Patients with iron overload – serum ferritin greater than 1,000 mcg/L or a diagnosis of hemochromatosis or thalassemia – were 60% more likely to have an osteoporotic fracture during an up to 10-year follow-up than matched control patients, in a large study.
Compared with control patients, those with iron overload had a roughly twofold increased risk of a vertebral fracture, as well as an increased risk of a hip or humerus fracture, but not a forearm fracture.
The increased risk of fracture in men with iron overload (compared with other matched men) was greater than the increased risk of fracture in women with iron overload (compared with other matched women).
Andrea Burden, PhD, presented the findings during a late-breaking clinical science session at the annual meeting of the American Society of Bone and Mineral Research.
‘We should worry about the bones as well as the liver’
Based on these results, clinicians should probably do earlier bone mineral density (BMD) determinations to screen for osteoporosis and perhaps consider prophylaxis with vitamin D and calcium, said Dr. Burden, assistant professor, Institute of Pharmaceutical Sciences, ETH Zürich.
“However, I say that with a bunch of caution,” she added, “because we actually don’t have much evidence of the impact of these treatment differences on fracture risk.”
“This is the first large population study on this topic,” although there have been a few case reports, Dr. Burden explained in an interview.
However, “the high iron overload of greater than 1,000 mcg/L is not common, and hereditary hemochromatosis or thalassemia also are very rare,” she noted.
“The study shows that, once patients have an iron overload of more than 1,000 mcg/L, we need to be doing regular checks for their BMD and figuring how to best minimize their fracture risk,” she said.
“A twofold risk for a vertebral fracture” in patients with iron overload “is really high,” she noted. It is known that men with iron overload have loss of testosterone, but it may be less well known that they have an increased fracture risk.
“We worry about the liver,” she said, “not so much about the bones, and this shows us that we really should.”
Session comoderator Michael J. Econs, MD, who was not involved with the research, agreed. “Iron overload does occur, and it is a clinically important problem and can lead to hemochromatosis, which can lead to a whole host of diseases, but the most common is liver disease,” he told this news organization.
“So, it is a clinically important problem, not only in people who are genetically predisposed but in people who get frequent transfusion,” said Dr. Econs, distinguished professor of medicine and medical and molecular genetics at Indiana University, Indianapolis.
Now this new study has found an increase in fractures in such people, he noted.
Large case-control study used U.K. database
Using data from the IQVIA Medical Research Database, researchers identified 21,166 iron overload patients aged 18 years and older who saw a general practitioner in the United Kingdom between 2010 and 2020 and had a serum ferritin level above 1,000 mcg/L or a diagnostic code for hemochromatosis or nonanemic thalassemia.
They matched each iron overload patient with up to 10 control patients based on age, sex, year, and general practitioner, for a total of 198,037 control patients.
Patients were a mean age of 59 years and 59% were men.
During follow-up there were 777 fractures in the iron-overload patients (9.61 fractures per 1,000 patient-years) and 4,344 fractures in the control group (4.68 fractures per 1,000 patient-years).
In adjusted hazard ratio models, researchers adjusted for age, sex, body mass index, alcohol, smoking, history of fractures earlier than 365 days prior to study entry, hypogonadism, osteoporosis, medications, and comorbidities.
Overall, patients in the iron overload group had a 60% higher risk of an osteoporotic fracture (aHR, 1.60).
Among women, the incidence of osteoporotic fracture was 12.63 per 1,000 patient-years in the iron overload group and 7.09 per 1,000 patient-years in the control group.
Women with iron overload had a 48% higher risk of osteoporotic fracture, compared with other women (aHR, 1.48).
Among men, the incidence of osteoporotic fracture was 6.71 per 1,000 patient-years in the iron overload group and 3.01 per 1,000 patient-years in the control group.
Men with iron overload therefore had an 82% higher risk of osteoporotic fracture, compared with other men (aHR, 1.82).
Compared with patients without iron overload, patients with iron overload had an increased risk of a vertebral (aHR, 2.18), hip (aHR, 1.60), and humerus (aHR, 1.82) fracture but not a forearm fracture.
The researchers acknowledge that study limitations include they did not look at phlebotomy or changes in ferritin levels, and they excluded patients with hereditary hemochromatosis diagnosed before age 18.
The work was funded by the German Research Foundation. One of the researchers has reported receiving an independent grant from Pharmacosmos. The other researchers as well as Dr. Econs have reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Patients with iron overload – serum ferritin greater than 1,000 mcg/L or a diagnosis of hemochromatosis or thalassemia – were 60% more likely to have an osteoporotic fracture during an up to 10-year follow-up than matched control patients, in a large study.
Compared with control patients, those with iron overload had a roughly twofold increased risk of a vertebral fracture, as well as an increased risk of a hip or humerus fracture, but not a forearm fracture.
The increased risk of fracture in men with iron overload (compared with other matched men) was greater than the increased risk of fracture in women with iron overload (compared with other matched women).
Andrea Burden, PhD, presented the findings during a late-breaking clinical science session at the annual meeting of the American Society of Bone and Mineral Research.
‘We should worry about the bones as well as the liver’
Based on these results, clinicians should probably do earlier bone mineral density (BMD) determinations to screen for osteoporosis and perhaps consider prophylaxis with vitamin D and calcium, said Dr. Burden, assistant professor, Institute of Pharmaceutical Sciences, ETH Zürich.
“However, I say that with a bunch of caution,” she added, “because we actually don’t have much evidence of the impact of these treatment differences on fracture risk.”
“This is the first large population study on this topic,” although there have been a few case reports, Dr. Burden explained in an interview.
However, “the high iron overload of greater than 1,000 mcg/L is not common, and hereditary hemochromatosis or thalassemia also are very rare,” she noted.
“The study shows that, once patients have an iron overload of more than 1,000 mcg/L, we need to be doing regular checks for their BMD and figuring how to best minimize their fracture risk,” she said.
“A twofold risk for a vertebral fracture” in patients with iron overload “is really high,” she noted. It is known that men with iron overload have loss of testosterone, but it may be less well known that they have an increased fracture risk.
“We worry about the liver,” she said, “not so much about the bones, and this shows us that we really should.”
Session comoderator Michael J. Econs, MD, who was not involved with the research, agreed. “Iron overload does occur, and it is a clinically important problem and can lead to hemochromatosis, which can lead to a whole host of diseases, but the most common is liver disease,” he told this news organization.
“So, it is a clinically important problem, not only in people who are genetically predisposed but in people who get frequent transfusion,” said Dr. Econs, distinguished professor of medicine and medical and molecular genetics at Indiana University, Indianapolis.
Now this new study has found an increase in fractures in such people, he noted.
Large case-control study used U.K. database
Using data from the IQVIA Medical Research Database, researchers identified 21,166 iron overload patients aged 18 years and older who saw a general practitioner in the United Kingdom between 2010 and 2020 and had a serum ferritin level above 1,000 mcg/L or a diagnostic code for hemochromatosis or nonanemic thalassemia.
They matched each iron overload patient with up to 10 control patients based on age, sex, year, and general practitioner, for a total of 198,037 control patients.
Patients were a mean age of 59 years and 59% were men.
During follow-up there were 777 fractures in the iron-overload patients (9.61 fractures per 1,000 patient-years) and 4,344 fractures in the control group (4.68 fractures per 1,000 patient-years).
In adjusted hazard ratio models, researchers adjusted for age, sex, body mass index, alcohol, smoking, history of fractures earlier than 365 days prior to study entry, hypogonadism, osteoporosis, medications, and comorbidities.
Overall, patients in the iron overload group had a 60% higher risk of an osteoporotic fracture (aHR, 1.60).
Among women, the incidence of osteoporotic fracture was 12.63 per 1,000 patient-years in the iron overload group and 7.09 per 1,000 patient-years in the control group.
Women with iron overload had a 48% higher risk of osteoporotic fracture, compared with other women (aHR, 1.48).
Among men, the incidence of osteoporotic fracture was 6.71 per 1,000 patient-years in the iron overload group and 3.01 per 1,000 patient-years in the control group.
Men with iron overload therefore had an 82% higher risk of osteoporotic fracture, compared with other men (aHR, 1.82).
Compared with patients without iron overload, patients with iron overload had an increased risk of a vertebral (aHR, 2.18), hip (aHR, 1.60), and humerus (aHR, 1.82) fracture but not a forearm fracture.
The researchers acknowledge that study limitations include they did not look at phlebotomy or changes in ferritin levels, and they excluded patients with hereditary hemochromatosis diagnosed before age 18.
The work was funded by the German Research Foundation. One of the researchers has reported receiving an independent grant from Pharmacosmos. The other researchers as well as Dr. Econs have reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Patients with iron overload – serum ferritin greater than 1,000 mcg/L or a diagnosis of hemochromatosis or thalassemia – were 60% more likely to have an osteoporotic fracture during an up to 10-year follow-up than matched control patients, in a large study.
Compared with control patients, those with iron overload had a roughly twofold increased risk of a vertebral fracture, as well as an increased risk of a hip or humerus fracture, but not a forearm fracture.
The increased risk of fracture in men with iron overload (compared with other matched men) was greater than the increased risk of fracture in women with iron overload (compared with other matched women).
Andrea Burden, PhD, presented the findings during a late-breaking clinical science session at the annual meeting of the American Society of Bone and Mineral Research.
‘We should worry about the bones as well as the liver’
Based on these results, clinicians should probably do earlier bone mineral density (BMD) determinations to screen for osteoporosis and perhaps consider prophylaxis with vitamin D and calcium, said Dr. Burden, assistant professor, Institute of Pharmaceutical Sciences, ETH Zürich.
“However, I say that with a bunch of caution,” she added, “because we actually don’t have much evidence of the impact of these treatment differences on fracture risk.”
“This is the first large population study on this topic,” although there have been a few case reports, Dr. Burden explained in an interview.
However, “the high iron overload of greater than 1,000 mcg/L is not common, and hereditary hemochromatosis or thalassemia also are very rare,” she noted.
“The study shows that, once patients have an iron overload of more than 1,000 mcg/L, we need to be doing regular checks for their BMD and figuring how to best minimize their fracture risk,” she said.
“A twofold risk for a vertebral fracture” in patients with iron overload “is really high,” she noted. It is known that men with iron overload have loss of testosterone, but it may be less well known that they have an increased fracture risk.
“We worry about the liver,” she said, “not so much about the bones, and this shows us that we really should.”
Session comoderator Michael J. Econs, MD, who was not involved with the research, agreed. “Iron overload does occur, and it is a clinically important problem and can lead to hemochromatosis, which can lead to a whole host of diseases, but the most common is liver disease,” he told this news organization.
“So, it is a clinically important problem, not only in people who are genetically predisposed but in people who get frequent transfusion,” said Dr. Econs, distinguished professor of medicine and medical and molecular genetics at Indiana University, Indianapolis.
Now this new study has found an increase in fractures in such people, he noted.
Large case-control study used U.K. database
Using data from the IQVIA Medical Research Database, researchers identified 21,166 iron overload patients aged 18 years and older who saw a general practitioner in the United Kingdom between 2010 and 2020 and had a serum ferritin level above 1,000 mcg/L or a diagnostic code for hemochromatosis or nonanemic thalassemia.
They matched each iron overload patient with up to 10 control patients based on age, sex, year, and general practitioner, for a total of 198,037 control patients.
Patients were a mean age of 59 years and 59% were men.
During follow-up there were 777 fractures in the iron-overload patients (9.61 fractures per 1,000 patient-years) and 4,344 fractures in the control group (4.68 fractures per 1,000 patient-years).
In adjusted hazard ratio models, researchers adjusted for age, sex, body mass index, alcohol, smoking, history of fractures earlier than 365 days prior to study entry, hypogonadism, osteoporosis, medications, and comorbidities.
Overall, patients in the iron overload group had a 60% higher risk of an osteoporotic fracture (aHR, 1.60).
Among women, the incidence of osteoporotic fracture was 12.63 per 1,000 patient-years in the iron overload group and 7.09 per 1,000 patient-years in the control group.
Women with iron overload had a 48% higher risk of osteoporotic fracture, compared with other women (aHR, 1.48).
Among men, the incidence of osteoporotic fracture was 6.71 per 1,000 patient-years in the iron overload group and 3.01 per 1,000 patient-years in the control group.
Men with iron overload therefore had an 82% higher risk of osteoporotic fracture, compared with other men (aHR, 1.82).
Compared with patients without iron overload, patients with iron overload had an increased risk of a vertebral (aHR, 2.18), hip (aHR, 1.60), and humerus (aHR, 1.82) fracture but not a forearm fracture.
The researchers acknowledge that study limitations include they did not look at phlebotomy or changes in ferritin levels, and they excluded patients with hereditary hemochromatosis diagnosed before age 18.
The work was funded by the German Research Foundation. One of the researchers has reported receiving an independent grant from Pharmacosmos. The other researchers as well as Dr. Econs have reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
A newly available transcatheter device for edge-to-edge mitral valve (MV) repair, named for a famed scientist-inventor, is similar to the long-available MitraClip (Abbott) for short-term efficacy and safety, suggests an interim but prespecified analysis from a randomized trial.
In its comparison with MitraClip, the PASCAL transcatheter valve repair system (Edwards Lifesciences) was noninferior with respect to 30-day major adverse events and to success at achieving mitral regurgitation (MR) of no more than moderate severity within 6 months. The trial had entered patients with significant, symptomatic degenerative MR considered too high-risk for surgical repair or replacement.
The interim analysis covers 180 of the 300 patients followed in the study, of whom 117 received the PASCAL device and 63 were given MitraClip. Both groups showed significant gains in functional class, symptom status, and quality of life over 6 months, reported D. Scott Lim, MD, University of Virginia Health System Hospital, Charlottesville, and Konstantinos Koulogiannis, MD, Morristown Medical Center, N.J., jointly on Sept. 17 at the Transcatheter Cardiovascular Therapeutics (TCT) 2022 annual meeting in Boston.
Dr. Lim, one of the trial’s principal investigators, is also lead author on its same-day publication in JACC: Cardiovascular Interventions.
Based largely on those results from the CLASP IID pivotal trial, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration recently approved the PASCAL system for use in patients with degenerative MR, Edwards announced on Sept. 15. The device was approved in the European Union on Aug. 17.
MitraClip has been available in various iterations in the United States since 2013 and in Europe since 2008.
“It’s good for the field to be able to say we have two devices that are comparable,” giving clinicians more options, Vinod H. Thourani, MD, Piedmont Heart Institute, Atlanta, told this news organization.
The current analysis shows that “we’ve yet to figure out what patient pathologies will be beneficial” for each of the devices, Dr. Thourani said. “The goal will be to find out if there are certain anatomical considerations where one device is better than the other.”
It will be necessary to study “more patients, a larger cohort, with longer follow-up to allow us to see their true benefits,” he said, as well as to conduct more subgroup analyses. For now, the choice of device will probably be “operator-specific, which they feel comfortable with.”
Dr. Thourani, not an author on the current study, is the U.S. principal investigator for the CLASP IIF study looking at clinical outcomes with the two devices and says he consults for both Edwards and Abbott.
The findings are “preliminary for now,” said Michael Young, MD, Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center, Lebanon, N.H., in part because, like most randomized trials, CLASP IID entered a select, not broadly representative population.
“They want to make, as best as they could, an apples-to-apples comparison, without confounding that might make it more difficult to interpret it afterwards,” Dr. Young, not associated with the trial, told this news organization.
But CLASP IID “did enroll patients that we do see and treat, so undoubtedly it’s a compelling study. We now have another device that is shown to be safe and effective. How we’re going to extrapolate it to all the patients that are being referred to our practices will, I think, be under debate and deliberation.”
The PASCAL and MitraClip devices each may be more suitable for different patients with varying mitral valve pathologies because of differences in their designs, Dr. Lim said. The PASCAL’s relative flexibility might make it preferable in patients with smaller mitral valves, and its ability to elongate during delivery could make it more suitable for patients with chordal-dense areas around the valve, he speculated.
MitraClip, Dr. Lim told this news organization, has a mechanical closure system for anchoring that may make it more appropriate for “more complicated, thicker leaflets with calcium.”
CLASP IID enrolled patients with grade 3+ or 4+ degenerative MR considered to be “at prohibitive surgical risk” at 43 sites in North America and Europe. It randomly assigned them 2-to-1 to receive the PASCAL device or MitraClip.
Either of two PASCAL versions were used, the original device or the “smaller, narrower” PASCAL Ace, Dr. Lim observed. Both versions are covered by the PASCAL Precision System FDA approval. About 40% of patients assigned to MitraClip received older versions of the device and about 60%, more recent versions, as they were entered into practice.
The mean procedure times were 88 minutes for PASCAL and 79 minutes for MitraClip (P = .023), with much of the difference attributable to the earliest PASCAL procedures. Procedure times for the device declined with greater operator experience, the published report states.
Rates of the primary safety endpoint of major adverse events at 30 days were 3.4% for PASCAL and 4.8% for MitraClip. The endpoint was a composite of cardiovascular mortality, stroke, myocardial infarction, new need for renal replacement therapy, severe bleeding, or nonelective MV reintervention.
The proportion of patients with MR grade 2+ or lower at 6 months, the primary effectiveness endpoint, assessed at a core laboratory, was 96.5% for the PASCAL group over a median follow-up of 179.5 days and 96.8% over a median of 184.5 days for those who received MitraClip.
Comparisons for both primary endpoints met the prespecified criteria for PASCAL noninferiority.
In a secondary analysis, the proportion of PASCAL patients with MR grade 1+ or less held about steady from postprocedure discharge out to 6 months, at 87.2% and 83.7%, respectively (P = .317).
But whereas 88.5% of MitraClip patients had MR grade 1+ or better at discharge, 71.2% were at that grade by 6 months (P = .003). That apparent hemodynamic deterioration raised some eyebrows at the TCT sessions as a potential sign that PASCAL functional results are more durable.
That sort of judgment is premature, offered Anita W. Asgar, MD, MSc, Montreal Heart Institute, Quebec City, as an invited discussant after the CLASP IID trial’s formal presentation at the meeting, which was sponsored by the Cardiovascular Research Foundation.
The trial is notable in part for “showing how safe this procedure is and how successful it is for these patients – this is phenomenal,” she said, but “I would caution comparing one device being better than another with such a small number of patients.”
MitraClip, Dr. Young observed, “has been, up to this point, our only option for edge-to-edge repair of the mitral valve. And many of us have years of experience and a lot of patients that we treat with that device.” His center hasn’t yet used PASCAL, but that may change as the field gains more familiarity with the device. Operators may use either device in different cases, he said.
“Depending on the program, and depending on the volume of mitral patients that you see and edge-to-edge repair that you do, it could be that you stick with one, or switch to another, or you integrate both of them and try to decide which patients might be better suited for one or the other.”
CLASP IID was sponsored by Edwards Lifesciences. Dr. Lim discloses consulting for Philips, Venus, and Valgen and receiving research grants from Abbott, Boston Scientific, Edwards Lifesciences, and Medtronic. Dr. Koulogiannis discloses consulting and serving on an advisory board for Edwards Lifesciences and as a speaker for Abbott and discloses holding equity, stocks, or stock options in 4C. Dr. Thourani discloses serving as a consultant to both Abbott and Edwards Lifesciences. Dr. Young discloses receiving consulting fees or honoraria or serving on a speaker’s bureau for Medtronic. Dr. Asgar discloses receiving research support from or holding a research contract with Abbott Vascular and receiving consulting fees or honoraria or serving on a speaker’s bureau for Medtronic, Edwards Lifesciences, and W. Gore & Associates.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
A newly available transcatheter device for edge-to-edge mitral valve (MV) repair, named for a famed scientist-inventor, is similar to the long-available MitraClip (Abbott) for short-term efficacy and safety, suggests an interim but prespecified analysis from a randomized trial.
In its comparison with MitraClip, the PASCAL transcatheter valve repair system (Edwards Lifesciences) was noninferior with respect to 30-day major adverse events and to success at achieving mitral regurgitation (MR) of no more than moderate severity within 6 months. The trial had entered patients with significant, symptomatic degenerative MR considered too high-risk for surgical repair or replacement.
The interim analysis covers 180 of the 300 patients followed in the study, of whom 117 received the PASCAL device and 63 were given MitraClip. Both groups showed significant gains in functional class, symptom status, and quality of life over 6 months, reported D. Scott Lim, MD, University of Virginia Health System Hospital, Charlottesville, and Konstantinos Koulogiannis, MD, Morristown Medical Center, N.J., jointly on Sept. 17 at the Transcatheter Cardiovascular Therapeutics (TCT) 2022 annual meeting in Boston.
Dr. Lim, one of the trial’s principal investigators, is also lead author on its same-day publication in JACC: Cardiovascular Interventions.
Based largely on those results from the CLASP IID pivotal trial, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration recently approved the PASCAL system for use in patients with degenerative MR, Edwards announced on Sept. 15. The device was approved in the European Union on Aug. 17.
MitraClip has been available in various iterations in the United States since 2013 and in Europe since 2008.
“It’s good for the field to be able to say we have two devices that are comparable,” giving clinicians more options, Vinod H. Thourani, MD, Piedmont Heart Institute, Atlanta, told this news organization.
The current analysis shows that “we’ve yet to figure out what patient pathologies will be beneficial” for each of the devices, Dr. Thourani said. “The goal will be to find out if there are certain anatomical considerations where one device is better than the other.”
It will be necessary to study “more patients, a larger cohort, with longer follow-up to allow us to see their true benefits,” he said, as well as to conduct more subgroup analyses. For now, the choice of device will probably be “operator-specific, which they feel comfortable with.”
Dr. Thourani, not an author on the current study, is the U.S. principal investigator for the CLASP IIF study looking at clinical outcomes with the two devices and says he consults for both Edwards and Abbott.
The findings are “preliminary for now,” said Michael Young, MD, Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center, Lebanon, N.H., in part because, like most randomized trials, CLASP IID entered a select, not broadly representative population.
“They want to make, as best as they could, an apples-to-apples comparison, without confounding that might make it more difficult to interpret it afterwards,” Dr. Young, not associated with the trial, told this news organization.
But CLASP IID “did enroll patients that we do see and treat, so undoubtedly it’s a compelling study. We now have another device that is shown to be safe and effective. How we’re going to extrapolate it to all the patients that are being referred to our practices will, I think, be under debate and deliberation.”
The PASCAL and MitraClip devices each may be more suitable for different patients with varying mitral valve pathologies because of differences in their designs, Dr. Lim said. The PASCAL’s relative flexibility might make it preferable in patients with smaller mitral valves, and its ability to elongate during delivery could make it more suitable for patients with chordal-dense areas around the valve, he speculated.
MitraClip, Dr. Lim told this news organization, has a mechanical closure system for anchoring that may make it more appropriate for “more complicated, thicker leaflets with calcium.”
CLASP IID enrolled patients with grade 3+ or 4+ degenerative MR considered to be “at prohibitive surgical risk” at 43 sites in North America and Europe. It randomly assigned them 2-to-1 to receive the PASCAL device or MitraClip.
Either of two PASCAL versions were used, the original device or the “smaller, narrower” PASCAL Ace, Dr. Lim observed. Both versions are covered by the PASCAL Precision System FDA approval. About 40% of patients assigned to MitraClip received older versions of the device and about 60%, more recent versions, as they were entered into practice.
The mean procedure times were 88 minutes for PASCAL and 79 minutes for MitraClip (P = .023), with much of the difference attributable to the earliest PASCAL procedures. Procedure times for the device declined with greater operator experience, the published report states.
Rates of the primary safety endpoint of major adverse events at 30 days were 3.4% for PASCAL and 4.8% for MitraClip. The endpoint was a composite of cardiovascular mortality, stroke, myocardial infarction, new need for renal replacement therapy, severe bleeding, or nonelective MV reintervention.
The proportion of patients with MR grade 2+ or lower at 6 months, the primary effectiveness endpoint, assessed at a core laboratory, was 96.5% for the PASCAL group over a median follow-up of 179.5 days and 96.8% over a median of 184.5 days for those who received MitraClip.
Comparisons for both primary endpoints met the prespecified criteria for PASCAL noninferiority.
In a secondary analysis, the proportion of PASCAL patients with MR grade 1+ or less held about steady from postprocedure discharge out to 6 months, at 87.2% and 83.7%, respectively (P = .317).
But whereas 88.5% of MitraClip patients had MR grade 1+ or better at discharge, 71.2% were at that grade by 6 months (P = .003). That apparent hemodynamic deterioration raised some eyebrows at the TCT sessions as a potential sign that PASCAL functional results are more durable.
That sort of judgment is premature, offered Anita W. Asgar, MD, MSc, Montreal Heart Institute, Quebec City, as an invited discussant after the CLASP IID trial’s formal presentation at the meeting, which was sponsored by the Cardiovascular Research Foundation.
The trial is notable in part for “showing how safe this procedure is and how successful it is for these patients – this is phenomenal,” she said, but “I would caution comparing one device being better than another with such a small number of patients.”
MitraClip, Dr. Young observed, “has been, up to this point, our only option for edge-to-edge repair of the mitral valve. And many of us have years of experience and a lot of patients that we treat with that device.” His center hasn’t yet used PASCAL, but that may change as the field gains more familiarity with the device. Operators may use either device in different cases, he said.
“Depending on the program, and depending on the volume of mitral patients that you see and edge-to-edge repair that you do, it could be that you stick with one, or switch to another, or you integrate both of them and try to decide which patients might be better suited for one or the other.”
CLASP IID was sponsored by Edwards Lifesciences. Dr. Lim discloses consulting for Philips, Venus, and Valgen and receiving research grants from Abbott, Boston Scientific, Edwards Lifesciences, and Medtronic. Dr. Koulogiannis discloses consulting and serving on an advisory board for Edwards Lifesciences and as a speaker for Abbott and discloses holding equity, stocks, or stock options in 4C. Dr. Thourani discloses serving as a consultant to both Abbott and Edwards Lifesciences. Dr. Young discloses receiving consulting fees or honoraria or serving on a speaker’s bureau for Medtronic. Dr. Asgar discloses receiving research support from or holding a research contract with Abbott Vascular and receiving consulting fees or honoraria or serving on a speaker’s bureau for Medtronic, Edwards Lifesciences, and W. Gore & Associates.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
A newly available transcatheter device for edge-to-edge mitral valve (MV) repair, named for a famed scientist-inventor, is similar to the long-available MitraClip (Abbott) for short-term efficacy and safety, suggests an interim but prespecified analysis from a randomized trial.
In its comparison with MitraClip, the PASCAL transcatheter valve repair system (Edwards Lifesciences) was noninferior with respect to 30-day major adverse events and to success at achieving mitral regurgitation (MR) of no more than moderate severity within 6 months. The trial had entered patients with significant, symptomatic degenerative MR considered too high-risk for surgical repair or replacement.
The interim analysis covers 180 of the 300 patients followed in the study, of whom 117 received the PASCAL device and 63 were given MitraClip. Both groups showed significant gains in functional class, symptom status, and quality of life over 6 months, reported D. Scott Lim, MD, University of Virginia Health System Hospital, Charlottesville, and Konstantinos Koulogiannis, MD, Morristown Medical Center, N.J., jointly on Sept. 17 at the Transcatheter Cardiovascular Therapeutics (TCT) 2022 annual meeting in Boston.
Dr. Lim, one of the trial’s principal investigators, is also lead author on its same-day publication in JACC: Cardiovascular Interventions.
Based largely on those results from the CLASP IID pivotal trial, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration recently approved the PASCAL system for use in patients with degenerative MR, Edwards announced on Sept. 15. The device was approved in the European Union on Aug. 17.
MitraClip has been available in various iterations in the United States since 2013 and in Europe since 2008.
“It’s good for the field to be able to say we have two devices that are comparable,” giving clinicians more options, Vinod H. Thourani, MD, Piedmont Heart Institute, Atlanta, told this news organization.
The current analysis shows that “we’ve yet to figure out what patient pathologies will be beneficial” for each of the devices, Dr. Thourani said. “The goal will be to find out if there are certain anatomical considerations where one device is better than the other.”
It will be necessary to study “more patients, a larger cohort, with longer follow-up to allow us to see their true benefits,” he said, as well as to conduct more subgroup analyses. For now, the choice of device will probably be “operator-specific, which they feel comfortable with.”
Dr. Thourani, not an author on the current study, is the U.S. principal investigator for the CLASP IIF study looking at clinical outcomes with the two devices and says he consults for both Edwards and Abbott.
The findings are “preliminary for now,” said Michael Young, MD, Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center, Lebanon, N.H., in part because, like most randomized trials, CLASP IID entered a select, not broadly representative population.
“They want to make, as best as they could, an apples-to-apples comparison, without confounding that might make it more difficult to interpret it afterwards,” Dr. Young, not associated with the trial, told this news organization.
But CLASP IID “did enroll patients that we do see and treat, so undoubtedly it’s a compelling study. We now have another device that is shown to be safe and effective. How we’re going to extrapolate it to all the patients that are being referred to our practices will, I think, be under debate and deliberation.”
The PASCAL and MitraClip devices each may be more suitable for different patients with varying mitral valve pathologies because of differences in their designs, Dr. Lim said. The PASCAL’s relative flexibility might make it preferable in patients with smaller mitral valves, and its ability to elongate during delivery could make it more suitable for patients with chordal-dense areas around the valve, he speculated.
MitraClip, Dr. Lim told this news organization, has a mechanical closure system for anchoring that may make it more appropriate for “more complicated, thicker leaflets with calcium.”
CLASP IID enrolled patients with grade 3+ or 4+ degenerative MR considered to be “at prohibitive surgical risk” at 43 sites in North America and Europe. It randomly assigned them 2-to-1 to receive the PASCAL device or MitraClip.
Either of two PASCAL versions were used, the original device or the “smaller, narrower” PASCAL Ace, Dr. Lim observed. Both versions are covered by the PASCAL Precision System FDA approval. About 40% of patients assigned to MitraClip received older versions of the device and about 60%, more recent versions, as they were entered into practice.
The mean procedure times were 88 minutes for PASCAL and 79 minutes for MitraClip (P = .023), with much of the difference attributable to the earliest PASCAL procedures. Procedure times for the device declined with greater operator experience, the published report states.
Rates of the primary safety endpoint of major adverse events at 30 days were 3.4% for PASCAL and 4.8% for MitraClip. The endpoint was a composite of cardiovascular mortality, stroke, myocardial infarction, new need for renal replacement therapy, severe bleeding, or nonelective MV reintervention.
The proportion of patients with MR grade 2+ or lower at 6 months, the primary effectiveness endpoint, assessed at a core laboratory, was 96.5% for the PASCAL group over a median follow-up of 179.5 days and 96.8% over a median of 184.5 days for those who received MitraClip.
Comparisons for both primary endpoints met the prespecified criteria for PASCAL noninferiority.
In a secondary analysis, the proportion of PASCAL patients with MR grade 1+ or less held about steady from postprocedure discharge out to 6 months, at 87.2% and 83.7%, respectively (P = .317).
But whereas 88.5% of MitraClip patients had MR grade 1+ or better at discharge, 71.2% were at that grade by 6 months (P = .003). That apparent hemodynamic deterioration raised some eyebrows at the TCT sessions as a potential sign that PASCAL functional results are more durable.
That sort of judgment is premature, offered Anita W. Asgar, MD, MSc, Montreal Heart Institute, Quebec City, as an invited discussant after the CLASP IID trial’s formal presentation at the meeting, which was sponsored by the Cardiovascular Research Foundation.
The trial is notable in part for “showing how safe this procedure is and how successful it is for these patients – this is phenomenal,” she said, but “I would caution comparing one device being better than another with such a small number of patients.”
MitraClip, Dr. Young observed, “has been, up to this point, our only option for edge-to-edge repair of the mitral valve. And many of us have years of experience and a lot of patients that we treat with that device.” His center hasn’t yet used PASCAL, but that may change as the field gains more familiarity with the device. Operators may use either device in different cases, he said.
“Depending on the program, and depending on the volume of mitral patients that you see and edge-to-edge repair that you do, it could be that you stick with one, or switch to another, or you integrate both of them and try to decide which patients might be better suited for one or the other.”
CLASP IID was sponsored by Edwards Lifesciences. Dr. Lim discloses consulting for Philips, Venus, and Valgen and receiving research grants from Abbott, Boston Scientific, Edwards Lifesciences, and Medtronic. Dr. Koulogiannis discloses consulting and serving on an advisory board for Edwards Lifesciences and as a speaker for Abbott and discloses holding equity, stocks, or stock options in 4C. Dr. Thourani discloses serving as a consultant to both Abbott and Edwards Lifesciences. Dr. Young discloses receiving consulting fees or honoraria or serving on a speaker’s bureau for Medtronic. Dr. Asgar discloses receiving research support from or holding a research contract with Abbott Vascular and receiving consulting fees or honoraria or serving on a speaker’s bureau for Medtronic, Edwards Lifesciences, and W. Gore & Associates.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
STOCKHOLM – Higher consumption of whole grains, fish, fiber, and omega-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids reduces deaths from all causes in people with type 2 diabetes, show new data.
Results from the systematic review and meta-analysis were presented at the annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes by lead author Janett Barbaresko, PhD, a researcher from the German Diabetes Center in Düsseldorf.
Lisovskaya/iStock/Getty Images Plus
Adding just one serving (around 20 g/day) of whole grains from foods such as brown bread, brown rice, or breakfast cereals was associated with about a 16% reduction in all-cause mortality, and each portion of fish consumed per week was associated with a 5% lower risk of all-cause mortality. In addition, eating 5 g/day of fiber was associated with a 14% reduction in all-cause mortality, and 0.1 g/day of omega-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids with a 13% reduction.
Diet also has role in improving survival in those with type 2 diabetes
Dr. Barbaresko explained that most dietary recommendations for people with type 2 diabetes are not evidence based or are derived from studies of the general population, and that the degree to which different components of diet are associated with all-cause mortality, or indeed the prevention of morbidity and mortality, remains unknown.
By way of example, she noted the American Diabetes Association 2022 guidelines for the prevention and management of diabetes complications advises limited intake of saturated and trans fatty acids, higher intake of polyunsaturated fatty acids, and following the Mediterranean or DASH (Dietary Approaches to Stop Hypertension) diets.
“Our findings show that dietary factors not only play a role in the prevention of type 2 diabetes, but also seem to be relevant for improving survival in people with diagnosed diabetes,” she said, adding that, “in particular, we found some key aspects of a healthy diet such as higher intakes of whole grains, fiber, fish, and omega-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids may improve survival of individuals with type 2 diabetes.”
She noted that individuals with type 2 diabetes are known to be more prone to circulatory diseases, dementia, cancer, and bone fractures, and that lifestyle modifications, including diet – with or without medications – underpin most management strategies.
“For the first time, we have provided a summary of all published studies on any dietary factor in association to all-cause mortality in individuals with type 2 diabetes,” said Dr. Barbaresko. “Moreover, the certainty of evidence has been evaluated for the first time.”
Matthias Schulze, MD, head of the German Institute of Human Nutrition, Berlin, moderated the session.
The new work “summarizes the available evidence, providing important dietary advice for patients with diabetes, for example, recommending whole grains,” he remarked. “However, the study also points to gaps in knowledge, so for many diet factors, we have either no or few studies, or study quality considered to be low, which calls for more research to fill the gap.”
High versus low intake of various dietary factors
The researchers performed meta-analyses based on published studies of all-cause mortality in individuals with type 2 diabetes aged 18 years and over, as associated with dietary patterns, macronutrients (carbohydrates, protein, fat), micronutrients (vitamins and minerals), secondary plant compounds (for example, polyphenols), and supplements.
Studies were conducted mainly in the United States and Europe with a mean follow-up of 10 years. Low and high intake were compared, and a dose-response relationship between different dietary factors and all-cause mortality was explored to generate summary risk ratios. The researchers also explored how the certainty of evidence was determined.
Decreased mortality from any cause was found for a higher intake of fish (SRR per serving/week, 0.95; over six studies); whole grain (SRR per 20 g/day, 0.84; two studies); fiber (SRR per 5 g/day, 0.86; three studies), and omega-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids (SRR per 0.1 g/day, 0.87; two studies).
A low certainty of evidence was found for an inverse association between all-cause mortality and vegetable consumption (SRR per 100 g/day, 0.88; two studies) and plant protein intake (SRR per 10 g/day, 0.91; three studies).
Eggs were associated with an increased risk of all-cause mortality (SRR per 10 g/day, 1.05; seven studies), as was dietary cholesterol (SRR per 300 mg/day, 1.19; two studies).
Regarding other dietary patterns, including the Mediterranean diet and low-carbohydrate diet, either no association was found and/or the evidence was very uncertain. Likewise, evidence was uncertain for foods including nuts, dairy, meat, sugar and sweets; macronutrients, including carbohydrates; and micronutrients, such as caffeine and vitamin D.
“With the Mediterranean diet, we saw an inverse association [with all-cause mortality] comparing high adherence with low adherence to the Mediterranean diet, but the certainty of evidence was very low, indicating a really uncertain meta-evidence,” remarked Dr. Barbaresko.
She concluded that a greater number of studies is needed to investigate the association of dietary factors with all-cause mortality in type 2 diabetes to strengthen the evidence for several other dietary factors. She also cautioned that meta-analyses are affected by unmeasured and residual confounding.
Dr. Barbaresko and Dr. Schulze reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
STOCKHOLM – Higher consumption of whole grains, fish, fiber, and omega-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids reduces deaths from all causes in people with type 2 diabetes, show new data.
Results from the systematic review and meta-analysis were presented at the annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes by lead author Janett Barbaresko, PhD, a researcher from the German Diabetes Center in Düsseldorf.
Lisovskaya/iStock/Getty Images Plus
Adding just one serving (around 20 g/day) of whole grains from foods such as brown bread, brown rice, or breakfast cereals was associated with about a 16% reduction in all-cause mortality, and each portion of fish consumed per week was associated with a 5% lower risk of all-cause mortality. In addition, eating 5 g/day of fiber was associated with a 14% reduction in all-cause mortality, and 0.1 g/day of omega-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids with a 13% reduction.
Diet also has role in improving survival in those with type 2 diabetes
Dr. Barbaresko explained that most dietary recommendations for people with type 2 diabetes are not evidence based or are derived from studies of the general population, and that the degree to which different components of diet are associated with all-cause mortality, or indeed the prevention of morbidity and mortality, remains unknown.
By way of example, she noted the American Diabetes Association 2022 guidelines for the prevention and management of diabetes complications advises limited intake of saturated and trans fatty acids, higher intake of polyunsaturated fatty acids, and following the Mediterranean or DASH (Dietary Approaches to Stop Hypertension) diets.
“Our findings show that dietary factors not only play a role in the prevention of type 2 diabetes, but also seem to be relevant for improving survival in people with diagnosed diabetes,” she said, adding that, “in particular, we found some key aspects of a healthy diet such as higher intakes of whole grains, fiber, fish, and omega-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids may improve survival of individuals with type 2 diabetes.”
She noted that individuals with type 2 diabetes are known to be more prone to circulatory diseases, dementia, cancer, and bone fractures, and that lifestyle modifications, including diet – with or without medications – underpin most management strategies.
“For the first time, we have provided a summary of all published studies on any dietary factor in association to all-cause mortality in individuals with type 2 diabetes,” said Dr. Barbaresko. “Moreover, the certainty of evidence has been evaluated for the first time.”
Matthias Schulze, MD, head of the German Institute of Human Nutrition, Berlin, moderated the session.
The new work “summarizes the available evidence, providing important dietary advice for patients with diabetes, for example, recommending whole grains,” he remarked. “However, the study also points to gaps in knowledge, so for many diet factors, we have either no or few studies, or study quality considered to be low, which calls for more research to fill the gap.”
High versus low intake of various dietary factors
The researchers performed meta-analyses based on published studies of all-cause mortality in individuals with type 2 diabetes aged 18 years and over, as associated with dietary patterns, macronutrients (carbohydrates, protein, fat), micronutrients (vitamins and minerals), secondary plant compounds (for example, polyphenols), and supplements.
Studies were conducted mainly in the United States and Europe with a mean follow-up of 10 years. Low and high intake were compared, and a dose-response relationship between different dietary factors and all-cause mortality was explored to generate summary risk ratios. The researchers also explored how the certainty of evidence was determined.
Decreased mortality from any cause was found for a higher intake of fish (SRR per serving/week, 0.95; over six studies); whole grain (SRR per 20 g/day, 0.84; two studies); fiber (SRR per 5 g/day, 0.86; three studies), and omega-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids (SRR per 0.1 g/day, 0.87; two studies).
A low certainty of evidence was found for an inverse association between all-cause mortality and vegetable consumption (SRR per 100 g/day, 0.88; two studies) and plant protein intake (SRR per 10 g/day, 0.91; three studies).
Eggs were associated with an increased risk of all-cause mortality (SRR per 10 g/day, 1.05; seven studies), as was dietary cholesterol (SRR per 300 mg/day, 1.19; two studies).
Regarding other dietary patterns, including the Mediterranean diet and low-carbohydrate diet, either no association was found and/or the evidence was very uncertain. Likewise, evidence was uncertain for foods including nuts, dairy, meat, sugar and sweets; macronutrients, including carbohydrates; and micronutrients, such as caffeine and vitamin D.
“With the Mediterranean diet, we saw an inverse association [with all-cause mortality] comparing high adherence with low adherence to the Mediterranean diet, but the certainty of evidence was very low, indicating a really uncertain meta-evidence,” remarked Dr. Barbaresko.
She concluded that a greater number of studies is needed to investigate the association of dietary factors with all-cause mortality in type 2 diabetes to strengthen the evidence for several other dietary factors. She also cautioned that meta-analyses are affected by unmeasured and residual confounding.
Dr. Barbaresko and Dr. Schulze reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
STOCKHOLM – Higher consumption of whole grains, fish, fiber, and omega-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids reduces deaths from all causes in people with type 2 diabetes, show new data.
Results from the systematic review and meta-analysis were presented at the annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes by lead author Janett Barbaresko, PhD, a researcher from the German Diabetes Center in Düsseldorf.
Lisovskaya/iStock/Getty Images Plus
Adding just one serving (around 20 g/day) of whole grains from foods such as brown bread, brown rice, or breakfast cereals was associated with about a 16% reduction in all-cause mortality, and each portion of fish consumed per week was associated with a 5% lower risk of all-cause mortality. In addition, eating 5 g/day of fiber was associated with a 14% reduction in all-cause mortality, and 0.1 g/day of omega-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids with a 13% reduction.
Diet also has role in improving survival in those with type 2 diabetes
Dr. Barbaresko explained that most dietary recommendations for people with type 2 diabetes are not evidence based or are derived from studies of the general population, and that the degree to which different components of diet are associated with all-cause mortality, or indeed the prevention of morbidity and mortality, remains unknown.
By way of example, she noted the American Diabetes Association 2022 guidelines for the prevention and management of diabetes complications advises limited intake of saturated and trans fatty acids, higher intake of polyunsaturated fatty acids, and following the Mediterranean or DASH (Dietary Approaches to Stop Hypertension) diets.
“Our findings show that dietary factors not only play a role in the prevention of type 2 diabetes, but also seem to be relevant for improving survival in people with diagnosed diabetes,” she said, adding that, “in particular, we found some key aspects of a healthy diet such as higher intakes of whole grains, fiber, fish, and omega-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids may improve survival of individuals with type 2 diabetes.”
She noted that individuals with type 2 diabetes are known to be more prone to circulatory diseases, dementia, cancer, and bone fractures, and that lifestyle modifications, including diet – with or without medications – underpin most management strategies.
“For the first time, we have provided a summary of all published studies on any dietary factor in association to all-cause mortality in individuals with type 2 diabetes,” said Dr. Barbaresko. “Moreover, the certainty of evidence has been evaluated for the first time.”
Matthias Schulze, MD, head of the German Institute of Human Nutrition, Berlin, moderated the session.
The new work “summarizes the available evidence, providing important dietary advice for patients with diabetes, for example, recommending whole grains,” he remarked. “However, the study also points to gaps in knowledge, so for many diet factors, we have either no or few studies, or study quality considered to be low, which calls for more research to fill the gap.”
High versus low intake of various dietary factors
The researchers performed meta-analyses based on published studies of all-cause mortality in individuals with type 2 diabetes aged 18 years and over, as associated with dietary patterns, macronutrients (carbohydrates, protein, fat), micronutrients (vitamins and minerals), secondary plant compounds (for example, polyphenols), and supplements.
Studies were conducted mainly in the United States and Europe with a mean follow-up of 10 years. Low and high intake were compared, and a dose-response relationship between different dietary factors and all-cause mortality was explored to generate summary risk ratios. The researchers also explored how the certainty of evidence was determined.
Decreased mortality from any cause was found for a higher intake of fish (SRR per serving/week, 0.95; over six studies); whole grain (SRR per 20 g/day, 0.84; two studies); fiber (SRR per 5 g/day, 0.86; three studies), and omega-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids (SRR per 0.1 g/day, 0.87; two studies).
A low certainty of evidence was found for an inverse association between all-cause mortality and vegetable consumption (SRR per 100 g/day, 0.88; two studies) and plant protein intake (SRR per 10 g/day, 0.91; three studies).
Eggs were associated with an increased risk of all-cause mortality (SRR per 10 g/day, 1.05; seven studies), as was dietary cholesterol (SRR per 300 mg/day, 1.19; two studies).
Regarding other dietary patterns, including the Mediterranean diet and low-carbohydrate diet, either no association was found and/or the evidence was very uncertain. Likewise, evidence was uncertain for foods including nuts, dairy, meat, sugar and sweets; macronutrients, including carbohydrates; and micronutrients, such as caffeine and vitamin D.
“With the Mediterranean diet, we saw an inverse association [with all-cause mortality] comparing high adherence with low adherence to the Mediterranean diet, but the certainty of evidence was very low, indicating a really uncertain meta-evidence,” remarked Dr. Barbaresko.
She concluded that a greater number of studies is needed to investigate the association of dietary factors with all-cause mortality in type 2 diabetes to strengthen the evidence for several other dietary factors. She also cautioned that meta-analyses are affected by unmeasured and residual confounding.
Dr. Barbaresko and Dr. Schulze reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
BARCELONA – Increased frailty of patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) should have no bearing on whether those patients receive sacubitril/valsartan (Entresto), according to results of a post hoc analysis of data from a pivotal trial.
Plus, a recently reported prespecified analysis of data from a different pivotal trial shows that the same rule applies to patients with HFpEF who receive treatment with dapagliflozin (Farxiga). A pair of earlier reports showed similar findings for dapagliflozin and sacubitril/valsartan in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF).
Dr. Jawad H. Butt
“There appears to be a greater reduction in the primary outcome and in hospitalizations for heart failure with sacubitril/valsartan compared with valsartan with increasing frailty, and sacubitril/valsartan was safe and well tolerated regardless of frailty status” in post hoc analysis of data from the PARAGON-HF trial, Jawad H. Butt, MD, reported at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology.
Analysis of the treatment effect by sacubitril/valsartan compared with valsartan in patients with HFpEF in PARAGON-HF showed that sacubitril/valsartan actually benefited patients more as their frailty increased when researchers applied frailty severity as a continuous variable. When they analyzed frailty’s effect by dividing the study cohort into three subgroups based on frailty severity – not frail, more frail, and most frail – the statistical analysis showed no significant heterogeneity of effect, although the point estimates for each subgroup showed by far the biggest benefit among the most frail patients. A safety analysis showed consistent safety of sacubitril/valsartan compared with valsartan across all three frailty subgroups, Dr. Butt reported.
Simultaneously with his report at the congress the results appeared online in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.
Don’t withhold sacubitril/valsartan because of frailty
“We should not withhold [sacubitril/valsartan] treatment in patients perceived to be frail,” Dr. Butt declared in an interview. “There are no safety concerns, and no efficacy concerns,” although he cautioned that sacubitril/valsartan is not indicated for all patients with HFpEF. “If you believe that sacubitril/valsartan is indicated for a patient with HFpEF, do not withhold it just because of frailty,” said Dr. Butt, a cardiologist at Copenhagen University Hospital.
Dr. Butt went a step further and stressed, “I don’t think we should measure frailty” when considering patients with heart failure for treatment with sacubitril/valsartan, or with dapagliflozin, which had shown safety and maintained efficacy in a prespecified analysis he recently reported for patients with HFpEF, and in a separate recent report on a post hoc analysis of dapagliflozin use in patients with HFrEF in the DAPA-HF trial.
A published report also showed no evidence for an interaction between frailty and efficacy for sacubitril/valsartan compared with valsartan in the PARADIGM-HF pivotal trial, which enrolled people with HFrEF.
The issue of treatment safety and efficacy for patients considered frail is especially notable because “clinicians may be more reluctant to initiate new therapies due to doubt about the benefit of treatments in frail patients and apprehensions about predisposing them to potential new adverse effects,” said Dr. Butt.
“We should not defer these treatments on account of patient frailty,” said Maja Cikes, MD, a cardiologist at the University Hospital Center Zagreb, Croatia. The report by Dr. Butt “shows the safety” of using sacubitril/valsartan in most patients with HFpEF regardless of their frailty status, Dr. Cikes added in an interview.
Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News
Dr. Maja Cikes
‘Benefits without increasing the risk of frailty’
The data reported by Dr. Butt “suggest that although frail older persons with HFpEF are at greater risk for adverse outcomes overall, the prescription of sacubitril/valsartan seems to confer benefits without increasing the risk of frailty-related adverse events,” George A. Heckman, MD, a geriatrician at the University of Waterloo (Canada), and Kenneth Rockwood, MD, professor of geriatric medicine at Dalhousie University in Halifax, N.S., wrote in an editorial that accompanied the published version of Dr. Butt’s report.
The PARADIGM-HF trial enrolled 4,822 patients with heart failure and a left ventricular ejection fraction of at least 45% at 848 centers in 43 countries during 2014-2016, and followed them for a median of 35 months, with a primary endpoint of the combined rate of hospitalization for heart failure or cardiovascular death. Treatment with sacubitril/valsartan reduced the incidence of the primary endpoint by 13% compared with the control patients who received valsartan, a difference that missed narrowly missed significance (P = .06).
Despite this statistically neutral result, the Food and Drug Administration subsequently, based on these results, modified the indicationfor using sacubitril/valsartan from exclusively patients with HFrEF to patients with higher left ventricular ejection fractions, including at least some patients diagnosed with HFpEF.
To run the frailty analysis, Dr. Butt and his associates devised a 41-item frailty index, which identified 45% of the study cohort as not frail, 44% as more frail, and 11% as most frail. Their analyses also showed that frailty severity had no significant relationship to the effect of treatment with sacubitril valsartan on improving quality of life, or on improving functional status. Frailty also played no apparent role in the impact of sacubitril/valsartan compared with valsartan on treatment discontinuations or adverse effects.
PARAGON-HF and PARADIGM-HF were sponsored by Novartis, the company that markets sacubitril/valsartan (Entresto). Dr. Butt has been an adviser to Bayer. Dr. Cikes has received travel support or honoraria from Novartis as well as from Amicus, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, GE Healthcare, Krka, LivaNova, Pfizer, Sanofi, and Teva, and research support or contracts from Novartis as well as from Abbott, Corvia, and Pfizer. Dr. Heckman had no disclosures. Dr. Rockwood is a cofounder of Ardea Outcomes, an adviser to Nutricia, and he holds a copyright through Dalhousie University on the Clinical Frailty Scale (which allows free use for educational, research, and not-for-profit health care purposes).
BARCELONA – Increased frailty of patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) should have no bearing on whether those patients receive sacubitril/valsartan (Entresto), according to results of a post hoc analysis of data from a pivotal trial.
Plus, a recently reported prespecified analysis of data from a different pivotal trial shows that the same rule applies to patients with HFpEF who receive treatment with dapagliflozin (Farxiga). A pair of earlier reports showed similar findings for dapagliflozin and sacubitril/valsartan in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF).
Dr. Jawad H. Butt
“There appears to be a greater reduction in the primary outcome and in hospitalizations for heart failure with sacubitril/valsartan compared with valsartan with increasing frailty, and sacubitril/valsartan was safe and well tolerated regardless of frailty status” in post hoc analysis of data from the PARAGON-HF trial, Jawad H. Butt, MD, reported at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology.
Analysis of the treatment effect by sacubitril/valsartan compared with valsartan in patients with HFpEF in PARAGON-HF showed that sacubitril/valsartan actually benefited patients more as their frailty increased when researchers applied frailty severity as a continuous variable. When they analyzed frailty’s effect by dividing the study cohort into three subgroups based on frailty severity – not frail, more frail, and most frail – the statistical analysis showed no significant heterogeneity of effect, although the point estimates for each subgroup showed by far the biggest benefit among the most frail patients. A safety analysis showed consistent safety of sacubitril/valsartan compared with valsartan across all three frailty subgroups, Dr. Butt reported.
Simultaneously with his report at the congress the results appeared online in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.
Don’t withhold sacubitril/valsartan because of frailty
“We should not withhold [sacubitril/valsartan] treatment in patients perceived to be frail,” Dr. Butt declared in an interview. “There are no safety concerns, and no efficacy concerns,” although he cautioned that sacubitril/valsartan is not indicated for all patients with HFpEF. “If you believe that sacubitril/valsartan is indicated for a patient with HFpEF, do not withhold it just because of frailty,” said Dr. Butt, a cardiologist at Copenhagen University Hospital.
Dr. Butt went a step further and stressed, “I don’t think we should measure frailty” when considering patients with heart failure for treatment with sacubitril/valsartan, or with dapagliflozin, which had shown safety and maintained efficacy in a prespecified analysis he recently reported for patients with HFpEF, and in a separate recent report on a post hoc analysis of dapagliflozin use in patients with HFrEF in the DAPA-HF trial.
A published report also showed no evidence for an interaction between frailty and efficacy for sacubitril/valsartan compared with valsartan in the PARADIGM-HF pivotal trial, which enrolled people with HFrEF.
The issue of treatment safety and efficacy for patients considered frail is especially notable because “clinicians may be more reluctant to initiate new therapies due to doubt about the benefit of treatments in frail patients and apprehensions about predisposing them to potential new adverse effects,” said Dr. Butt.
“We should not defer these treatments on account of patient frailty,” said Maja Cikes, MD, a cardiologist at the University Hospital Center Zagreb, Croatia. The report by Dr. Butt “shows the safety” of using sacubitril/valsartan in most patients with HFpEF regardless of their frailty status, Dr. Cikes added in an interview.
Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News
Dr. Maja Cikes
‘Benefits without increasing the risk of frailty’
The data reported by Dr. Butt “suggest that although frail older persons with HFpEF are at greater risk for adverse outcomes overall, the prescription of sacubitril/valsartan seems to confer benefits without increasing the risk of frailty-related adverse events,” George A. Heckman, MD, a geriatrician at the University of Waterloo (Canada), and Kenneth Rockwood, MD, professor of geriatric medicine at Dalhousie University in Halifax, N.S., wrote in an editorial that accompanied the published version of Dr. Butt’s report.
The PARADIGM-HF trial enrolled 4,822 patients with heart failure and a left ventricular ejection fraction of at least 45% at 848 centers in 43 countries during 2014-2016, and followed them for a median of 35 months, with a primary endpoint of the combined rate of hospitalization for heart failure or cardiovascular death. Treatment with sacubitril/valsartan reduced the incidence of the primary endpoint by 13% compared with the control patients who received valsartan, a difference that missed narrowly missed significance (P = .06).
Despite this statistically neutral result, the Food and Drug Administration subsequently, based on these results, modified the indicationfor using sacubitril/valsartan from exclusively patients with HFrEF to patients with higher left ventricular ejection fractions, including at least some patients diagnosed with HFpEF.
To run the frailty analysis, Dr. Butt and his associates devised a 41-item frailty index, which identified 45% of the study cohort as not frail, 44% as more frail, and 11% as most frail. Their analyses also showed that frailty severity had no significant relationship to the effect of treatment with sacubitril valsartan on improving quality of life, or on improving functional status. Frailty also played no apparent role in the impact of sacubitril/valsartan compared with valsartan on treatment discontinuations or adverse effects.
PARAGON-HF and PARADIGM-HF were sponsored by Novartis, the company that markets sacubitril/valsartan (Entresto). Dr. Butt has been an adviser to Bayer. Dr. Cikes has received travel support or honoraria from Novartis as well as from Amicus, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, GE Healthcare, Krka, LivaNova, Pfizer, Sanofi, and Teva, and research support or contracts from Novartis as well as from Abbott, Corvia, and Pfizer. Dr. Heckman had no disclosures. Dr. Rockwood is a cofounder of Ardea Outcomes, an adviser to Nutricia, and he holds a copyright through Dalhousie University on the Clinical Frailty Scale (which allows free use for educational, research, and not-for-profit health care purposes).
BARCELONA – Increased frailty of patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) should have no bearing on whether those patients receive sacubitril/valsartan (Entresto), according to results of a post hoc analysis of data from a pivotal trial.
Plus, a recently reported prespecified analysis of data from a different pivotal trial shows that the same rule applies to patients with HFpEF who receive treatment with dapagliflozin (Farxiga). A pair of earlier reports showed similar findings for dapagliflozin and sacubitril/valsartan in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF).
Dr. Jawad H. Butt
“There appears to be a greater reduction in the primary outcome and in hospitalizations for heart failure with sacubitril/valsartan compared with valsartan with increasing frailty, and sacubitril/valsartan was safe and well tolerated regardless of frailty status” in post hoc analysis of data from the PARAGON-HF trial, Jawad H. Butt, MD, reported at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology.
Analysis of the treatment effect by sacubitril/valsartan compared with valsartan in patients with HFpEF in PARAGON-HF showed that sacubitril/valsartan actually benefited patients more as their frailty increased when researchers applied frailty severity as a continuous variable. When they analyzed frailty’s effect by dividing the study cohort into three subgroups based on frailty severity – not frail, more frail, and most frail – the statistical analysis showed no significant heterogeneity of effect, although the point estimates for each subgroup showed by far the biggest benefit among the most frail patients. A safety analysis showed consistent safety of sacubitril/valsartan compared with valsartan across all three frailty subgroups, Dr. Butt reported.
Simultaneously with his report at the congress the results appeared online in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.
Don’t withhold sacubitril/valsartan because of frailty
“We should not withhold [sacubitril/valsartan] treatment in patients perceived to be frail,” Dr. Butt declared in an interview. “There are no safety concerns, and no efficacy concerns,” although he cautioned that sacubitril/valsartan is not indicated for all patients with HFpEF. “If you believe that sacubitril/valsartan is indicated for a patient with HFpEF, do not withhold it just because of frailty,” said Dr. Butt, a cardiologist at Copenhagen University Hospital.
Dr. Butt went a step further and stressed, “I don’t think we should measure frailty” when considering patients with heart failure for treatment with sacubitril/valsartan, or with dapagliflozin, which had shown safety and maintained efficacy in a prespecified analysis he recently reported for patients with HFpEF, and in a separate recent report on a post hoc analysis of dapagliflozin use in patients with HFrEF in the DAPA-HF trial.
A published report also showed no evidence for an interaction between frailty and efficacy for sacubitril/valsartan compared with valsartan in the PARADIGM-HF pivotal trial, which enrolled people with HFrEF.
The issue of treatment safety and efficacy for patients considered frail is especially notable because “clinicians may be more reluctant to initiate new therapies due to doubt about the benefit of treatments in frail patients and apprehensions about predisposing them to potential new adverse effects,” said Dr. Butt.
“We should not defer these treatments on account of patient frailty,” said Maja Cikes, MD, a cardiologist at the University Hospital Center Zagreb, Croatia. The report by Dr. Butt “shows the safety” of using sacubitril/valsartan in most patients with HFpEF regardless of their frailty status, Dr. Cikes added in an interview.
Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News
Dr. Maja Cikes
‘Benefits without increasing the risk of frailty’
The data reported by Dr. Butt “suggest that although frail older persons with HFpEF are at greater risk for adverse outcomes overall, the prescription of sacubitril/valsartan seems to confer benefits without increasing the risk of frailty-related adverse events,” George A. Heckman, MD, a geriatrician at the University of Waterloo (Canada), and Kenneth Rockwood, MD, professor of geriatric medicine at Dalhousie University in Halifax, N.S., wrote in an editorial that accompanied the published version of Dr. Butt’s report.
The PARADIGM-HF trial enrolled 4,822 patients with heart failure and a left ventricular ejection fraction of at least 45% at 848 centers in 43 countries during 2014-2016, and followed them for a median of 35 months, with a primary endpoint of the combined rate of hospitalization for heart failure or cardiovascular death. Treatment with sacubitril/valsartan reduced the incidence of the primary endpoint by 13% compared with the control patients who received valsartan, a difference that missed narrowly missed significance (P = .06).
Despite this statistically neutral result, the Food and Drug Administration subsequently, based on these results, modified the indicationfor using sacubitril/valsartan from exclusively patients with HFrEF to patients with higher left ventricular ejection fractions, including at least some patients diagnosed with HFpEF.
To run the frailty analysis, Dr. Butt and his associates devised a 41-item frailty index, which identified 45% of the study cohort as not frail, 44% as more frail, and 11% as most frail. Their analyses also showed that frailty severity had no significant relationship to the effect of treatment with sacubitril valsartan on improving quality of life, or on improving functional status. Frailty also played no apparent role in the impact of sacubitril/valsartan compared with valsartan on treatment discontinuations or adverse effects.
PARAGON-HF and PARADIGM-HF were sponsored by Novartis, the company that markets sacubitril/valsartan (Entresto). Dr. Butt has been an adviser to Bayer. Dr. Cikes has received travel support or honoraria from Novartis as well as from Amicus, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, GE Healthcare, Krka, LivaNova, Pfizer, Sanofi, and Teva, and research support or contracts from Novartis as well as from Abbott, Corvia, and Pfizer. Dr. Heckman had no disclosures. Dr. Rockwood is a cofounder of Ardea Outcomes, an adviser to Nutricia, and he holds a copyright through Dalhousie University on the Clinical Frailty Scale (which allows free use for educational, research, and not-for-profit health care purposes).
STOCKHOLM – New evidence continues to show that alternative measures of adiposity than body mass index, such as waist-to-hip ratio, work better for predicting the risk a person with overweight or obesity faces from their excess weight.
A direct comparison of waist-to-hip ratio (WHR), body mass index (BMI), and fat mass index (FMI) in a total of more than 380,000 United Kingdom residents included in the UK Biobank showed that WHR had the strongest and most consistent relationship to all-cause death, compared with the other two measures, indicating that clinicians should pay more attention to adiposity distribution than they do to BMI when prioritizing obesity interventions, Irfan Khan said at the annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes.
MDedge News/Mitchel L. Zoler
Irfan Khan
Although it’s likely “way too early” to fully replace BMI as a measure of adiposity, because it is so established in guidelines and in practice, it is now time to “use WHR as an adjunct to BMI” suggested Mr. Khan in an interview.
“A lot of work still needs to be done to translate WHR into practice, but I think it’s getting closer,” said Mr. Khan, a medical student at McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont., who performed his analyses in collaboration with a research team based primarily at McMaster.
Moving away from BMI-centric obesity
“This is a timely topic, because guidelines for treating people with obesity have depended so much on BMI. We want to go from a BMI-centric view to a view of obesity that depends more on disease burden,” commented Matthias Blüher, MD, professor of molecular endocrinology and head of the Obesity Outpatient Clinic for Adults at the University of Leipzig (Germany).
MDedge News/Mitchel L. Zoler
Dr. Matthias Blüher
For example, the 2016 obesity management guidelines from the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists and the American College of Endocrinology called for a “complications-centric” approach to assessing and intervening in people with obesity rather than a “BMI-centric” approach.
But Dr. Blüher went a step further in an interview, adding that “waist-to-hip ratio is now outdated,” with adjusted measures of WHR such as waist-to-height ratio “considered a better proxy for all-cause death.” He also gave high marks to the Edmonton Obesity Staging System, which independently added to BMI as well as to a diagnosis of metabolic syndrome for predicting mortality in a sample from the U.S. National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES). The Edmonton System also surpassed BMI for disease-severity staging using data from more than 23,000 Canadians with a BMI that denoted obesity.
1 standard deviation increase in WHR linked with a 41% increased mortality
The study reported by Mr. Khan used both epidemiologic and Mendelian randomization analyses on data collected from more than 380,000 U.K. residents included in the UK Biobank database to examine the statistical associations between BMI, FMI, and WHR and all-cause death. This showed that while BMI and FMI both had significant, independent associations with all-cause mortality, with hazard ratios of 1.14 for each 1 standard deviation increase in BMI and of 1.17 for each standard deviation increase in FMI, the link was a stronger 1.41 per standard deviation increase in WHR, he said.
Another analysis that divided the entire UK Biobank study cohort into 20 roughly similar subgroups by their BMI showed that WHR had the most consistent association across the BMI spectrum.
Further analyses showed that WHR also strongly and significantly linked with cardiovascular disease death and with other causes of death that were not cardiovascular, cancer-related, or associated with respiratory diseases. And the WHR link to all-cause mortality was strongest in men, and much less robust in women, likely because visceral adiposity is much more common among men, even compared with the postmenopausal women who predominate in the UK Biobank cohort.
One more feature of WHR that makes it an attractive metric is its relative ease of measurement, about as easy as BMI, Mr. Khan said.
The study received no commercial funding, and Mr. Khan had no disclosures. Dr. Blüher has been a consultant to or speaker on behalf of Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Lilly, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, and Sanofi.
STOCKHOLM – New evidence continues to show that alternative measures of adiposity than body mass index, such as waist-to-hip ratio, work better for predicting the risk a person with overweight or obesity faces from their excess weight.
A direct comparison of waist-to-hip ratio (WHR), body mass index (BMI), and fat mass index (FMI) in a total of more than 380,000 United Kingdom residents included in the UK Biobank showed that WHR had the strongest and most consistent relationship to all-cause death, compared with the other two measures, indicating that clinicians should pay more attention to adiposity distribution than they do to BMI when prioritizing obesity interventions, Irfan Khan said at the annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes.
MDedge News/Mitchel L. Zoler
Irfan Khan
Although it’s likely “way too early” to fully replace BMI as a measure of adiposity, because it is so established in guidelines and in practice, it is now time to “use WHR as an adjunct to BMI” suggested Mr. Khan in an interview.
“A lot of work still needs to be done to translate WHR into practice, but I think it’s getting closer,” said Mr. Khan, a medical student at McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont., who performed his analyses in collaboration with a research team based primarily at McMaster.
Moving away from BMI-centric obesity
“This is a timely topic, because guidelines for treating people with obesity have depended so much on BMI. We want to go from a BMI-centric view to a view of obesity that depends more on disease burden,” commented Matthias Blüher, MD, professor of molecular endocrinology and head of the Obesity Outpatient Clinic for Adults at the University of Leipzig (Germany).
MDedge News/Mitchel L. Zoler
Dr. Matthias Blüher
For example, the 2016 obesity management guidelines from the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists and the American College of Endocrinology called for a “complications-centric” approach to assessing and intervening in people with obesity rather than a “BMI-centric” approach.
But Dr. Blüher went a step further in an interview, adding that “waist-to-hip ratio is now outdated,” with adjusted measures of WHR such as waist-to-height ratio “considered a better proxy for all-cause death.” He also gave high marks to the Edmonton Obesity Staging System, which independently added to BMI as well as to a diagnosis of metabolic syndrome for predicting mortality in a sample from the U.S. National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES). The Edmonton System also surpassed BMI for disease-severity staging using data from more than 23,000 Canadians with a BMI that denoted obesity.
1 standard deviation increase in WHR linked with a 41% increased mortality
The study reported by Mr. Khan used both epidemiologic and Mendelian randomization analyses on data collected from more than 380,000 U.K. residents included in the UK Biobank database to examine the statistical associations between BMI, FMI, and WHR and all-cause death. This showed that while BMI and FMI both had significant, independent associations with all-cause mortality, with hazard ratios of 1.14 for each 1 standard deviation increase in BMI and of 1.17 for each standard deviation increase in FMI, the link was a stronger 1.41 per standard deviation increase in WHR, he said.
Another analysis that divided the entire UK Biobank study cohort into 20 roughly similar subgroups by their BMI showed that WHR had the most consistent association across the BMI spectrum.
Further analyses showed that WHR also strongly and significantly linked with cardiovascular disease death and with other causes of death that were not cardiovascular, cancer-related, or associated with respiratory diseases. And the WHR link to all-cause mortality was strongest in men, and much less robust in women, likely because visceral adiposity is much more common among men, even compared with the postmenopausal women who predominate in the UK Biobank cohort.
One more feature of WHR that makes it an attractive metric is its relative ease of measurement, about as easy as BMI, Mr. Khan said.
The study received no commercial funding, and Mr. Khan had no disclosures. Dr. Blüher has been a consultant to or speaker on behalf of Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Lilly, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, and Sanofi.
STOCKHOLM – New evidence continues to show that alternative measures of adiposity than body mass index, such as waist-to-hip ratio, work better for predicting the risk a person with overweight or obesity faces from their excess weight.
A direct comparison of waist-to-hip ratio (WHR), body mass index (BMI), and fat mass index (FMI) in a total of more than 380,000 United Kingdom residents included in the UK Biobank showed that WHR had the strongest and most consistent relationship to all-cause death, compared with the other two measures, indicating that clinicians should pay more attention to adiposity distribution than they do to BMI when prioritizing obesity interventions, Irfan Khan said at the annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes.
MDedge News/Mitchel L. Zoler
Irfan Khan
Although it’s likely “way too early” to fully replace BMI as a measure of adiposity, because it is so established in guidelines and in practice, it is now time to “use WHR as an adjunct to BMI” suggested Mr. Khan in an interview.
“A lot of work still needs to be done to translate WHR into practice, but I think it’s getting closer,” said Mr. Khan, a medical student at McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont., who performed his analyses in collaboration with a research team based primarily at McMaster.
Moving away from BMI-centric obesity
“This is a timely topic, because guidelines for treating people with obesity have depended so much on BMI. We want to go from a BMI-centric view to a view of obesity that depends more on disease burden,” commented Matthias Blüher, MD, professor of molecular endocrinology and head of the Obesity Outpatient Clinic for Adults at the University of Leipzig (Germany).
MDedge News/Mitchel L. Zoler
Dr. Matthias Blüher
For example, the 2016 obesity management guidelines from the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists and the American College of Endocrinology called for a “complications-centric” approach to assessing and intervening in people with obesity rather than a “BMI-centric” approach.
But Dr. Blüher went a step further in an interview, adding that “waist-to-hip ratio is now outdated,” with adjusted measures of WHR such as waist-to-height ratio “considered a better proxy for all-cause death.” He also gave high marks to the Edmonton Obesity Staging System, which independently added to BMI as well as to a diagnosis of metabolic syndrome for predicting mortality in a sample from the U.S. National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES). The Edmonton System also surpassed BMI for disease-severity staging using data from more than 23,000 Canadians with a BMI that denoted obesity.
1 standard deviation increase in WHR linked with a 41% increased mortality
The study reported by Mr. Khan used both epidemiologic and Mendelian randomization analyses on data collected from more than 380,000 U.K. residents included in the UK Biobank database to examine the statistical associations between BMI, FMI, and WHR and all-cause death. This showed that while BMI and FMI both had significant, independent associations with all-cause mortality, with hazard ratios of 1.14 for each 1 standard deviation increase in BMI and of 1.17 for each standard deviation increase in FMI, the link was a stronger 1.41 per standard deviation increase in WHR, he said.
Another analysis that divided the entire UK Biobank study cohort into 20 roughly similar subgroups by their BMI showed that WHR had the most consistent association across the BMI spectrum.
Further analyses showed that WHR also strongly and significantly linked with cardiovascular disease death and with other causes of death that were not cardiovascular, cancer-related, or associated with respiratory diseases. And the WHR link to all-cause mortality was strongest in men, and much less robust in women, likely because visceral adiposity is much more common among men, even compared with the postmenopausal women who predominate in the UK Biobank cohort.
One more feature of WHR that makes it an attractive metric is its relative ease of measurement, about as easy as BMI, Mr. Khan said.
The study received no commercial funding, and Mr. Khan had no disclosures. Dr. Blüher has been a consultant to or speaker on behalf of Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Lilly, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, and Sanofi.
BOSTON – Following transradial access for angiography or a percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), a low dose of the factor Xa inhibitor rivaroxaban for 7 days reduces the risk of an access-site occlusion by 50%, according to results of the randomized RIVARAD trial.
Of two multicenter, randomized trials to address this question it is the larger, according to Rania Hammami, MD, who presented the results at the Transcatheter Cardiovascular Therapeutics annual meeting.
Ted Bosworth/MDedge News
Dr. Rania Hammami
In the open-label RIVARAD trial, 538 patients were randomized to 10 mg rivaroxaban or standard care alone. Standard care at the beginning of the procedure included unfractionated heparin in a dose of 50 IU/kg for angiography and up to 100 IU/kg for PCI. Manual compression was applied at the end of the procedure followed by an evaluation for complications, such as hematoma or aneurysm.
For the primary outcome of radial access occlusion at 30 days, the lower rate in the rivaroxaban arm (6.9% vs. 13.0%) translated into a statistically significant 50% reduction (odds ratio, 0.50; P = .011).
Rivaroxaban preserves radial pulse
Rivaroxaban was also favored for the endpoint of inability at 30 days to find a radial pulse (5.8% vs. 12.2%; P = .01). Interestingly, there was some disparity for this endpoint for clinical examination and ultrasound.
“In 12 patients, we were able to palpate a radial pulse, but the ultrasound showed an occlusion of the vessel, while in 7 patients we could not find a radial pulse even though the radial artery was patent on ultrasound,” Dr. Hammami, of the department of cardiology, Hedi Chaker Hospital, Sfax, Tunisia, said at the meeting, sponsored by the Cardiovascular Research Foundation.
The incidence of hemorrhagic complications was higher in the rivaroxaban group (2.7% vs. 1.9%), but the difference did not approach statistical significance (OR, 1.5; P = .54). Moreover, all of the bleeding complications were minor (Bleeding Academic Research Consortium level 1), and none of the bleeding complications were observed in patients receiving rivaroxaban alone. Rather, all patients with bleeding were taking one or more antiplatelet drugs along with rivaroxaban.
On univariate analysis, several baseline characteristics were associated with subsequent radial occlusion, including female sex (P = .02), current smoking (P = .03), renal failure (P = .004), and PCI for acute coronary syndrome (P = .02). On multivariate analysis, female sex (P = .001) and current smoking (P < .0001) became even stronger predictors of occlusion on a statistical basis, while a prior procedure involving radial access was also a significant predictor (P = .029).
“One woman out of two developed radial access occlusion if she had a history of smoking and had a history of a transradial puncture,” Dr. Hammami reported.
In a subgroup analysis, relative protection from radial artery occlusion from a 7-day course of rivaroxaban was particularly pronounced in those with diabetes, renal failure, or hypertension relative to those without these conditions, but the protective effect appeared to be about the same regardless of body mass index, age, sheath size, or current use of statins.
These findings are consistent with other studies evaluating the risk of radial access occlusion, according to Dr. Hammami. While different studies she cited reported incidences ranging from less than 1% to more than 30%, the risk has typically been highest in populations with increased susceptibility for thrombus formation, such as smokers and patients with diabetes.
Preventing radial artery occlusion has several benefits, not least of which is preserving this access point for future interventions, according to Dr. Hammami.
RIVARAD is the largest study to evaluate an anticoagulant for the prevention of radial artery occlusion, but it is not the first. Earlier in 2022, a Chinese trial called RESTORE was published in Circulation: Cardiovascular Interventions. In that placebo-controlled study of 382 patients, 7 days of 10 mg rivaroxaban was also linked to a significant reduction in radial artery occlusion at 30 days (3.8% vs. 11.5%; P = .011).
“We don’t know if a higher dose of rivaroxaban would be more effective and equally safe,” said Dr. Hammami, but added that a Canadian trial called CAPITAL RAPTOR will test this premise. In this trial, there is a planned enrollment of 1,800 patients who will be randomized to 15 mg rivaroxaban or standard treatment.
Occlusion risk appears underappreciated
The risk of radial artery occlusion might be underappreciated. According to data cited by Dr. Hammami, only about half of interventionalists in the United States and fewer than 10% outside of the United States routinely assess radial artery patency in conjunction with radial-access PCI. The data from this trial suggest that the risk can be substantially reduced, particularly in high-risk patients, with anticoagulant therapy.
Mount Sinai Medical Center
Dr. Roxana Mehran
Agreeing that this is a potentially avoidable complication, Roxanna Mehran, MD, director of interventional cardiovascular research and clinical trials, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, called the RIVARAD study “a clinically meaningful trial,” and valuable for identifying risk factors as well as for showing a treatment effect and acceptable safety from a short course of a factor Xa inhibitor.
“This is very important work,” said Dr. Mehran, who praised the quality of the study and the contribution it makes for considering how and when prophylaxis is needed.
Dr. Hammami reported no potential conflicts of interest. Dr. Mehran has financial relationships with more than 25 pharmaceutical companies but none with the sponsor of this trial, which was funded by Philadelphia Pharma, a drug company based in Tunisia.
BOSTON – Following transradial access for angiography or a percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), a low dose of the factor Xa inhibitor rivaroxaban for 7 days reduces the risk of an access-site occlusion by 50%, according to results of the randomized RIVARAD trial.
Of two multicenter, randomized trials to address this question it is the larger, according to Rania Hammami, MD, who presented the results at the Transcatheter Cardiovascular Therapeutics annual meeting.
Ted Bosworth/MDedge News
Dr. Rania Hammami
In the open-label RIVARAD trial, 538 patients were randomized to 10 mg rivaroxaban or standard care alone. Standard care at the beginning of the procedure included unfractionated heparin in a dose of 50 IU/kg for angiography and up to 100 IU/kg for PCI. Manual compression was applied at the end of the procedure followed by an evaluation for complications, such as hematoma or aneurysm.
For the primary outcome of radial access occlusion at 30 days, the lower rate in the rivaroxaban arm (6.9% vs. 13.0%) translated into a statistically significant 50% reduction (odds ratio, 0.50; P = .011).
Rivaroxaban preserves radial pulse
Rivaroxaban was also favored for the endpoint of inability at 30 days to find a radial pulse (5.8% vs. 12.2%; P = .01). Interestingly, there was some disparity for this endpoint for clinical examination and ultrasound.
“In 12 patients, we were able to palpate a radial pulse, but the ultrasound showed an occlusion of the vessel, while in 7 patients we could not find a radial pulse even though the radial artery was patent on ultrasound,” Dr. Hammami, of the department of cardiology, Hedi Chaker Hospital, Sfax, Tunisia, said at the meeting, sponsored by the Cardiovascular Research Foundation.
The incidence of hemorrhagic complications was higher in the rivaroxaban group (2.7% vs. 1.9%), but the difference did not approach statistical significance (OR, 1.5; P = .54). Moreover, all of the bleeding complications were minor (Bleeding Academic Research Consortium level 1), and none of the bleeding complications were observed in patients receiving rivaroxaban alone. Rather, all patients with bleeding were taking one or more antiplatelet drugs along with rivaroxaban.
On univariate analysis, several baseline characteristics were associated with subsequent radial occlusion, including female sex (P = .02), current smoking (P = .03), renal failure (P = .004), and PCI for acute coronary syndrome (P = .02). On multivariate analysis, female sex (P = .001) and current smoking (P < .0001) became even stronger predictors of occlusion on a statistical basis, while a prior procedure involving radial access was also a significant predictor (P = .029).
“One woman out of two developed radial access occlusion if she had a history of smoking and had a history of a transradial puncture,” Dr. Hammami reported.
In a subgroup analysis, relative protection from radial artery occlusion from a 7-day course of rivaroxaban was particularly pronounced in those with diabetes, renal failure, or hypertension relative to those without these conditions, but the protective effect appeared to be about the same regardless of body mass index, age, sheath size, or current use of statins.
These findings are consistent with other studies evaluating the risk of radial access occlusion, according to Dr. Hammami. While different studies she cited reported incidences ranging from less than 1% to more than 30%, the risk has typically been highest in populations with increased susceptibility for thrombus formation, such as smokers and patients with diabetes.
Preventing radial artery occlusion has several benefits, not least of which is preserving this access point for future interventions, according to Dr. Hammami.
RIVARAD is the largest study to evaluate an anticoagulant for the prevention of radial artery occlusion, but it is not the first. Earlier in 2022, a Chinese trial called RESTORE was published in Circulation: Cardiovascular Interventions. In that placebo-controlled study of 382 patients, 7 days of 10 mg rivaroxaban was also linked to a significant reduction in radial artery occlusion at 30 days (3.8% vs. 11.5%; P = .011).
“We don’t know if a higher dose of rivaroxaban would be more effective and equally safe,” said Dr. Hammami, but added that a Canadian trial called CAPITAL RAPTOR will test this premise. In this trial, there is a planned enrollment of 1,800 patients who will be randomized to 15 mg rivaroxaban or standard treatment.
Occlusion risk appears underappreciated
The risk of radial artery occlusion might be underappreciated. According to data cited by Dr. Hammami, only about half of interventionalists in the United States and fewer than 10% outside of the United States routinely assess radial artery patency in conjunction with radial-access PCI. The data from this trial suggest that the risk can be substantially reduced, particularly in high-risk patients, with anticoagulant therapy.
Mount Sinai Medical Center
Dr. Roxana Mehran
Agreeing that this is a potentially avoidable complication, Roxanna Mehran, MD, director of interventional cardiovascular research and clinical trials, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, called the RIVARAD study “a clinically meaningful trial,” and valuable for identifying risk factors as well as for showing a treatment effect and acceptable safety from a short course of a factor Xa inhibitor.
“This is very important work,” said Dr. Mehran, who praised the quality of the study and the contribution it makes for considering how and when prophylaxis is needed.
Dr. Hammami reported no potential conflicts of interest. Dr. Mehran has financial relationships with more than 25 pharmaceutical companies but none with the sponsor of this trial, which was funded by Philadelphia Pharma, a drug company based in Tunisia.
BOSTON – Following transradial access for angiography or a percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), a low dose of the factor Xa inhibitor rivaroxaban for 7 days reduces the risk of an access-site occlusion by 50%, according to results of the randomized RIVARAD trial.
Of two multicenter, randomized trials to address this question it is the larger, according to Rania Hammami, MD, who presented the results at the Transcatheter Cardiovascular Therapeutics annual meeting.
Ted Bosworth/MDedge News
Dr. Rania Hammami
In the open-label RIVARAD trial, 538 patients were randomized to 10 mg rivaroxaban or standard care alone. Standard care at the beginning of the procedure included unfractionated heparin in a dose of 50 IU/kg for angiography and up to 100 IU/kg for PCI. Manual compression was applied at the end of the procedure followed by an evaluation for complications, such as hematoma or aneurysm.
For the primary outcome of radial access occlusion at 30 days, the lower rate in the rivaroxaban arm (6.9% vs. 13.0%) translated into a statistically significant 50% reduction (odds ratio, 0.50; P = .011).
Rivaroxaban preserves radial pulse
Rivaroxaban was also favored for the endpoint of inability at 30 days to find a radial pulse (5.8% vs. 12.2%; P = .01). Interestingly, there was some disparity for this endpoint for clinical examination and ultrasound.
“In 12 patients, we were able to palpate a radial pulse, but the ultrasound showed an occlusion of the vessel, while in 7 patients we could not find a radial pulse even though the radial artery was patent on ultrasound,” Dr. Hammami, of the department of cardiology, Hedi Chaker Hospital, Sfax, Tunisia, said at the meeting, sponsored by the Cardiovascular Research Foundation.
The incidence of hemorrhagic complications was higher in the rivaroxaban group (2.7% vs. 1.9%), but the difference did not approach statistical significance (OR, 1.5; P = .54). Moreover, all of the bleeding complications were minor (Bleeding Academic Research Consortium level 1), and none of the bleeding complications were observed in patients receiving rivaroxaban alone. Rather, all patients with bleeding were taking one or more antiplatelet drugs along with rivaroxaban.
On univariate analysis, several baseline characteristics were associated with subsequent radial occlusion, including female sex (P = .02), current smoking (P = .03), renal failure (P = .004), and PCI for acute coronary syndrome (P = .02). On multivariate analysis, female sex (P = .001) and current smoking (P < .0001) became even stronger predictors of occlusion on a statistical basis, while a prior procedure involving radial access was also a significant predictor (P = .029).
“One woman out of two developed radial access occlusion if she had a history of smoking and had a history of a transradial puncture,” Dr. Hammami reported.
In a subgroup analysis, relative protection from radial artery occlusion from a 7-day course of rivaroxaban was particularly pronounced in those with diabetes, renal failure, or hypertension relative to those without these conditions, but the protective effect appeared to be about the same regardless of body mass index, age, sheath size, or current use of statins.
These findings are consistent with other studies evaluating the risk of radial access occlusion, according to Dr. Hammami. While different studies she cited reported incidences ranging from less than 1% to more than 30%, the risk has typically been highest in populations with increased susceptibility for thrombus formation, such as smokers and patients with diabetes.
Preventing radial artery occlusion has several benefits, not least of which is preserving this access point for future interventions, according to Dr. Hammami.
RIVARAD is the largest study to evaluate an anticoagulant for the prevention of radial artery occlusion, but it is not the first. Earlier in 2022, a Chinese trial called RESTORE was published in Circulation: Cardiovascular Interventions. In that placebo-controlled study of 382 patients, 7 days of 10 mg rivaroxaban was also linked to a significant reduction in radial artery occlusion at 30 days (3.8% vs. 11.5%; P = .011).
“We don’t know if a higher dose of rivaroxaban would be more effective and equally safe,” said Dr. Hammami, but added that a Canadian trial called CAPITAL RAPTOR will test this premise. In this trial, there is a planned enrollment of 1,800 patients who will be randomized to 15 mg rivaroxaban or standard treatment.
Occlusion risk appears underappreciated
The risk of radial artery occlusion might be underappreciated. According to data cited by Dr. Hammami, only about half of interventionalists in the United States and fewer than 10% outside of the United States routinely assess radial artery patency in conjunction with radial-access PCI. The data from this trial suggest that the risk can be substantially reduced, particularly in high-risk patients, with anticoagulant therapy.
Mount Sinai Medical Center
Dr. Roxana Mehran
Agreeing that this is a potentially avoidable complication, Roxanna Mehran, MD, director of interventional cardiovascular research and clinical trials, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, called the RIVARAD study “a clinically meaningful trial,” and valuable for identifying risk factors as well as for showing a treatment effect and acceptable safety from a short course of a factor Xa inhibitor.
“This is very important work,” said Dr. Mehran, who praised the quality of the study and the contribution it makes for considering how and when prophylaxis is needed.
Dr. Hammami reported no potential conflicts of interest. Dr. Mehran has financial relationships with more than 25 pharmaceutical companies but none with the sponsor of this trial, which was funded by Philadelphia Pharma, a drug company based in Tunisia.
Apremilast (Otezla), an oral drug approved for adult psoriasis, appears to reduce psoriasis severity in some children with moderate to severe psoriasis not controlled by topical therapy, according to the results of a phase 3 trial.
“Unfortunately, there are limited treatment options for pediatric patients with moderate to severe plaque psoriasis” who do not respond to or cannot use topical therapy, said study investigator Anna Belloni Fortina, MD, speaking at the annual meeting of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology.
“In this randomized, placebo-controlled trial, oral apremilast demonstrated effectiveness and was well tolerated,” added Dr. Belloni Fortina, of Azienda Ospedale Università Padova (Italy). “I underline oral because for children, oral administration is better than the injection treatment.”
Key findings
Dubbed the SPROUT study, the trial set a primary endpoint of the percentage of children with a Physician’s Global Assessment (sPGA) response after 16 weeks of treatment or placebo. The sPGA is a 5-point scale ranging from 0 (clear) to 4 (severe). The study enrolled children with an sPGA greater than or equal to 3. Response was defined as a sPGA score of 0 or 1, indicating clear or almost clear skin, with at least a 2-point reduction from baseline values.
At week 16, the primary endpoint was met by 33% of 163 children treated with apremilast versus 11% of 82 children who had been given a placebo, a treatment difference of 21.7% (95% confidence interval, 11.2%-32.1%).
A greater proportion of children treated with apremilast also achieved a major secondary endpoint, a 75% or greater reduction in the Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI-75) (45.4% vs. 16.1%), a treatment difference of 29.4% (95% CI, 17.8%-40.9%).
Results unaffected by weight and age
Regarding apremilast, “it’s important to underline that patients were dosed according to their weight,” Dr. Belloni Fortina said.
A dose of 20 mg twice daily was given to children who weighed between 20 kg and less than 50 kg, and a 30-mg twice-daily dose was given to those who weighed greater than or equal to 50 kg.
When the data were analyzed according to weight, proportionately more children on apremilast saw a sPGA response: 47.4% versus 21.8% in the lower weight and dose range and 19.2% versus 1.6% in the higher weight and dose range.
As for PASI-75, a greater proportion of children on apremilast also responded in both the lower and upper weight ranges, a respective 52.4% and 38.7% of patients, compared with 21.4% and 11% of those treated with placebo.
Data were also evaluated according to age, with a younger (aged 6-11 years) and older (age 12-17 years) group. The mean age of children was 12 years overall. Results showed a similar pattern for weight: The psoriasis of more children treated with apremilast was reduced by both measures, sPGA response, and PASI-75.
Safety of apremilast in children
“The overall safety profile during the placebo-controlled phase was comparable with the known safety profile of apremilast,” Dr. Belloni Fontina reported. “No new safety signals were identified.”
The rate of any adverse event was substantially higher in children given the active treatment, however, at 65% versus 41.3% for placebo.
Rates of severe and serious adverse events were low, at around 1.3%, and similar between the groups.
There was also a low rate of withdrawal because of side effects, although this was higher in the apremilast group (3.1% vs. 1.3%).
The primary reason for withdrawal of apremilast treatment were the most commonly reported adverse events: gastrointestinal disorders, including diarrhea, nausea, upper and lower abdominal pain, and vomiting. Headache, pyrexia, and nasopharyngitis were also reported.
Despite being common, most treatment-related adverse effects resolved within 3 days, Dr. Belloni Fontina said.
Expect further data
Further data from the trial are to be expected, because only the 16-week primary endpoint results have been released so far. The trial also included a 36-week extension phase, during which all children who had originally been randomly assigned to placebo were now eligible to be treated with apremilast, and all those who were originally given the active treatment were able to continue. This extension treatment period means that data will be available for a full year of treatment, and there will also be a further 2-week observational follow-up at the end of the trial.
The study was funded by Amgen. Dr. Belloni Fontina reported acting as an investigator and advisory board member for and receiving honoraria from Amgen, Galderma, Leo Pharma, and Pfizer. She also reported speaking on behalf of Pierre-Fabre and Galderma.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Apremilast (Otezla), an oral drug approved for adult psoriasis, appears to reduce psoriasis severity in some children with moderate to severe psoriasis not controlled by topical therapy, according to the results of a phase 3 trial.
“Unfortunately, there are limited treatment options for pediatric patients with moderate to severe plaque psoriasis” who do not respond to or cannot use topical therapy, said study investigator Anna Belloni Fortina, MD, speaking at the annual meeting of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology.
“In this randomized, placebo-controlled trial, oral apremilast demonstrated effectiveness and was well tolerated,” added Dr. Belloni Fortina, of Azienda Ospedale Università Padova (Italy). “I underline oral because for children, oral administration is better than the injection treatment.”
Key findings
Dubbed the SPROUT study, the trial set a primary endpoint of the percentage of children with a Physician’s Global Assessment (sPGA) response after 16 weeks of treatment or placebo. The sPGA is a 5-point scale ranging from 0 (clear) to 4 (severe). The study enrolled children with an sPGA greater than or equal to 3. Response was defined as a sPGA score of 0 or 1, indicating clear or almost clear skin, with at least a 2-point reduction from baseline values.
At week 16, the primary endpoint was met by 33% of 163 children treated with apremilast versus 11% of 82 children who had been given a placebo, a treatment difference of 21.7% (95% confidence interval, 11.2%-32.1%).
A greater proportion of children treated with apremilast also achieved a major secondary endpoint, a 75% or greater reduction in the Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI-75) (45.4% vs. 16.1%), a treatment difference of 29.4% (95% CI, 17.8%-40.9%).
Results unaffected by weight and age
Regarding apremilast, “it’s important to underline that patients were dosed according to their weight,” Dr. Belloni Fortina said.
A dose of 20 mg twice daily was given to children who weighed between 20 kg and less than 50 kg, and a 30-mg twice-daily dose was given to those who weighed greater than or equal to 50 kg.
When the data were analyzed according to weight, proportionately more children on apremilast saw a sPGA response: 47.4% versus 21.8% in the lower weight and dose range and 19.2% versus 1.6% in the higher weight and dose range.
As for PASI-75, a greater proportion of children on apremilast also responded in both the lower and upper weight ranges, a respective 52.4% and 38.7% of patients, compared with 21.4% and 11% of those treated with placebo.
Data were also evaluated according to age, with a younger (aged 6-11 years) and older (age 12-17 years) group. The mean age of children was 12 years overall. Results showed a similar pattern for weight: The psoriasis of more children treated with apremilast was reduced by both measures, sPGA response, and PASI-75.
Safety of apremilast in children
“The overall safety profile during the placebo-controlled phase was comparable with the known safety profile of apremilast,” Dr. Belloni Fontina reported. “No new safety signals were identified.”
The rate of any adverse event was substantially higher in children given the active treatment, however, at 65% versus 41.3% for placebo.
Rates of severe and serious adverse events were low, at around 1.3%, and similar between the groups.
There was also a low rate of withdrawal because of side effects, although this was higher in the apremilast group (3.1% vs. 1.3%).
The primary reason for withdrawal of apremilast treatment were the most commonly reported adverse events: gastrointestinal disorders, including diarrhea, nausea, upper and lower abdominal pain, and vomiting. Headache, pyrexia, and nasopharyngitis were also reported.
Despite being common, most treatment-related adverse effects resolved within 3 days, Dr. Belloni Fontina said.
Expect further data
Further data from the trial are to be expected, because only the 16-week primary endpoint results have been released so far. The trial also included a 36-week extension phase, during which all children who had originally been randomly assigned to placebo were now eligible to be treated with apremilast, and all those who were originally given the active treatment were able to continue. This extension treatment period means that data will be available for a full year of treatment, and there will also be a further 2-week observational follow-up at the end of the trial.
The study was funded by Amgen. Dr. Belloni Fontina reported acting as an investigator and advisory board member for and receiving honoraria from Amgen, Galderma, Leo Pharma, and Pfizer. She also reported speaking on behalf of Pierre-Fabre and Galderma.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Apremilast (Otezla), an oral drug approved for adult psoriasis, appears to reduce psoriasis severity in some children with moderate to severe psoriasis not controlled by topical therapy, according to the results of a phase 3 trial.
“Unfortunately, there are limited treatment options for pediatric patients with moderate to severe plaque psoriasis” who do not respond to or cannot use topical therapy, said study investigator Anna Belloni Fortina, MD, speaking at the annual meeting of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology.
“In this randomized, placebo-controlled trial, oral apremilast demonstrated effectiveness and was well tolerated,” added Dr. Belloni Fortina, of Azienda Ospedale Università Padova (Italy). “I underline oral because for children, oral administration is better than the injection treatment.”
Key findings
Dubbed the SPROUT study, the trial set a primary endpoint of the percentage of children with a Physician’s Global Assessment (sPGA) response after 16 weeks of treatment or placebo. The sPGA is a 5-point scale ranging from 0 (clear) to 4 (severe). The study enrolled children with an sPGA greater than or equal to 3. Response was defined as a sPGA score of 0 or 1, indicating clear or almost clear skin, with at least a 2-point reduction from baseline values.
At week 16, the primary endpoint was met by 33% of 163 children treated with apremilast versus 11% of 82 children who had been given a placebo, a treatment difference of 21.7% (95% confidence interval, 11.2%-32.1%).
A greater proportion of children treated with apremilast also achieved a major secondary endpoint, a 75% or greater reduction in the Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI-75) (45.4% vs. 16.1%), a treatment difference of 29.4% (95% CI, 17.8%-40.9%).
Results unaffected by weight and age
Regarding apremilast, “it’s important to underline that patients were dosed according to their weight,” Dr. Belloni Fortina said.
A dose of 20 mg twice daily was given to children who weighed between 20 kg and less than 50 kg, and a 30-mg twice-daily dose was given to those who weighed greater than or equal to 50 kg.
When the data were analyzed according to weight, proportionately more children on apremilast saw a sPGA response: 47.4% versus 21.8% in the lower weight and dose range and 19.2% versus 1.6% in the higher weight and dose range.
As for PASI-75, a greater proportion of children on apremilast also responded in both the lower and upper weight ranges, a respective 52.4% and 38.7% of patients, compared with 21.4% and 11% of those treated with placebo.
Data were also evaluated according to age, with a younger (aged 6-11 years) and older (age 12-17 years) group. The mean age of children was 12 years overall. Results showed a similar pattern for weight: The psoriasis of more children treated with apremilast was reduced by both measures, sPGA response, and PASI-75.
Safety of apremilast in children
“The overall safety profile during the placebo-controlled phase was comparable with the known safety profile of apremilast,” Dr. Belloni Fontina reported. “No new safety signals were identified.”
The rate of any adverse event was substantially higher in children given the active treatment, however, at 65% versus 41.3% for placebo.
Rates of severe and serious adverse events were low, at around 1.3%, and similar between the groups.
There was also a low rate of withdrawal because of side effects, although this was higher in the apremilast group (3.1% vs. 1.3%).
The primary reason for withdrawal of apremilast treatment were the most commonly reported adverse events: gastrointestinal disorders, including diarrhea, nausea, upper and lower abdominal pain, and vomiting. Headache, pyrexia, and nasopharyngitis were also reported.
Despite being common, most treatment-related adverse effects resolved within 3 days, Dr. Belloni Fontina said.
Expect further data
Further data from the trial are to be expected, because only the 16-week primary endpoint results have been released so far. The trial also included a 36-week extension phase, during which all children who had originally been randomly assigned to placebo were now eligible to be treated with apremilast, and all those who were originally given the active treatment were able to continue. This extension treatment period means that data will be available for a full year of treatment, and there will also be a further 2-week observational follow-up at the end of the trial.
The study was funded by Amgen. Dr. Belloni Fontina reported acting as an investigator and advisory board member for and receiving honoraria from Amgen, Galderma, Leo Pharma, and Pfizer. She also reported speaking on behalf of Pierre-Fabre and Galderma.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
A history of head trauma may predict a more rapid decline in patients with Parkinson’s disease, new research suggests.
In a longitudinal online study, among patients with Parkinson’s disease who had a history of head injury, motor impairment developed 25% faster and cognitive impairment developed 45% faster than among those without such a history.
In addition, severe head injuries were associated with an even more rapid onset of impairment. The results give weight to the idea that “it’s head injuries themselves” prior to the development of Parkinson’s disease that might exacerbate motor and cognitive symptoms, said study investigator Ethan Brown, MD, assistant professor, Weill Institute of Neurosciences, department of neurology, University of California, San Francisco.
The findings emphasize the importance of “doing everything we can” to prevent falls and head injuries for patients with Parkinson’s disease, Dr. Brown said.
The findings were presented at the International Congress of Parkinson’s Disease and Movement Disorders.
Reverse causality concerns
Head injury is a risk factor for Parkinson’s disease, but its relationship to Parkinson’s disease progression is not well established. “There has always been this concern in Parkinson’s disease that maybe it’s problems with motor impairment that lead to head injuries, so reverse causality is an issue,” said Dr. Brown. “We wanted to look at whether risk factors we know relate to the development of Parkinson’s disease can also have a bearing on its progression,” he added.
The analysis was part of the online Fox Insight study that is evaluating motor and nonmotor symptoms in individuals with and those without Parkinson’s disease. The study included participants who had completed questionnaires on such things as head trauma.
The study included 1,065 patients (47% women; mean age, 63 years) with Parkinson’s disease who reported having had a head injury at least 5 years prior to their diagnosis. Among the participants, the mean duration of Parkinson’s disease was 7.5 years.
The investigators employed a 5-year lag time in their study to exclude head injuries caused by early motor dysfunction, they noted. “We wanted to look at people who had these head injuries we think might be part of the cause of Parkinson’s disease as opposed to a result of them,” Dr. Brown said.
In this head injury group, 51% had received one head injury, 28% had received two injuries, and 22% had received more than two injuries.
The study also included 1,457 participants (56% women; mean age, 65 years) with Parkinson’s disease who had not had a head injury prior to their diagnosis. Of these patients, the mean time with a Parkinson’s disease diagnosis was 8 years.
Dr. Brown noted that the age and sex distribution of the study group was “probably representative” of the general Parkinson’s disease population. However, because the participants had to be able to go online and complete questionnaires, it is unlikely that, among these patients, Parkinson’s disease was far advanced, he said.
The investigators adjusted for age, sex, years of education, and Parkinson’s disease duration.
Two-hit hypothesis?
The researchers compared time from diagnosis to the development of significant motor impairment, such as the need for assistance with walking, and cognitive impairment, such as having a score of less than 43 on the Penn Daily Activities Questionnaire.
They also examined the role of more severe head injuries. In the head injury group, over half (54%) had had a severe head injury, including 543 who had lost consciousness and others who had suffered a fracture or had had a seizure.
Results showed that the adjusted hazard ratio for developing motor impairment among those with a head injury, compared with those who had not had a head injury was 1.24 (95% confidence interval, 1.01-1.53; P = .037). For severe injuries, the aHR for motor impairment was 1.44 (95% CI, 1.13-1.83; P = .003).
For cognitive impairment, the aHR for those with versus without head injuries was 1.45 (95% CI, 1.14-1.86; P = .003); and for severe injuries, the aHR was 1.49 (95% CI, 1.11-2.0; P = .008).
Aside from severity, the researchers did not examine subgroups. However, Dr. Brown reported that his team would like to stratify results by sex and other variables in the future.
He noted that various mechanisms may explain why Parkinson’s disease progression is faster for patients who have a history of head injury, compared with others. Chronic inflammation due to the injury and “co-pathology” might play some role, he said. He noted that head injuries are associated with cognitive impairment in other conditions, including Alzheimer’s disease.
There is also the “two hit” hypothesis, Dr. Brown said. “A head injury could cause such broad damage that once people develop Parkinson’s disease, it’s harder for them to compensate.”
Dr. Brown also noted there might have been a “higher magnitude” of a difference between groups had the study captured participants with more severe symptoms.
‘Provocative’ findings
Michael S. Okun, MD, medical advisor at the Parkinson’s Foundation and professor and director at the Norman Fixel Institute for Neurological Diseases, University of Florida, Gainesville, said the new data are “provocative.”
“The idea that a head injury may be important in predicting how quickly and how severely deficits will manifest could be important to the treating clinician,” said Dr. Okun, who was not involved with the research.
He noted that the results suggest clinicians should elicit more information from patients about head trauma. “They should be seeking more than a binary ‘yes or no’ answer to head injury when questioning patients,” he added.
Dr. Okun reiterated that head injury is a “known and important risk factor” not only for Parkinson’s disease but also for other neurodegenerative diseases. “It’s important to counsel patients about the association,” he said.
The study was supported by the Michael J. Fox Foundation. Dr. Brown reports having received grant support from the Michael J. Fox Foundation. Dr. Okun has reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
A history of head trauma may predict a more rapid decline in patients with Parkinson’s disease, new research suggests.
In a longitudinal online study, among patients with Parkinson’s disease who had a history of head injury, motor impairment developed 25% faster and cognitive impairment developed 45% faster than among those without such a history.
In addition, severe head injuries were associated with an even more rapid onset of impairment. The results give weight to the idea that “it’s head injuries themselves” prior to the development of Parkinson’s disease that might exacerbate motor and cognitive symptoms, said study investigator Ethan Brown, MD, assistant professor, Weill Institute of Neurosciences, department of neurology, University of California, San Francisco.
The findings emphasize the importance of “doing everything we can” to prevent falls and head injuries for patients with Parkinson’s disease, Dr. Brown said.
The findings were presented at the International Congress of Parkinson’s Disease and Movement Disorders.
Reverse causality concerns
Head injury is a risk factor for Parkinson’s disease, but its relationship to Parkinson’s disease progression is not well established. “There has always been this concern in Parkinson’s disease that maybe it’s problems with motor impairment that lead to head injuries, so reverse causality is an issue,” said Dr. Brown. “We wanted to look at whether risk factors we know relate to the development of Parkinson’s disease can also have a bearing on its progression,” he added.
The analysis was part of the online Fox Insight study that is evaluating motor and nonmotor symptoms in individuals with and those without Parkinson’s disease. The study included participants who had completed questionnaires on such things as head trauma.
The study included 1,065 patients (47% women; mean age, 63 years) with Parkinson’s disease who reported having had a head injury at least 5 years prior to their diagnosis. Among the participants, the mean duration of Parkinson’s disease was 7.5 years.
The investigators employed a 5-year lag time in their study to exclude head injuries caused by early motor dysfunction, they noted. “We wanted to look at people who had these head injuries we think might be part of the cause of Parkinson’s disease as opposed to a result of them,” Dr. Brown said.
In this head injury group, 51% had received one head injury, 28% had received two injuries, and 22% had received more than two injuries.
The study also included 1,457 participants (56% women; mean age, 65 years) with Parkinson’s disease who had not had a head injury prior to their diagnosis. Of these patients, the mean time with a Parkinson’s disease diagnosis was 8 years.
Dr. Brown noted that the age and sex distribution of the study group was “probably representative” of the general Parkinson’s disease population. However, because the participants had to be able to go online and complete questionnaires, it is unlikely that, among these patients, Parkinson’s disease was far advanced, he said.
The investigators adjusted for age, sex, years of education, and Parkinson’s disease duration.
Two-hit hypothesis?
The researchers compared time from diagnosis to the development of significant motor impairment, such as the need for assistance with walking, and cognitive impairment, such as having a score of less than 43 on the Penn Daily Activities Questionnaire.
They also examined the role of more severe head injuries. In the head injury group, over half (54%) had had a severe head injury, including 543 who had lost consciousness and others who had suffered a fracture or had had a seizure.
Results showed that the adjusted hazard ratio for developing motor impairment among those with a head injury, compared with those who had not had a head injury was 1.24 (95% confidence interval, 1.01-1.53; P = .037). For severe injuries, the aHR for motor impairment was 1.44 (95% CI, 1.13-1.83; P = .003).
For cognitive impairment, the aHR for those with versus without head injuries was 1.45 (95% CI, 1.14-1.86; P = .003); and for severe injuries, the aHR was 1.49 (95% CI, 1.11-2.0; P = .008).
Aside from severity, the researchers did not examine subgroups. However, Dr. Brown reported that his team would like to stratify results by sex and other variables in the future.
He noted that various mechanisms may explain why Parkinson’s disease progression is faster for patients who have a history of head injury, compared with others. Chronic inflammation due to the injury and “co-pathology” might play some role, he said. He noted that head injuries are associated with cognitive impairment in other conditions, including Alzheimer’s disease.
There is also the “two hit” hypothesis, Dr. Brown said. “A head injury could cause such broad damage that once people develop Parkinson’s disease, it’s harder for them to compensate.”
Dr. Brown also noted there might have been a “higher magnitude” of a difference between groups had the study captured participants with more severe symptoms.
‘Provocative’ findings
Michael S. Okun, MD, medical advisor at the Parkinson’s Foundation and professor and director at the Norman Fixel Institute for Neurological Diseases, University of Florida, Gainesville, said the new data are “provocative.”
“The idea that a head injury may be important in predicting how quickly and how severely deficits will manifest could be important to the treating clinician,” said Dr. Okun, who was not involved with the research.
He noted that the results suggest clinicians should elicit more information from patients about head trauma. “They should be seeking more than a binary ‘yes or no’ answer to head injury when questioning patients,” he added.
Dr. Okun reiterated that head injury is a “known and important risk factor” not only for Parkinson’s disease but also for other neurodegenerative diseases. “It’s important to counsel patients about the association,” he said.
The study was supported by the Michael J. Fox Foundation. Dr. Brown reports having received grant support from the Michael J. Fox Foundation. Dr. Okun has reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
A history of head trauma may predict a more rapid decline in patients with Parkinson’s disease, new research suggests.
In a longitudinal online study, among patients with Parkinson’s disease who had a history of head injury, motor impairment developed 25% faster and cognitive impairment developed 45% faster than among those without such a history.
In addition, severe head injuries were associated with an even more rapid onset of impairment. The results give weight to the idea that “it’s head injuries themselves” prior to the development of Parkinson’s disease that might exacerbate motor and cognitive symptoms, said study investigator Ethan Brown, MD, assistant professor, Weill Institute of Neurosciences, department of neurology, University of California, San Francisco.
The findings emphasize the importance of “doing everything we can” to prevent falls and head injuries for patients with Parkinson’s disease, Dr. Brown said.
The findings were presented at the International Congress of Parkinson’s Disease and Movement Disorders.
Reverse causality concerns
Head injury is a risk factor for Parkinson’s disease, but its relationship to Parkinson’s disease progression is not well established. “There has always been this concern in Parkinson’s disease that maybe it’s problems with motor impairment that lead to head injuries, so reverse causality is an issue,” said Dr. Brown. “We wanted to look at whether risk factors we know relate to the development of Parkinson’s disease can also have a bearing on its progression,” he added.
The analysis was part of the online Fox Insight study that is evaluating motor and nonmotor symptoms in individuals with and those without Parkinson’s disease. The study included participants who had completed questionnaires on such things as head trauma.
The study included 1,065 patients (47% women; mean age, 63 years) with Parkinson’s disease who reported having had a head injury at least 5 years prior to their diagnosis. Among the participants, the mean duration of Parkinson’s disease was 7.5 years.
The investigators employed a 5-year lag time in their study to exclude head injuries caused by early motor dysfunction, they noted. “We wanted to look at people who had these head injuries we think might be part of the cause of Parkinson’s disease as opposed to a result of them,” Dr. Brown said.
In this head injury group, 51% had received one head injury, 28% had received two injuries, and 22% had received more than two injuries.
The study also included 1,457 participants (56% women; mean age, 65 years) with Parkinson’s disease who had not had a head injury prior to their diagnosis. Of these patients, the mean time with a Parkinson’s disease diagnosis was 8 years.
Dr. Brown noted that the age and sex distribution of the study group was “probably representative” of the general Parkinson’s disease population. However, because the participants had to be able to go online and complete questionnaires, it is unlikely that, among these patients, Parkinson’s disease was far advanced, he said.
The investigators adjusted for age, sex, years of education, and Parkinson’s disease duration.
Two-hit hypothesis?
The researchers compared time from diagnosis to the development of significant motor impairment, such as the need for assistance with walking, and cognitive impairment, such as having a score of less than 43 on the Penn Daily Activities Questionnaire.
They also examined the role of more severe head injuries. In the head injury group, over half (54%) had had a severe head injury, including 543 who had lost consciousness and others who had suffered a fracture or had had a seizure.
Results showed that the adjusted hazard ratio for developing motor impairment among those with a head injury, compared with those who had not had a head injury was 1.24 (95% confidence interval, 1.01-1.53; P = .037). For severe injuries, the aHR for motor impairment was 1.44 (95% CI, 1.13-1.83; P = .003).
For cognitive impairment, the aHR for those with versus without head injuries was 1.45 (95% CI, 1.14-1.86; P = .003); and for severe injuries, the aHR was 1.49 (95% CI, 1.11-2.0; P = .008).
Aside from severity, the researchers did not examine subgroups. However, Dr. Brown reported that his team would like to stratify results by sex and other variables in the future.
He noted that various mechanisms may explain why Parkinson’s disease progression is faster for patients who have a history of head injury, compared with others. Chronic inflammation due to the injury and “co-pathology” might play some role, he said. He noted that head injuries are associated with cognitive impairment in other conditions, including Alzheimer’s disease.
There is also the “two hit” hypothesis, Dr. Brown said. “A head injury could cause such broad damage that once people develop Parkinson’s disease, it’s harder for them to compensate.”
Dr. Brown also noted there might have been a “higher magnitude” of a difference between groups had the study captured participants with more severe symptoms.
‘Provocative’ findings
Michael S. Okun, MD, medical advisor at the Parkinson’s Foundation and professor and director at the Norman Fixel Institute for Neurological Diseases, University of Florida, Gainesville, said the new data are “provocative.”
“The idea that a head injury may be important in predicting how quickly and how severely deficits will manifest could be important to the treating clinician,” said Dr. Okun, who was not involved with the research.
He noted that the results suggest clinicians should elicit more information from patients about head trauma. “They should be seeking more than a binary ‘yes or no’ answer to head injury when questioning patients,” he added.
Dr. Okun reiterated that head injury is a “known and important risk factor” not only for Parkinson’s disease but also for other neurodegenerative diseases. “It’s important to counsel patients about the association,” he said.
The study was supported by the Michael J. Fox Foundation. Dr. Brown reports having received grant support from the Michael J. Fox Foundation. Dr. Okun has reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
New research calls into question the assumption that acetaminophen is safer than NSAIDs for patients with known cardiovascular disease (CVD) or CVD risk factors.
The analysis found a significant correlation between the use of acetaminophen and elevated systolic blood pressure.
While acetaminophen may still be safer than NSAIDs from a bleeding risk standpoint, or in patients with known kidney disease, “the gap may not be as large as once thought,” Rahul Gupta, MD, cardiologist with Lehigh Valley Health Network, Allentown, Pa., said in an interview.
ironstealth/Thinkstock
“Cautious use is recommended over the long term, especially in patients with pre-existing hypertension or cardiovascular risk factors,” Dr. Gupta said.
The study was presented at the Hypertension Scientific Sessions, San Diego, sponsored by the American Heart Association.
Acetaminophen is one of the most widely used over-the-counter medications, as it is considered a safer medication for long-term use since it lacks the anti-inflammatory effects of NSAIDs, Dr. Gupta explained.
NSAIDs have been known to raise blood pressure, but the effect of acetaminophen in this regard has not been well studied. Observational studies have shown contradictory results in terms of its effect on blood pressure, he noted.
To investigate further, Dr. Gupta and colleagues did a meta-analysis of three studies that compared the effect of acetaminophen (3-4 g/day) versus placebo on systolic and diastolic ambulatory blood pressure in patients with heart disease or hypertension. Together, the studies included 172 adults (mean age, 60 years; 73% male).
They found that patients receiving acetaminophen had significantly higher systolic blood pressure, compared with those receiving placebo (standard mean difference [SMD] = 0.35; 95% confidence interval, 0.08-0.63; P = .01).
Subgroup analysis of the effect on hypertensive patients showed significant change in systolic blood pressure as well (SMD = 0.38; 95% CI, 0.05-0.71; P = .02).
“Interestingly, there was no significant difference in the effect on diastolic blood pressure,” Dr. Gupta commented.
Reached for comment, Timothy S. Anderson, MD, clinical investigator in the Division of General Medicine at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center and assistant professor of medicine at the Harvard Medical School, both in Boston, said this is “an interesting and not particularly well-known issue.”
“However, most of the trials look at very high doses of acetaminophen use (for example, six to eight of the 500 mg pills each day) so we don’t really know whether the more common patterns of using one to two acetaminophen pills every once in a while is problematic,” Dr. Anderson told this news organization.
“We also don’t have data showing a direct harm from these medications with regards to strokes or heart attacks or other downstream consequences of high blood pressure. Ideally we would need a head-to-head trial comparing ibuprofen-type medications to acetaminophen-type medications,” Dr. Anderson said.
The study had no specific funding. Dr. Gupta and Dr. Anderson reported no relevant disclosures.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
New research calls into question the assumption that acetaminophen is safer than NSAIDs for patients with known cardiovascular disease (CVD) or CVD risk factors.
The analysis found a significant correlation between the use of acetaminophen and elevated systolic blood pressure.
While acetaminophen may still be safer than NSAIDs from a bleeding risk standpoint, or in patients with known kidney disease, “the gap may not be as large as once thought,” Rahul Gupta, MD, cardiologist with Lehigh Valley Health Network, Allentown, Pa., said in an interview.
ironstealth/Thinkstock
“Cautious use is recommended over the long term, especially in patients with pre-existing hypertension or cardiovascular risk factors,” Dr. Gupta said.
The study was presented at the Hypertension Scientific Sessions, San Diego, sponsored by the American Heart Association.
Acetaminophen is one of the most widely used over-the-counter medications, as it is considered a safer medication for long-term use since it lacks the anti-inflammatory effects of NSAIDs, Dr. Gupta explained.
NSAIDs have been known to raise blood pressure, but the effect of acetaminophen in this regard has not been well studied. Observational studies have shown contradictory results in terms of its effect on blood pressure, he noted.
To investigate further, Dr. Gupta and colleagues did a meta-analysis of three studies that compared the effect of acetaminophen (3-4 g/day) versus placebo on systolic and diastolic ambulatory blood pressure in patients with heart disease or hypertension. Together, the studies included 172 adults (mean age, 60 years; 73% male).
They found that patients receiving acetaminophen had significantly higher systolic blood pressure, compared with those receiving placebo (standard mean difference [SMD] = 0.35; 95% confidence interval, 0.08-0.63; P = .01).
Subgroup analysis of the effect on hypertensive patients showed significant change in systolic blood pressure as well (SMD = 0.38; 95% CI, 0.05-0.71; P = .02).
“Interestingly, there was no significant difference in the effect on diastolic blood pressure,” Dr. Gupta commented.
Reached for comment, Timothy S. Anderson, MD, clinical investigator in the Division of General Medicine at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center and assistant professor of medicine at the Harvard Medical School, both in Boston, said this is “an interesting and not particularly well-known issue.”
“However, most of the trials look at very high doses of acetaminophen use (for example, six to eight of the 500 mg pills each day) so we don’t really know whether the more common patterns of using one to two acetaminophen pills every once in a while is problematic,” Dr. Anderson told this news organization.
“We also don’t have data showing a direct harm from these medications with regards to strokes or heart attacks or other downstream consequences of high blood pressure. Ideally we would need a head-to-head trial comparing ibuprofen-type medications to acetaminophen-type medications,” Dr. Anderson said.
The study had no specific funding. Dr. Gupta and Dr. Anderson reported no relevant disclosures.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
New research calls into question the assumption that acetaminophen is safer than NSAIDs for patients with known cardiovascular disease (CVD) or CVD risk factors.
The analysis found a significant correlation between the use of acetaminophen and elevated systolic blood pressure.
While acetaminophen may still be safer than NSAIDs from a bleeding risk standpoint, or in patients with known kidney disease, “the gap may not be as large as once thought,” Rahul Gupta, MD, cardiologist with Lehigh Valley Health Network, Allentown, Pa., said in an interview.
ironstealth/Thinkstock
“Cautious use is recommended over the long term, especially in patients with pre-existing hypertension or cardiovascular risk factors,” Dr. Gupta said.
The study was presented at the Hypertension Scientific Sessions, San Diego, sponsored by the American Heart Association.
Acetaminophen is one of the most widely used over-the-counter medications, as it is considered a safer medication for long-term use since it lacks the anti-inflammatory effects of NSAIDs, Dr. Gupta explained.
NSAIDs have been known to raise blood pressure, but the effect of acetaminophen in this regard has not been well studied. Observational studies have shown contradictory results in terms of its effect on blood pressure, he noted.
To investigate further, Dr. Gupta and colleagues did a meta-analysis of three studies that compared the effect of acetaminophen (3-4 g/day) versus placebo on systolic and diastolic ambulatory blood pressure in patients with heart disease or hypertension. Together, the studies included 172 adults (mean age, 60 years; 73% male).
They found that patients receiving acetaminophen had significantly higher systolic blood pressure, compared with those receiving placebo (standard mean difference [SMD] = 0.35; 95% confidence interval, 0.08-0.63; P = .01).
Subgroup analysis of the effect on hypertensive patients showed significant change in systolic blood pressure as well (SMD = 0.38; 95% CI, 0.05-0.71; P = .02).
“Interestingly, there was no significant difference in the effect on diastolic blood pressure,” Dr. Gupta commented.
Reached for comment, Timothy S. Anderson, MD, clinical investigator in the Division of General Medicine at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center and assistant professor of medicine at the Harvard Medical School, both in Boston, said this is “an interesting and not particularly well-known issue.”
“However, most of the trials look at very high doses of acetaminophen use (for example, six to eight of the 500 mg pills each day) so we don’t really know whether the more common patterns of using one to two acetaminophen pills every once in a while is problematic,” Dr. Anderson told this news organization.
“We also don’t have data showing a direct harm from these medications with regards to strokes or heart attacks or other downstream consequences of high blood pressure. Ideally we would need a head-to-head trial comparing ibuprofen-type medications to acetaminophen-type medications,” Dr. Anderson said.
The study had no specific funding. Dr. Gupta and Dr. Anderson reported no relevant disclosures.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Treatment of people with obesity but without diabetes with the glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) agonist semaglutide (Wegovy) – hailed at its approval in 2021 as a “game changer” for the treatment of obesity – led to beneficial changes in body mass index (BMI), glycemic control, and other clinical measures.
This collectively cut the calculated risk for possible future development of type 2 diabetes in study participants by more than half, based on post-hoc analysis of data from two pivotal trials that compared semaglutide with placebo.
The findings “suggest that semaglutide could help prevent type 2 diabetes in people with overweight or obesity,” said W. Timothy Garvey, MD, in a presentation at the annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes.
Asked to comment, Rodolfo J. Galindo, MD, said: “We devote a significant amount of effort to treating people with diabetes but very little effort for diabetes prevention. We hope that further scientific findings showing the benefits of weight loss, as illustrated by [Dr.] Garvey [and colleagues], for diabetes prevention will change the pandemic of adiposity-based chronic disease.”
GLP-1 agonists as complication-reducing agents
Finding a link between treatment with semaglutide and a reduced future risk of developing type 2 diabetes is important because it shows that this regimen is not just a BMI-centric approach to treating people with obesity but is also a way to potentially reduce complications of obesity such as diabetes onset, explained Dr. Garvey, a professor and director of the Diabetes Research Center at the University of Alabama at Birmingham.
Dr. W. Timothy Garvey
Recent obesity-management recommendations have focused on interventions aimed at avoiding complications, as in 2016 guidelines from the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists and the American College of Endocrinology, he noted.
Having evidence that treatment with a GLP-1 agonist such as semaglutide can reduce the incidence of diabetes in people with obesity might also help convince payers to more uniformly reimburse for this type of obesity intervention, which up to now has commonly faced coverage limitations, especially in the United States, he said in an interview.
Dr. Garvey added that evidence for a reduction in the incidence of cardiovascular disease complications such as myocardial infarction and stroke may need to join diabetes prevention as proven effects from obesity intervention before coverage decisions change.
He cited the SELECT trial, which is testing the hypothesis that semaglutide treatment of people with overweight or obesity can reduce the incidence of cardiovascular events in about 17,500 participants and with expected completion toward the end of 2023.
“A complication-centric approach to management of people with obesity needs prediction tools that allow a focus on prevention strategies for people with obesity who are at increased risk of developing diabetes,” commented Dr. Galindo, an endocrinologist at Emory University, Atlanta, in an interview.
Combined analysis of STEP 1 and STEP 4 data
The analysis conducted by Dr. Garvey and colleagues used data from the STEP 1 trial, which compared semaglutide 2.4 mg subcutaneous once weekly with placebo for weight loss in more than 1,500 people predominantly with obesity (about 6% were overweight) and showed that after 68 weeks semaglutide cut the calculated risk of developing type 2 diabetes over the subsequent 10 years from 18% at baseline to 7%, compared with a drop from 18% at baseline to 16% among those who received placebo.
A second, similar analysis of data from people predominantly with obesity in the STEP 4 trial – which treated around 800 people with semaglutide 2.4 mg for 20 weeks and then randomized them to placebo or continued semaglutide treatment – showed that semaglutide treatment cut their calculated 10-year risk for incident type 2 diabetes from 20% at baseline to about 11% after 20 weeks. The risk rebounded in the study participants who then switched from semaglutide to placebo. Among those randomized to remain on semaglutide for a total of 68 weeks, the 10-year risk fell further to 8%.
Dr. Garvey and associates used a validated prognostic formula, the cardiometabolic disease staging (CMDS) tool, they had previously developed and reported to calculate 10-year risk for development of type 2 diabetes based on three unmodifiable factors (age, sex, and race) and five modifiable factors (BMI, blood pressure, glucose level, HDL cholesterol, and triglycerides). They applied the analysis to data from 1,561 of the STEP 1 participants and 766 participants in the STEP 4 study.
“There is no better tool I know of to predict diabetes incidence,” commented Michael A. Nauck, MD, professor and chief of clinical research, diabetes division, St. Josef Hospital, Bochum, Germany.
In his opinion, the CMDS tool is appropriate for estimating the risk of developing incident type 2 diabetes in populations but not in specific individuals.
The new analyses also showed that, in STEP 1, the impact of semaglutide on reducing future risk of developing type 2 diabetes was roughly the same regardless of whether participants entered the study with prediabetes or were normoglycemic at entry.
Blood glucose changes confer the biggest effect
The biggest contributor among the five modifiable components of the CMDS tool for altering the predicted risk for incident diabetes was the reduction in blood glucose produced by semaglutide treatment, which influenced just under half of the change in predicted risk, Dr. Garvey said. The four other modifiable components had roughly similar individual effects on predicted risk, with change in BMI influencing about 15% of the observed effect.
“Our analysis shows that semaglutide treatment is preventing diabetes via several mechanisms. It’s not just a reduction in glucose,” Dr. Garvey said.
Dr. Nauck cautioned, however, that it is hard to judge the efficacy of an intervention like semaglutide for preventing incident diabetes when one of its effects is to dampen down hyperglycemia, the signal indicator of diabetes onset.
Indeed, semaglutide was first approved as a treatment for type 2 diabetes (known as Ozempic, Novo Nordisk) at slightly lower doses than it is approved for obesity. It is also available as an oral agent to treat diabetes (Rybelsus).
Dr. Nauck also noted that the results from at least one previously reported study had already shown the same relationship between treatment with the GLP-1 agonist liraglutide as an anti-obesity agent (3.0 mg dose daily, known as Saxenda) and a reduced subsequent incidence of type 2 diabetes but using actual clinical outcomes during 3 years of follow-up rather than a calculated projection of diabetes likelihood.
The SCALE Obesity and Prediabetes trial randomized 2,254 people with prediabetes and overweight or obesity to weekly treatment with 3.0 mg of liraglutide or placebo. After 160 weeks on treatment, the cumulative incidence of type 2 diabetes was 2% in those who received liraglutide and 6% among those on placebo, with a significant hazard ratio reduction of 79% in the incidence of diabetes on liraglutide treatment.
The STEP 1 and STEP 4 trials were sponsored by Novo Nordisk, the company that markets semaglutide (Wegovy). Dr. Garvey has reported serving as an advisor without compensation to Novo Nordisk as well as Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, Jazz, and Pfizer. He is also a site principal investigator for multicentered clinical trials sponsored by the University of Alabama at Birmingham and funded by Novo Nordisk, Eli Lilly, Epitomee, and Pfizer. Dr .Galindo has reported being a consultant or advisor for Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, Pfizer, Sanofi, and Weight Watchers and receiving research funding from Dexcom, Eli Lilly, and Novo Nordisk. Dr. Nauck has reported being an advisor or consultant to Novo Nordisk as well as to Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, Menarini/Berlin Chemie, MSD, Regor, and ShouTi/Gasherbrum, receiving research funding from MSD, being a member of a data monitoring and safety board for Inventiva, and being a speaker on behalf of Novo Nordisk as well as for Eli Lilly, Menarini/Berlin Chemie, MSD, and Sun Pharmaceuticals.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Treatment of people with obesity but without diabetes with the glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) agonist semaglutide (Wegovy) – hailed at its approval in 2021 as a “game changer” for the treatment of obesity – led to beneficial changes in body mass index (BMI), glycemic control, and other clinical measures.
This collectively cut the calculated risk for possible future development of type 2 diabetes in study participants by more than half, based on post-hoc analysis of data from two pivotal trials that compared semaglutide with placebo.
The findings “suggest that semaglutide could help prevent type 2 diabetes in people with overweight or obesity,” said W. Timothy Garvey, MD, in a presentation at the annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes.
Asked to comment, Rodolfo J. Galindo, MD, said: “We devote a significant amount of effort to treating people with diabetes but very little effort for diabetes prevention. We hope that further scientific findings showing the benefits of weight loss, as illustrated by [Dr.] Garvey [and colleagues], for diabetes prevention will change the pandemic of adiposity-based chronic disease.”
GLP-1 agonists as complication-reducing agents
Finding a link between treatment with semaglutide and a reduced future risk of developing type 2 diabetes is important because it shows that this regimen is not just a BMI-centric approach to treating people with obesity but is also a way to potentially reduce complications of obesity such as diabetes onset, explained Dr. Garvey, a professor and director of the Diabetes Research Center at the University of Alabama at Birmingham.
Dr. W. Timothy Garvey
Recent obesity-management recommendations have focused on interventions aimed at avoiding complications, as in 2016 guidelines from the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists and the American College of Endocrinology, he noted.
Having evidence that treatment with a GLP-1 agonist such as semaglutide can reduce the incidence of diabetes in people with obesity might also help convince payers to more uniformly reimburse for this type of obesity intervention, which up to now has commonly faced coverage limitations, especially in the United States, he said in an interview.
Dr. Garvey added that evidence for a reduction in the incidence of cardiovascular disease complications such as myocardial infarction and stroke may need to join diabetes prevention as proven effects from obesity intervention before coverage decisions change.
He cited the SELECT trial, which is testing the hypothesis that semaglutide treatment of people with overweight or obesity can reduce the incidence of cardiovascular events in about 17,500 participants and with expected completion toward the end of 2023.
“A complication-centric approach to management of people with obesity needs prediction tools that allow a focus on prevention strategies for people with obesity who are at increased risk of developing diabetes,” commented Dr. Galindo, an endocrinologist at Emory University, Atlanta, in an interview.
Combined analysis of STEP 1 and STEP 4 data
The analysis conducted by Dr. Garvey and colleagues used data from the STEP 1 trial, which compared semaglutide 2.4 mg subcutaneous once weekly with placebo for weight loss in more than 1,500 people predominantly with obesity (about 6% were overweight) and showed that after 68 weeks semaglutide cut the calculated risk of developing type 2 diabetes over the subsequent 10 years from 18% at baseline to 7%, compared with a drop from 18% at baseline to 16% among those who received placebo.
A second, similar analysis of data from people predominantly with obesity in the STEP 4 trial – which treated around 800 people with semaglutide 2.4 mg for 20 weeks and then randomized them to placebo or continued semaglutide treatment – showed that semaglutide treatment cut their calculated 10-year risk for incident type 2 diabetes from 20% at baseline to about 11% after 20 weeks. The risk rebounded in the study participants who then switched from semaglutide to placebo. Among those randomized to remain on semaglutide for a total of 68 weeks, the 10-year risk fell further to 8%.
Dr. Garvey and associates used a validated prognostic formula, the cardiometabolic disease staging (CMDS) tool, they had previously developed and reported to calculate 10-year risk for development of type 2 diabetes based on three unmodifiable factors (age, sex, and race) and five modifiable factors (BMI, blood pressure, glucose level, HDL cholesterol, and triglycerides). They applied the analysis to data from 1,561 of the STEP 1 participants and 766 participants in the STEP 4 study.
“There is no better tool I know of to predict diabetes incidence,” commented Michael A. Nauck, MD, professor and chief of clinical research, diabetes division, St. Josef Hospital, Bochum, Germany.
In his opinion, the CMDS tool is appropriate for estimating the risk of developing incident type 2 diabetes in populations but not in specific individuals.
The new analyses also showed that, in STEP 1, the impact of semaglutide on reducing future risk of developing type 2 diabetes was roughly the same regardless of whether participants entered the study with prediabetes or were normoglycemic at entry.
Blood glucose changes confer the biggest effect
The biggest contributor among the five modifiable components of the CMDS tool for altering the predicted risk for incident diabetes was the reduction in blood glucose produced by semaglutide treatment, which influenced just under half of the change in predicted risk, Dr. Garvey said. The four other modifiable components had roughly similar individual effects on predicted risk, with change in BMI influencing about 15% of the observed effect.
“Our analysis shows that semaglutide treatment is preventing diabetes via several mechanisms. It’s not just a reduction in glucose,” Dr. Garvey said.
Dr. Nauck cautioned, however, that it is hard to judge the efficacy of an intervention like semaglutide for preventing incident diabetes when one of its effects is to dampen down hyperglycemia, the signal indicator of diabetes onset.
Indeed, semaglutide was first approved as a treatment for type 2 diabetes (known as Ozempic, Novo Nordisk) at slightly lower doses than it is approved for obesity. It is also available as an oral agent to treat diabetes (Rybelsus).
Dr. Nauck also noted that the results from at least one previously reported study had already shown the same relationship between treatment with the GLP-1 agonist liraglutide as an anti-obesity agent (3.0 mg dose daily, known as Saxenda) and a reduced subsequent incidence of type 2 diabetes but using actual clinical outcomes during 3 years of follow-up rather than a calculated projection of diabetes likelihood.
The SCALE Obesity and Prediabetes trial randomized 2,254 people with prediabetes and overweight or obesity to weekly treatment with 3.0 mg of liraglutide or placebo. After 160 weeks on treatment, the cumulative incidence of type 2 diabetes was 2% in those who received liraglutide and 6% among those on placebo, with a significant hazard ratio reduction of 79% in the incidence of diabetes on liraglutide treatment.
The STEP 1 and STEP 4 trials were sponsored by Novo Nordisk, the company that markets semaglutide (Wegovy). Dr. Garvey has reported serving as an advisor without compensation to Novo Nordisk as well as Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, Jazz, and Pfizer. He is also a site principal investigator for multicentered clinical trials sponsored by the University of Alabama at Birmingham and funded by Novo Nordisk, Eli Lilly, Epitomee, and Pfizer. Dr .Galindo has reported being a consultant or advisor for Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, Pfizer, Sanofi, and Weight Watchers and receiving research funding from Dexcom, Eli Lilly, and Novo Nordisk. Dr. Nauck has reported being an advisor or consultant to Novo Nordisk as well as to Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, Menarini/Berlin Chemie, MSD, Regor, and ShouTi/Gasherbrum, receiving research funding from MSD, being a member of a data monitoring and safety board for Inventiva, and being a speaker on behalf of Novo Nordisk as well as for Eli Lilly, Menarini/Berlin Chemie, MSD, and Sun Pharmaceuticals.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Treatment of people with obesity but without diabetes with the glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) agonist semaglutide (Wegovy) – hailed at its approval in 2021 as a “game changer” for the treatment of obesity – led to beneficial changes in body mass index (BMI), glycemic control, and other clinical measures.
This collectively cut the calculated risk for possible future development of type 2 diabetes in study participants by more than half, based on post-hoc analysis of data from two pivotal trials that compared semaglutide with placebo.
The findings “suggest that semaglutide could help prevent type 2 diabetes in people with overweight or obesity,” said W. Timothy Garvey, MD, in a presentation at the annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes.
Asked to comment, Rodolfo J. Galindo, MD, said: “We devote a significant amount of effort to treating people with diabetes but very little effort for diabetes prevention. We hope that further scientific findings showing the benefits of weight loss, as illustrated by [Dr.] Garvey [and colleagues], for diabetes prevention will change the pandemic of adiposity-based chronic disease.”
GLP-1 agonists as complication-reducing agents
Finding a link between treatment with semaglutide and a reduced future risk of developing type 2 diabetes is important because it shows that this regimen is not just a BMI-centric approach to treating people with obesity but is also a way to potentially reduce complications of obesity such as diabetes onset, explained Dr. Garvey, a professor and director of the Diabetes Research Center at the University of Alabama at Birmingham.
Dr. W. Timothy Garvey
Recent obesity-management recommendations have focused on interventions aimed at avoiding complications, as in 2016 guidelines from the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists and the American College of Endocrinology, he noted.
Having evidence that treatment with a GLP-1 agonist such as semaglutide can reduce the incidence of diabetes in people with obesity might also help convince payers to more uniformly reimburse for this type of obesity intervention, which up to now has commonly faced coverage limitations, especially in the United States, he said in an interview.
Dr. Garvey added that evidence for a reduction in the incidence of cardiovascular disease complications such as myocardial infarction and stroke may need to join diabetes prevention as proven effects from obesity intervention before coverage decisions change.
He cited the SELECT trial, which is testing the hypothesis that semaglutide treatment of people with overweight or obesity can reduce the incidence of cardiovascular events in about 17,500 participants and with expected completion toward the end of 2023.
“A complication-centric approach to management of people with obesity needs prediction tools that allow a focus on prevention strategies for people with obesity who are at increased risk of developing diabetes,” commented Dr. Galindo, an endocrinologist at Emory University, Atlanta, in an interview.
Combined analysis of STEP 1 and STEP 4 data
The analysis conducted by Dr. Garvey and colleagues used data from the STEP 1 trial, which compared semaglutide 2.4 mg subcutaneous once weekly with placebo for weight loss in more than 1,500 people predominantly with obesity (about 6% were overweight) and showed that after 68 weeks semaglutide cut the calculated risk of developing type 2 diabetes over the subsequent 10 years from 18% at baseline to 7%, compared with a drop from 18% at baseline to 16% among those who received placebo.
A second, similar analysis of data from people predominantly with obesity in the STEP 4 trial – which treated around 800 people with semaglutide 2.4 mg for 20 weeks and then randomized them to placebo or continued semaglutide treatment – showed that semaglutide treatment cut their calculated 10-year risk for incident type 2 diabetes from 20% at baseline to about 11% after 20 weeks. The risk rebounded in the study participants who then switched from semaglutide to placebo. Among those randomized to remain on semaglutide for a total of 68 weeks, the 10-year risk fell further to 8%.
Dr. Garvey and associates used a validated prognostic formula, the cardiometabolic disease staging (CMDS) tool, they had previously developed and reported to calculate 10-year risk for development of type 2 diabetes based on three unmodifiable factors (age, sex, and race) and five modifiable factors (BMI, blood pressure, glucose level, HDL cholesterol, and triglycerides). They applied the analysis to data from 1,561 of the STEP 1 participants and 766 participants in the STEP 4 study.
“There is no better tool I know of to predict diabetes incidence,” commented Michael A. Nauck, MD, professor and chief of clinical research, diabetes division, St. Josef Hospital, Bochum, Germany.
In his opinion, the CMDS tool is appropriate for estimating the risk of developing incident type 2 diabetes in populations but not in specific individuals.
The new analyses also showed that, in STEP 1, the impact of semaglutide on reducing future risk of developing type 2 diabetes was roughly the same regardless of whether participants entered the study with prediabetes or were normoglycemic at entry.
Blood glucose changes confer the biggest effect
The biggest contributor among the five modifiable components of the CMDS tool for altering the predicted risk for incident diabetes was the reduction in blood glucose produced by semaglutide treatment, which influenced just under half of the change in predicted risk, Dr. Garvey said. The four other modifiable components had roughly similar individual effects on predicted risk, with change in BMI influencing about 15% of the observed effect.
“Our analysis shows that semaglutide treatment is preventing diabetes via several mechanisms. It’s not just a reduction in glucose,” Dr. Garvey said.
Dr. Nauck cautioned, however, that it is hard to judge the efficacy of an intervention like semaglutide for preventing incident diabetes when one of its effects is to dampen down hyperglycemia, the signal indicator of diabetes onset.
Indeed, semaglutide was first approved as a treatment for type 2 diabetes (known as Ozempic, Novo Nordisk) at slightly lower doses than it is approved for obesity. It is also available as an oral agent to treat diabetes (Rybelsus).
Dr. Nauck also noted that the results from at least one previously reported study had already shown the same relationship between treatment with the GLP-1 agonist liraglutide as an anti-obesity agent (3.0 mg dose daily, known as Saxenda) and a reduced subsequent incidence of type 2 diabetes but using actual clinical outcomes during 3 years of follow-up rather than a calculated projection of diabetes likelihood.
The SCALE Obesity and Prediabetes trial randomized 2,254 people with prediabetes and overweight or obesity to weekly treatment with 3.0 mg of liraglutide or placebo. After 160 weeks on treatment, the cumulative incidence of type 2 diabetes was 2% in those who received liraglutide and 6% among those on placebo, with a significant hazard ratio reduction of 79% in the incidence of diabetes on liraglutide treatment.
The STEP 1 and STEP 4 trials were sponsored by Novo Nordisk, the company that markets semaglutide (Wegovy). Dr. Garvey has reported serving as an advisor without compensation to Novo Nordisk as well as Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, Jazz, and Pfizer. He is also a site principal investigator for multicentered clinical trials sponsored by the University of Alabama at Birmingham and funded by Novo Nordisk, Eli Lilly, Epitomee, and Pfizer. Dr .Galindo has reported being a consultant or advisor for Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, Pfizer, Sanofi, and Weight Watchers and receiving research funding from Dexcom, Eli Lilly, and Novo Nordisk. Dr. Nauck has reported being an advisor or consultant to Novo Nordisk as well as to Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, Menarini/Berlin Chemie, MSD, Regor, and ShouTi/Gasherbrum, receiving research funding from MSD, being a member of a data monitoring and safety board for Inventiva, and being a speaker on behalf of Novo Nordisk as well as for Eli Lilly, Menarini/Berlin Chemie, MSD, and Sun Pharmaceuticals.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News
