommended before considering adding medications.¹⁰

Weight loss. There is a strong association between BMI > 30 and HTG. Visceral adiposity is a much more significant risk than subcutaneous adipose tissue. Although weight loss to an ideal range is recommended, even a 10% to 15% reduction in an obese patient can reduce the TG level by 20%. A combination of moderate-intensity exercise and healthy eating habits appears to assist best with this intervention.¹⁸

Continue to: Exercise

Exercise. Thirty minutes a day of moderate-intensity exercise is associated with a significant drop in postprandial TG. This benefit can last as long as 3 days, suggesting a goal of at least 3 days a week of an active lifestyle. Such a program can include intermittent aerobics or mild resistance exercise.¹⁹

Healthy eating habits. The difference between a low-fat, high-carbohydrate diet and a high-fat, low-carbohydrate diet is less important than the overall benefit of weight loss from either of these diets. Complex carbohydrates are recommended over simple carbohydrates. A low-carbohydrate diet in a patient with diabetes has been demonstrated to improve the TG level, irrespective of weight change.²⁰

The risk of acute pancreatitis in the general population is 0.04%, but that risk increases to 8% to 31% for a person with hypertriglyceridemia

A Mediterranean diet can reduce the TG level by 10% to 15%, and is recommended over a low-fat diet.¹⁴ (This diet generally includes a high intake of extra virgin olive oil; leafy green vegetables, fruits, cereals, nuts, and legumes; moderate intake of fish and other meat, dairy products, and red wine; and low intake of eggs and sugars.) The American Heart Association recommends 2 servings of fatty fish a week for its omega-3 oil benefit of reducing ASCVD risk. Working with a registered dietician to assist with lipid lowering can produce better results than physician-only instruction on healthy eating.⁹

Alcohol consumption. Complete cessation or moderation of alcohol consumption (1 drink a day/women and 2 drinks a day/men*) is recommended to improve HTG. Among secondary factors, alcohol is commonly the cause of an unusually high elevation of the TG level.¹⁴

Smoking cessation. Smoking increases the postprandial TG level.¹⁰ Complete cessation for just 1 year can reduce a person’s ASCVD risk by approximately 50%. However, in a clinical trial,²² smoking cessation did not significantly decrease the TG level—possibly because of the counterbalancing effect of weight gain following cessation.

Continue to: Medical therapy

 

 

Medical therapy

In addition to lifestyle modification, medications are recommended to reduce atherogenic potential in patients with moderate or severe HTG and an ASCVD risk > 7.5% (Table 3^4,13,18,23 and Table 4^2,9). Before initiating medical therapy, we recommend that you engage in shared decision-making with patients to (1) delineate treatment goals and (2) describe the risks and benefits of medications for HTG.²

Statins. These agents are recommended first-line therapy for reducing ASCVD risk.² If the TG level remains elevated (> 500 mg/dL) after statin therapy is maximized, an additional agent can be added—ie, a fibrate or fish oil (see below).

Fibrates. If a fibrate is used as an add-on to a statin, fenofibrate is preferred over gemfibrozil because it presents less risk of the severe myopathy that can develop when taken with a statin.¹³ Despite the effectiveness of fibrates in reducing the TG level, these drugs have not been shown to reduce overall mortality.²⁴ The evidence on improved cardiovascular outcomes is subgroup-specific (ie, prevention of a second myocardial infarction in the setting of optimal statin use and elevated non-HDL lipoproteins).¹² A study demonstrated that gemfibrozil reduced the incidence of transient ischemic attack and stroke in a subgroup of male US veterans who had coronary artery disease and a low HDL level.²⁵

Fish oil. The omega-3 ethyl esters eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA) and docosahexaenoic acid (DHA), available as EPA alone or in combination with DHA, do not interact with statins and are tolerated well. They reduce hypertriglyceridemia by 20% to 50%.¹³

Eicosapentaenoic acid, EPA plus DHA, and icosapent ethyl, an ethyl ester product containing EPA without DHA, are approved by the US Food and Drug Administration for HTG > 500 mg/dL, at a dosage of 2000 mg twice daily. In the REDUCE-IT trial, adding icosapent ethyl, 2 g twice daily, to a statin in patients with HTG was associated with fewer ischemic events, compared to placebo.^23,26

Continue to: Fish oil formulations...

Fish oil formulations can inhibit platelet aggregation and increase bleeding time in otherwise healthy people; however, such episodes are minor and nonfatal. Patients on anticoagulation or an antiplatelet medication should be monitored periodically for bleeding events, although recommendations on how to monitor aren’t specified in a recent advisory by the American Heart Association.²³

There is a strong association between a BMI > 30 and hypertriglyceridemia.

DHA was thought to increase the LDL-C levels and, by doing so, potentially counterbalance benefit,^23,27 but most studies have failed to reproduce this effect.²⁸ Instead, studies have shown minimal elevation of LDL-C when DHA is used to treat HTG.^23,27

Niacin. At a dosage of 500-2000 mg/dL, niacin lowers the TG level by 10% to 30%. It also increases HDL by 10% to 40% and lowers LDL by 5% to 20%.¹³

Considerations in pancreatitis. For management of recurrent pancreatitis in patients with HTG, lifestyle modification remains the mainstay of treatment. When medication is considered for persistent severe HTG, fibrates have evidence of primary and secondary prevention of pancreatitis.¹¹ When a patient is intolerant of fibrates, consider a different option to reduce the TG level—eg, fish oil supplementation.

CASE 1

Recommendation for Mr. M: Therapeutic lifestyle changes to address moderate HTG.

Continue to: Because Mr. M's...

Because Mr. M’s 10-yr ASCVD risk is < 5%, statin therapy is not indicated for risk reduction. With a fasting TG value < 500 mg/dL, he is not considered at increased risk of pancreatitis.

CASE 2

Recommendations for Ms. F:

• Therapeutic lifestyle changes to address severe HTG. Ms. F agrees to wean off alcohol; add relaxation exercises before bedtime; do aerobic exercise 30 minutes a day, 3 times a week; decrease dietary carbohydrates daily by cutting portion size in half; and increase intake of fresh vegetables and lean protein.
• Treatment with fenofibrate to reduce the risk of pancreatitis. Ms. F begins a trial. Six months into treatment, she has reduced her BMI to 24 and the TG level has fallen to < 500 mg/dL. Ms. F also reports that she is sleeping well, believes that she is able to manage her infrequent anxiety, and is now in a routine that feels sustainable.

You congratulate Ms. F on her success and support her decision to undertake a trial of discontinuing fenofibrate, after shared decision-making about the risks and potential benefits of doing so.

Summing up: Management of HTG

Keep these treatment strategy highlights in mind:

• Lifestyle modification with a low-fat, low-carbohydrate diet, avoidance of alcohol, and moderate-intensity exercise is the mainstay of HTG management.
• The latest evidence supports that (1) HTG is a risk-enhancing factor for ­ASCVD and (2) statin therapy is recommended for patients who have HTG and an ASCVD risk > 7.5%.
• When the TG level remains elevated despite statin therapy and lifestyle changes, an omega-3 ethyl ester can be used as an adjunct for additional atherogenic risk reduction.
• For severe HTG, a regimen of therapeutic lifestyle changes plus a fibrate is recommended to reduce the risk and recurrence of pancreatitis.^1,24

* In comparison, a normal level of triglycerides is < 175 mg/dL; a moderately elevated level, measured in a fasting or nonfasting state, 175-499 mg/dL; and a very severely elevated level, ≥ 2000 mg/dL.²

CORRESPONDENCE
Ashwini Kamath Mulki, MD, Family Health Center, 1730 Chew Street, Allentown, PA 18104; Ashwini.KamathMulki@lvhn.org.

CASE 1

Tyler M, age 40, otherwise healthy, and with a body mass index (BMI) of 30, presents to your office for his annual physical examination. He does not have a history of alcohol or tobacco use.

Mr. M’s obesity raises concern about metabolic syndrome, which warrants evaluation for hypertriglyceridemia (HTG). You offer him lipid testing to estimate his risk of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD).

The only abnormal value on the lipid panel is a triglyceride (TG) level of 264 mg/dL (normal, < 175 mg/dL). Mr. M’s 10-yr ASCVD risk is determined to be < 5%.

What, if any, intervention would be triggered by the finding of moderate HTG?

© ALICIA BUELOW

CASE 2

Alicia F, age 30, with a BMI of 28 and ASCVD risk < 7.5%, comes to the clinic for evaluation of anxiety and insomnia. She reports eating a high-carbohydrate diet and drinking 3 to 5 alcoholic beverages nightly to help her sleep.

Ms. F’s daily alcohol use prompts evaluation for HTG. Results show a TG level of 1300 mg/dL and a high-density lipoprotein (HDL) level of 25 mg/dL (healthy HDL levels: adult females, ≥ 50 mg/dL; adult males, ≥ 40 mg/dL). Other test results are normal, except for elevated transaminase levels (just under twice normal).

What, if any, action would be prompted by the patient’s severe HTG and below-normal HDL level?

Continue to: How HTG is defined

 

 

How HTG is defined: Causes, cutoffs, signs

HTG is most commonly caused by obesity and a sedentary lifestyle; certain associated comorbid medical conditions can also be a precipitant (Table 1^1,2). Because the condition is a result of polygenic phenotypic expression, even a genetically low-risk patient can present with HTG when exposed to certain medical conditions and environmental causes.

Primary HTG (genetic or familial) is rare. Genetic testing may be considered for patients with TG > 1000 mg/dL (severely elevated TG = 500 to 1999 mg/dL, measured in fasting state*) or a family history of early ASCVD (TABLE 1^1,2).^2,3

Even a genetically low-risk patient can present with hypertriglyceridemia when exposed to certain medical conditions and environmental causes.

Typically, HTG is asymptomatic. Xanthelasmas, xanthomas, and lipemia retinalis are found in hereditary disorders of elevated TGs. Occasionally, HTG manifests as chylomicronemia syndrome, characterized by recurrent abdominal pain, nausea, vomiting, and, in severe HTG, pancreatitis.³

Fine points of TG measurement

Triglycerides are a component of a complete lipid profile, which also includes total cholesterol, calculated low-density lipoprotein (LDL-C), and HDL.⁴ As in both case vignettes, detection of HTG is often incidental, when a lipid profile is ordered to evaluate the risk of ASCVD. (Of note, for people older than 20 years, the US Preventive Services Task Force no longer addresses the question, “Which population should be screened for dyslipidemia?” Instead, current recommendations answer the question, “For which population should statin therapy be prescribed?”⁵)

Effect on ASCVD risk assessment. TG levels are known to vary, depending on fasting or nonfasting status, with lower levels reported when fasting. An elevated TG level can lead to inaccurate calculation of LDL when using the Friedewald formula⁶:

LDL = total cholesterol – (triglycerides/5) – HDL

Continue to: The purpose of testing...

The purpose of testing lipids in a fasting state (> 9 hours) is to minimize the effects of an elevated TG level on the calculated LDL. In severe HTG, beta-quantitation by ultracentrifugation and electrophoresis can be performed to determine the LDL level directly.

Advantage of nonfasting measurement. When LDL-C is not a concern, there is, in fact, value in measuring TGs in the nonfasting state. Why? Because a nonfasting TG level is a better indicator of a patient’s average TG status: Studies have found a higher ASCVD risk in the setting of an elevated postprandial TG level accompanied by a low HDL level.⁷

Studies have found a higher ASCVD risk in the setting of an elevated postprandial triglyceride level accompanied by a low HDL level.

The Copenhagen City Heart Study identified postprandial HTG as an independent risk factor for atherogenicity, even in the setting of a normal fasting TG level.⁸ American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists and American College of Endocrinology guidelines endorse testing the nonfasting TG level when the fasting TG level is elevated in a lipid profile; if the nonfasting TG level is > 500 mg/dL, evaluation for secondary causes is warranted^9,10 (Table 1^1,2).

In a practical sense, therefore, offering patients nonfasting lipid testing allows more people to obtain access to timely care.

Pancreatitis. Acute pancreatitis commonly prompts an evaluation for HTG. The risk of acute pancreatitis in the general population is 0.04%, but that risk increases to 8% to 31% for a person with HTG.¹¹ Incidence when the TG level is > 500 mg/dL is thought to be increased because chylomicrons, acting as a TG carrier in the bloodstream, are responsible for pancreatitis.³ Treating HTG can reduce both the risk and recurrence of pancreatitis^12,13; given that the postprandial TG level can change rapidly from severe to very severe (> 2000 mg/dL), multiple guidelines recommend pharmacotherapy to a TG goal of < 500-1000 mg/dL.^1,9,13,14

Continue to: An ASCVD risk-HTG connection?

An ASCVD risk–HTG connection? In the population already at higher risk of ASCVD (> 7.5%), HTG is recognized as a risk-enhancing factor because of its atherogenic potential (Table 2²); however, there is insufficient evidence that TGs have a role as an independent risk factor for ASCVD. In a population-based study of 58,000 people, 40 to 65 years of age, conducted at Copenhagen [Denmark] University Hospital, investigators found that those who did not meet criteria for statin treatment and who had a TG level > 264 mg/dL had a 10-year risk of a major adverse cardiovascular event similar to that of people who did meet criteria for statin therapy.¹⁵

The FIELD (Fenofibrate Intervention and Event Lowering in Diabetes) and AIM-HIGH (Atherothrombosis Intervention in Metabolic Syndrome with Low HDL/High Triglycerides and Impact on Global Health Outcomes) studies, among others, have failed to show a significant reduction in coronary events by treating HTG.¹⁰

That said, it’s worth considering the findings of other trials:

• In the PROVE IT-TIMI 22 (Pravastatin or Atorvastatin Evaluation and Infection Therapy–Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction 22) trial, an overall 28% reduction in endpoint events (myocardial infarction, acute coronary syndrome) was seen with high-intensity statin therapy, compared to moderate-intensity therapy.¹⁰ However, there was a sizeable residual risk identified that was theorized by investigators to be associated with high non-HDL lipoproteins, including TGs.
• A 2016 study in Israel, in which 22 years of data on 15,355 patients with established ASCVD were studied, revealed that elevated TGs are associated with an increased long-term mortality risk that is independent of the HDL level.¹⁶
• A cross-sectional study, nested in the prospective Copenhagen City Heart Study, demonstrated that HTG is associated with an increase in ischemic stroke events.¹⁷

Treatment

Therapeutic lifestyle changes

Changes in lifestyle are the foundation of management of, and recommended first-line treatment for, all patients with HTG. Patients with a moderately elevated TG level (175-499 mg/dL, measured in a fasting or nonfasting state) can be treated with therapeutic lifestyle changes alone^1,2; a trial of 3 to 6 months (see specific interventions below) is recommended before considering adding medications.¹⁰

Weight loss. There is a strong association between BMI > 30 and HTG. Visceral adiposity is a much more significant risk than subcutaneous adipose tissue. Although weight loss to an ideal range is recommended, even a 10% to 15% reduction in an obese patient can reduce the TG level by 20%. A combination of moderate-intensity exercise and healthy eating habits appears to assist best with this intervention.¹⁸

Continue to: Exercise

Exercise. Thirty minutes a day of moderate-intensity exercise is associated with a significant drop in postprandial TG. This benefit can last as long as 3 days, suggesting a goal of at least 3 days a week of an active lifestyle. Such a program can include intermittent aerobics or mild resistance exercise.¹⁹

Healthy eating habits. The difference between a low-fat, high-carbohydrate diet and a high-fat, low-carbohydrate diet is less important than the overall benefit of weight loss from either of these diets. Complex carbohydrates are recommended over simple carbohydrates. A low-carbohydrate diet in a patient with diabetes has been demonstrated to improve the TG level, irrespective of weight change.²⁰

The risk of acute pancreatitis in the general population is 0.04%, but that risk increases to 8% to 31% for a person with hypertriglyceridemia

A Mediterranean diet can reduce the TG level by 10% to 15%, and is recommended over a low-fat diet.¹⁴ (This diet generally includes a high intake of extra virgin olive oil; leafy green vegetables, fruits, cereals, nuts, and legumes; moderate intake of fish and other meat, dairy products, and red wine; and low intake of eggs and sugars.) The American Heart Association recommends 2 servings of fatty fish a week for its omega-3 oil benefit of reducing ASCVD risk. Working with a registered dietician to assist with lipid lowering can produce better results than physician-only instruction on healthy eating.⁹

Alcohol consumption. Complete cessation or moderation of alcohol consumption (1 drink a day/women and 2 drinks a day/men*) is recommended to improve HTG. Among secondary factors, alcohol is commonly the cause of an unusually high elevation of the TG level.¹⁴

Smoking cessation. Smoking increases the postprandial TG level.¹⁰ Complete cessation for just 1 year can reduce a person’s ASCVD risk by approximately 50%. However, in a clinical trial,²² smoking cessation did not significantly decrease the TG level—possibly because of the counterbalancing effect of weight gain following cessation.

Continue to: Medical therapy

 

 

Medical therapy

In addition to lifestyle modification, medications are recommended to reduce atherogenic potential in patients with moderate or severe HTG and an ASCVD risk > 7.5% (Table 3^4,13,18,23 and Table 4^2,9). Before initiating medical therapy, we recommend that you engage in shared decision-making with patients to (1) delineate treatment goals and (2) describe the risks and benefits of medications for HTG.²

Statins. These agents are recommended first-line therapy for reducing ASCVD risk.² If the TG level remains elevated (> 500 mg/dL) after statin therapy is maximized, an additional agent can be added—ie, a fibrate or fish oil (see below).

Fibrates. If a fibrate is used as an add-on to a statin, fenofibrate is preferred over gemfibrozil because it presents less risk of the severe myopathy that can develop when taken with a statin.¹³ Despite the effectiveness of fibrates in reducing the TG level, these drugs have not been shown to reduce overall mortality.²⁴ The evidence on improved cardiovascular outcomes is subgroup-specific (ie, prevention of a second myocardial infarction in the setting of optimal statin use and elevated non-HDL lipoproteins).¹² A study demonstrated that gemfibrozil reduced the incidence of transient ischemic attack and stroke in a subgroup of male US veterans who had coronary artery disease and a low HDL level.²⁵

Fish oil. The omega-3 ethyl esters eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA) and docosahexaenoic acid (DHA), available as EPA alone or in combination with DHA, do not interact with statins and are tolerated well. They reduce hypertriglyceridemia by 20% to 50%.¹³

Eicosapentaenoic acid, EPA plus DHA, and icosapent ethyl, an ethyl ester product containing EPA without DHA, are approved by the US Food and Drug Administration for HTG > 500 mg/dL, at a dosage of 2000 mg twice daily. In the REDUCE-IT trial, adding icosapent ethyl, 2 g twice daily, to a statin in patients with HTG was associated with fewer ischemic events, compared to placebo.^23,26

Continue to: Fish oil formulations...

Fish oil formulations can inhibit platelet aggregation and increase bleeding time in otherwise healthy people; however, such episodes are minor and nonfatal. Patients on anticoagulation or an antiplatelet medication should be monitored periodically for bleeding events, although recommendations on how to monitor aren’t specified in a recent advisory by the American Heart Association.²³

There is a strong association between a BMI > 30 and hypertriglyceridemia.

DHA was thought to increase the LDL-C levels and, by doing so, potentially counterbalance benefit,^23,27 but most studies have failed to reproduce this effect.²⁸ Instead, studies have shown minimal elevation of LDL-C when DHA is used to treat HTG.^23,27

Niacin. At a dosage of 500-2000 mg/dL, niacin lowers the TG level by 10% to 30%. It also increases HDL by 10% to 40% and lowers LDL by 5% to 20%.¹³

Considerations in pancreatitis. For management of recurrent pancreatitis in patients with HTG, lifestyle modification remains the mainstay of treatment. When medication is considered for persistent severe HTG, fibrates have evidence of primary and secondary prevention of pancreatitis.¹¹ When a patient is intolerant of fibrates, consider a different option to reduce the TG level—eg, fish oil supplementation.

CASE 1

Recommendation for Mr. M: Therapeutic lifestyle changes to address moderate HTG.

Continue to: Because Mr. M's...

Because Mr. M’s 10-yr ASCVD risk is < 5%, statin therapy is not indicated for risk reduction. With a fasting TG value < 500 mg/dL, he is not considered at increased risk of pancreatitis.

CASE 2

Recommendations for Ms. F:

• Therapeutic lifestyle changes to address severe HTG. Ms. F agrees to wean off alcohol; add relaxation exercises before bedtime; do aerobic exercise 30 minutes a day, 3 times a week; decrease dietary carbohydrates daily by cutting portion size in half; and increase intake of fresh vegetables and lean protein.
• Treatment with fenofibrate to reduce the risk of pancreatitis. Ms. F begins a trial. Six months into treatment, she has reduced her BMI to 24 and the TG level has fallen to < 500 mg/dL. Ms. F also reports that she is sleeping well, believes that she is able to manage her infrequent anxiety, and is now in a routine that feels sustainable.

You congratulate Ms. F on her success and support her decision to undertake a trial of discontinuing fenofibrate, after shared decision-making about the risks and potential benefits of doing so.

Summing up: Management of HTG

Keep these treatment strategy highlights in mind:

• Lifestyle modification with a low-fat, low-carbohydrate diet, avoidance of alcohol, and moderate-intensity exercise is the mainstay of HTG management.
• The latest evidence supports that (1) HTG is a risk-enhancing factor for ­ASCVD and (2) statin therapy is recommended for patients who have HTG and an ASCVD risk > 7.5%.
• When the TG level remains elevated despite statin therapy and lifestyle changes, an omega-3 ethyl ester can be used as an adjunct for additional atherogenic risk reduction.
• For severe HTG, a regimen of therapeutic lifestyle changes plus a fibrate is recommended to reduce the risk and recurrence of pancreatitis.^1,24

* In comparison, a normal level of triglycerides is < 175 mg/dL; a moderately elevated level, measured in a fasting or nonfasting state, 175-499 mg/dL; and a very severely elevated level, ≥ 2000 mg/dL.²

CORRESPONDENCE
Ashwini Kamath Mulki, MD, Family Health Center, 1730 Chew Street, Allentown, PA 18104; Ashwini.KamathMulki@lvhn.org.

CASE 1

Tyler M, age 40, otherwise healthy, and with a body mass index (BMI) of 30, presents to your office for his annual physical examination. He does not have a history of alcohol or tobacco use.

Mr. M’s obesity raises concern about metabolic syndrome, which warrants evaluation for hypertriglyceridemia (HTG). You offer him lipid testing to estimate his risk of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD).

The only abnormal value on the lipid panel is a triglyceride (TG) level of 264 mg/dL (normal, < 175 mg/dL). Mr. M’s 10-yr ASCVD risk is determined to be < 5%.

What, if any, intervention would be triggered by the finding of moderate HTG?

© ALICIA BUELOW

CASE 2

Alicia F, age 30, with a BMI of 28 and ASCVD risk < 7.5%, comes to the clinic for evaluation of anxiety and insomnia. She reports eating a high-carbohydrate diet and drinking 3 to 5 alcoholic beverages nightly to help her sleep.

Ms. F’s daily alcohol use prompts evaluation for HTG. Results show a TG level of 1300 mg/dL and a high-density lipoprotein (HDL) level of 25 mg/dL (healthy HDL levels: adult females, ≥ 50 mg/dL; adult males, ≥ 40 mg/dL). Other test results are normal, except for elevated transaminase levels (just under twice normal).

What, if any, action would be prompted by the patient’s severe HTG and below-normal HDL level?

Continue to: How HTG is defined

 

 

How HTG is defined: Causes, cutoffs, signs

HTG is most commonly caused by obesity and a sedentary lifestyle; certain associated comorbid medical conditions can also be a precipitant (Table 1^1,2). Because the condition is a result of polygenic phenotypic expression, even a genetically low-risk patient can present with HTG when exposed to certain medical conditions and environmental causes.

Primary HTG (genetic or familial) is rare. Genetic testing may be considered for patients with TG > 1000 mg/dL (severely elevated TG = 500 to 1999 mg/dL, measured in fasting state*) or a family history of early ASCVD (TABLE 1^1,2).^2,3

Even a genetically low-risk patient can present with hypertriglyceridemia when exposed to certain medical conditions and environmental causes.

Typically, HTG is asymptomatic. Xanthelasmas, xanthomas, and lipemia retinalis are found in hereditary disorders of elevated TGs. Occasionally, HTG manifests as chylomicronemia syndrome, characterized by recurrent abdominal pain, nausea, vomiting, and, in severe HTG, pancreatitis.³

Fine points of TG measurement

Triglycerides are a component of a complete lipid profile, which also includes total cholesterol, calculated low-density lipoprotein (LDL-C), and HDL.⁴ As in both case vignettes, detection of HTG is often incidental, when a lipid profile is ordered to evaluate the risk of ASCVD. (Of note, for people older than 20 years, the US Preventive Services Task Force no longer addresses the question, “Which population should be screened for dyslipidemia?” Instead, current recommendations answer the question, “For which population should statin therapy be prescribed?”⁵)

Effect on ASCVD risk assessment. TG levels are known to vary, depending on fasting or nonfasting status, with lower levels reported when fasting. An elevated TG level can lead to inaccurate calculation of LDL when using the Friedewald formula⁶:

LDL = total cholesterol – (triglycerides/5) – HDL

Continue to: The purpose of testing...

The purpose of testing lipids in a fasting state (> 9 hours) is to minimize the effects of an elevated TG level on the calculated LDL. In severe HTG, beta-quantitation by ultracentrifugation and electrophoresis can be performed to determine the LDL level directly.

Advantage of nonfasting measurement. When LDL-C is not a concern, there is, in fact, value in measuring TGs in the nonfasting state. Why? Because a nonfasting TG level is a better indicator of a patient’s average TG status: Studies have found a higher ASCVD risk in the setting of an elevated postprandial TG level accompanied by a low HDL level.⁷

Studies have found a higher ASCVD risk in the setting of an elevated postprandial triglyceride level accompanied by a low HDL level.

The Copenhagen City Heart Study identified postprandial HTG as an independent risk factor for atherogenicity, even in the setting of a normal fasting TG level.⁸ American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists and American College of Endocrinology guidelines endorse testing the nonfasting TG level when the fasting TG level is elevated in a lipid profile; if the nonfasting TG level is > 500 mg/dL, evaluation for secondary causes is warranted^9,10 (Table 1^1,2).

In a practical sense, therefore, offering patients nonfasting lipid testing allows more people to obtain access to timely care.

Pancreatitis. Acute pancreatitis commonly prompts an evaluation for HTG. The risk of acute pancreatitis in the general population is 0.04%, but that risk increases to 8% to 31% for a person with HTG.¹¹ Incidence when the TG level is > 500 mg/dL is thought to be increased because chylomicrons, acting as a TG carrier in the bloodstream, are responsible for pancreatitis.³ Treating HTG can reduce both the risk and recurrence of pancreatitis^12,13; given that the postprandial TG level can change rapidly from severe to very severe (> 2000 mg/dL), multiple guidelines recommend pharmacotherapy to a TG goal of < 500-1000 mg/dL.^1,9,13,14

Continue to: An ASCVD risk-HTG connection?

An ASCVD risk–HTG connection? In the population already at higher risk of ASCVD (> 7.5%), HTG is recognized as a risk-enhancing factor because of its atherogenic potential (Table 2²); however, there is insufficient evidence that TGs have a role as an independent risk factor for ASCVD. In a population-based study of 58,000 people, 40 to 65 years of age, conducted at Copenhagen [Denmark] University Hospital, investigators found that those who did not meet criteria for statin treatment and who had a TG level > 264 mg/dL had a 10-year risk of a major adverse cardiovascular event similar to that of people who did meet criteria for statin therapy.¹⁵

The FIELD (Fenofibrate Intervention and Event Lowering in Diabetes) and AIM-HIGH (Atherothrombosis Intervention in Metabolic Syndrome with Low HDL/High Triglycerides and Impact on Global Health Outcomes) studies, among others, have failed to show a significant reduction in coronary events by treating HTG.¹⁰

That said, it’s worth considering the findings of other trials:

• In the PROVE IT-TIMI 22 (Pravastatin or Atorvastatin Evaluation and Infection Therapy–Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction 22) trial, an overall 28% reduction in endpoint events (myocardial infarction, acute coronary syndrome) was seen with high-intensity statin therapy, compared to moderate-intensity therapy.¹⁰ However, there was a sizeable residual risk identified that was theorized by investigators to be associated with high non-HDL lipoproteins, including TGs.
• A 2016 study in Israel, in which 22 years of data on 15,355 patients with established ASCVD were studied, revealed that elevated TGs are associated with an increased long-term mortality risk that is independent of the HDL level.¹⁶
• A cross-sectional study, nested in the prospective Copenhagen City Heart Study, demonstrated that HTG is associated with an increase in ischemic stroke events.¹⁷

Treatment

Therapeutic lifestyle changes

Changes in lifestyle are the foundation of management of, and recommended first-line treatment for, all patients with HTG. Patients with a moderately elevated TG level (175-499 mg/dL, measured in a fasting or nonfasting state) can be treated with therapeutic lifestyle changes alone^1,2; a trial of 3 to 6 months (see specific interventions below) is recommended before considering adding medications.¹⁰

Weight loss. There is a strong association between BMI > 30 and HTG. Visceral adiposity is a much more significant risk than subcutaneous adipose tissue. Although weight loss to an ideal range is recommended, even a 10% to 15% reduction in an obese patient can reduce the TG level by 20%. A combination of moderate-intensity exercise and healthy eating habits appears to assist best with this intervention.¹⁸

Continue to: Exercise

Exercise. Thirty minutes a day of moderate-intensity exercise is associated with a significant drop in postprandial TG. This benefit can last as long as 3 days, suggesting a goal of at least 3 days a week of an active lifestyle. Such a program can include intermittent aerobics or mild resistance exercise.¹⁹

Healthy eating habits. The difference between a low-fat, high-carbohydrate diet and a high-fat, low-carbohydrate diet is less important than the overall benefit of weight loss from either of these diets. Complex carbohydrates are recommended over simple carbohydrates. A low-carbohydrate diet in a patient with diabetes has been demonstrated to improve the TG level, irrespective of weight change.²⁰

The risk of acute pancreatitis in the general population is 0.04%, but that risk increases to 8% to 31% for a person with hypertriglyceridemia

A Mediterranean diet can reduce the TG level by 10% to 15%, and is recommended over a low-fat diet.¹⁴ (This diet generally includes a high intake of extra virgin olive oil; leafy green vegetables, fruits, cereals, nuts, and legumes; moderate intake of fish and other meat, dairy products, and red wine; and low intake of eggs and sugars.) The American Heart Association recommends 2 servings of fatty fish a week for its omega-3 oil benefit of reducing ASCVD risk. Working with a registered dietician to assist with lipid lowering can produce better results than physician-only instruction on healthy eating.⁹

Alcohol consumption. Complete cessation or moderation of alcohol consumption (1 drink a day/women and 2 drinks a day/men*) is recommended to improve HTG. Among secondary factors, alcohol is commonly the cause of an unusually high elevation of the TG level.¹⁴

Smoking cessation. Smoking increases the postprandial TG level.¹⁰ Complete cessation for just 1 year can reduce a person’s ASCVD risk by approximately 50%. However, in a clinical trial,²² smoking cessation did not significantly decrease the TG level—possibly because of the counterbalancing effect of weight gain following cessation.

Continue to: Medical therapy

 

 

Medical therapy

In addition to lifestyle modification, medications are recommended to reduce atherogenic potential in patients with moderate or severe HTG and an ASCVD risk > 7.5% (Table 3^4,13,18,23 and Table 4^2,9). Before initiating medical therapy, we recommend that you engage in shared decision-making with patients to (1) delineate treatment goals and (2) describe the risks and benefits of medications for HTG.²

Statins. These agents are recommended first-line therapy for reducing ASCVD risk.² If the TG level remains elevated (> 500 mg/dL) after statin therapy is maximized, an additional agent can be added—ie, a fibrate or fish oil (see below).

Fibrates. If a fibrate is used as an add-on to a statin, fenofibrate is preferred over gemfibrozil because it presents less risk of the severe myopathy that can develop when taken with a statin.¹³ Despite the effectiveness of fibrates in reducing the TG level, these drugs have not been shown to reduce overall mortality.²⁴ The evidence on improved cardiovascular outcomes is subgroup-specific (ie, prevention of a second myocardial infarction in the setting of optimal statin use and elevated non-HDL lipoproteins).¹² A study demonstrated that gemfibrozil reduced the incidence of transient ischemic attack and stroke in a subgroup of male US veterans who had coronary artery disease and a low HDL level.²⁵

Fish oil. The omega-3 ethyl esters eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA) and docosahexaenoic acid (DHA), available as EPA alone or in combination with DHA, do not interact with statins and are tolerated well. They reduce hypertriglyceridemia by 20% to 50%.¹³

Eicosapentaenoic acid, EPA plus DHA, and icosapent ethyl, an ethyl ester product containing EPA without DHA, are approved by the US Food and Drug Administration for HTG > 500 mg/dL, at a dosage of 2000 mg twice daily. In the REDUCE-IT trial, adding icosapent ethyl, 2 g twice daily, to a statin in patients with HTG was associated with fewer ischemic events, compared to placebo.^23,26

Continue to: Fish oil formulations...

Fish oil formulations can inhibit platelet aggregation and increase bleeding time in otherwise healthy people; however, such episodes are minor and nonfatal. Patients on anticoagulation or an antiplatelet medication should be monitored periodically for bleeding events, although recommendations on how to monitor aren’t specified in a recent advisory by the American Heart Association.²³

There is a strong association between a BMI > 30 and hypertriglyceridemia.

DHA was thought to increase the LDL-C levels and, by doing so, potentially counterbalance benefit,^23,27 but most studies have failed to reproduce this effect.²⁸ Instead, studies have shown minimal elevation of LDL-C when DHA is used to treat HTG.^23,27

Niacin. At a dosage of 500-2000 mg/dL, niacin lowers the TG level by 10% to 30%. It also increases HDL by 10% to 40% and lowers LDL by 5% to 20%.¹³

Considerations in pancreatitis. For management of recurrent pancreatitis in patients with HTG, lifestyle modification remains the mainstay of treatment. When medication is considered for persistent severe HTG, fibrates have evidence of primary and secondary prevention of pancreatitis.¹¹ When a patient is intolerant of fibrates, consider a different option to reduce the TG level—eg, fish oil supplementation.

CASE 1

Recommendation for Mr. M: Therapeutic lifestyle changes to address moderate HTG.

Continue to: Because Mr. M's...

Because Mr. M’s 10-yr ASCVD risk is < 5%, statin therapy is not indicated for risk reduction. With a fasting TG value < 500 mg/dL, he is not considered at increased risk of pancreatitis.

CASE 2

Recommendations for Ms. F:

• Therapeutic lifestyle changes to address severe HTG. Ms. F agrees to wean off alcohol; add relaxation exercises before bedtime; do aerobic exercise 30 minutes a day, 3 times a week; decrease dietary carbohydrates daily by cutting portion size in half; and increase intake of fresh vegetables and lean protein.
• Treatment with fenofibrate to reduce the risk of pancreatitis. Ms. F begins a trial. Six months into treatment, she has reduced her BMI to 24 and the TG level has fallen to < 500 mg/dL. Ms. F also reports that she is sleeping well, believes that she is able to manage her infrequent anxiety, and is now in a routine that feels sustainable.

You congratulate Ms. F on her success and support her decision to undertake a trial of discontinuing fenofibrate, after shared decision-making about the risks and potential benefits of doing so.

Summing up: Management of HTG

Keep these treatment strategy highlights in mind:

• Lifestyle modification with a low-fat, low-carbohydrate diet, avoidance of alcohol, and moderate-intensity exercise is the mainstay of HTG management.
• The latest evidence supports that (1) HTG is a risk-enhancing factor for ­ASCVD and (2) statin therapy is recommended for patients who have HTG and an ASCVD risk > 7.5%.
• When the TG level remains elevated despite statin therapy and lifestyle changes, an omega-3 ethyl ester can be used as an adjunct for additional atherogenic risk reduction.
• For severe HTG, a regimen of therapeutic lifestyle changes plus a fibrate is recommended to reduce the risk and recurrence of pancreatitis.^1,24

* In comparison, a normal level of triglycerides is < 175 mg/dL; a moderately elevated level, measured in a fasting or nonfasting state, 175-499 mg/dL; and a very severely elevated level, ≥ 2000 mg/dL.²

CORRESPONDENCE
Ashwini Kamath Mulki, MD, Family Health Center, 1730 Chew Street, Allentown, PA 18104; Ashwini.KamathMulki@lvhn.org.