Cardiology

New risk equations can help determine the need for a first coronary artery calcium (CAC) scan in young adults to identify those most at risk for premature atherosclerosis, researchers say.

“To our knowledge this is the first time to derive a clinical risk equation for the initial conversion from CAC 0, which can be used actually to guide the timing of CAC testing in young adults,” Omar Dzaye, MD, MPH, PhD, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, said in an interview.

CAC is an independent predictor of adverse atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD), but routine screening is not recommended in low-risk groups. U.S. guidelines say CAC testing may be considered (class IIa) for risk stratification in adults 40 to 75 years at intermediate risk (estimated 10-year ASCVD risk 7.5% to 20%) when the decision to start preventive therapies is unclear.

The new sex-specific risk equations were derived from 22,346 adults 30 to 50 years of age who underwent CAC testing between 1991 and 2010 for ASCVD risk prediction at four high-volume centers in the CAC Consortium. The average age was 43.5 years, 25% were women, and 12.3% were non-White.

The participants were free of clinical ASCVD or CV symptoms at the time of scanning but had underlying traditional ASCVD risk factors (dyslipidemia in 49.6%, hypertension in 20.0%, active smokers 11.0%, and diabetes in 4.0%), an intermediate 10-year ASCVD risk (2.6%), and/or a significant family history of CHD (49.3%).

As reported in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology, 92.7% of participants had a low 10-year ASCVD risk below 5%, but 34.4% had CAC scores above 0 (median, 20 Agatston units).

Assuming a 25% testing yield (number needed to scan equals four to detect one CAC score above 0), the optimal age for a first scan in young men without risk factors was 42.3 years, and for women it was 57.6 years.

Young adults with one or more risk factors, however, would convert to CAC above 0 at least 3.3 years earlier on average. Diabetes had the strongest influence on the probability of conversion, with men and women predicted to develop incident CAC a respective 5.5 years and 7.3 years earlier on average.

The findings build on previous observations by the team showing that diabetes confers a 40% reduction in the so-called “warranty period” of a CAC score of 0, Dr. Dzaye noted. The National Lipid Association 2020 statement on CAC scoring also suggests it’s reasonable to obtain a CAC scan in people with diabetes aged 30 to 39 years.

“The predicted utility of CAC for ASCVD outcomes is similar in type 1 and type 2 diabetes; however, individuals with type 1 diabetes may actually develop CAC as young as 17 years of age,” he said. “Therefore, definitely, CAC studies in this population are required.”

In contrast, hypertension, dyslipidemia, active smoking, and a family history of CHD were individually associated with the development of CAC 3.3 to 4.3 years earlier. In general, the time to premature CAC was longer for women than for men with a given risk-factor profile.

The predicted age for a first CAC was 37.5 years for men and 48.9 years for women with an intermediate risk-factor profile (for example, smoking plus hypertension) and 33.8 years and 44.7 years, respectively, for those with a high-risk profile (for example, diabetes plus dyslipidemia).

Asked whether the risk equations can be used to guide CAC scanning in clinical practice, Dr. Dzaye said, “we very much believe that this can be used because for the process we published the internal validation, and we also did an external validation that is not published at the moment in [the] MESA [trial].”

He pointed out that study participants did not have a second CAC scan for true modeling of longitudinal CAC and do not represent the general population but, rather, a general cardiology referral population enriched with ASCVD risk factors. Future studies are needed that incorporate a more diverse population, multiple CAC scans, and genetic risk factors.

“This is helpful from a descriptive, epidemiologic point of view and helps us understand the approximate prevalence of coronary calcium greater than 0 in younger men and women, but I’m not convinced that it will or should change clinical practice,” cardiologist Philip Greenland, MD, a professor of preventive medicine and professor of medicine at Northwestern University in Chicago, said in an interview.

Dr. Greenland, who coauthored a review on CAC testing earlier this month, said CAC is the strongest tool we have to improve risk prediction beyond standard risk scores but does involve radiation exposure and some added costs. CAC testing is especially useful as a tiebreaker in older intermediate-risk patients who may be on the fence about starting primary prevention medications but could fall short among “younger, low-risk patients where, as they show here, the proportion of people who have a positive test is well below half.”

“So that means you’re going to have a very large number of people who are CAC 0, which is what we would expect in relatively younger people, but I wouldn’t be happy to try to explain that to a patient: ‘We’re not seeing coronary atherosclerosis right now, but we still want to treat your risk factors.’ That’s kind of a dissonant message,” Dr. Greenland said.

An accompanying editorial suggests “the study has filled an important clinical gap, providing highly actionable data that could help guide clinical decision making for ASCVD prevention.”

Nevertheless, Tasneem Naqvi, MD, Mayo Clinic, Scottsdale, Arizona, and Tamar Polonsky, MD, University of Chicago, question the generalizability of the results and point out that CAC screening at the authors’ recommended ages “could still miss a substantial number of young women with incident MI.”

Exposure to ionizing radiation with CAC is lower than that used in screening mammography for breast cancer but, they agree, should be considered, particularly in young women.

“Alternatively, ultrasonography avoids radiation altogether and can detect plaque earlier than the development of CAC,” write Dr. Naqvi and Dr. Polonsky. Further, the 2019 European Society of Cardiology guidelines for CV risk give ultrasound assessment of carotid artery and femoral plaque a class IIa recommendation and CAC a class IIb recommendation.

Commenting for this news organization, Roger Blumenthal, MD, director of the Johns Hopkins Ciccarone Center for the Prevention of Cardiovascular Disease, said the class IIb recommendation “never really made any sense because the data with coronary calcium is so much stronger than it is with carotid ultrasound.”

“Sometimes smart scientists and researchers differ, but in my strong opinion, the European Society of Cardiology in 2019 did not give it the right classification, while the group I was part of, the American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology [2019 guideline], got it right and emphasized that this is the most cost-effective and useful way to improve risk assessment.”

Dr. Blumenthal, who was not part of the study, noted that U.S. guidelines say CAC measurement is not intended as a screening test for everyone but may be used selectively as a decision aid.

“This study adds to the information about how to use that type of testing. So, I personally think it will be a highly referenced article in the next set of guidelines that the American Heart Association, American College of Cardiology, and other organizations have.”

The study was supported in part by a research grant from the National Institutes of Health National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. Dr. Dzaye, Dr. Blumenthal, Dr. Naqvi, and Dr. Polonsky report having no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

New risk equations can help determine the need for a first coronary artery calcium (CAC) scan in young adults to identify those most at risk for premature atherosclerosis, researchers say.

“To our knowledge this is the first time to derive a clinical risk equation for the initial conversion from CAC 0, which can be used actually to guide the timing of CAC testing in young adults,” Omar Dzaye, MD, MPH, PhD, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, said in an interview.

CAC is an independent predictor of adverse atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD), but routine screening is not recommended in low-risk groups. U.S. guidelines say CAC testing may be considered (class IIa) for risk stratification in adults 40 to 75 years at intermediate risk (estimated 10-year ASCVD risk 7.5% to 20%) when the decision to start preventive therapies is unclear.

The new sex-specific risk equations were derived from 22,346 adults 30 to 50 years of age who underwent CAC testing between 1991 and 2010 for ASCVD risk prediction at four high-volume centers in the CAC Consortium. The average age was 43.5 years, 25% were women, and 12.3% were non-White.

The participants were free of clinical ASCVD or CV symptoms at the time of scanning but had underlying traditional ASCVD risk factors (dyslipidemia in 49.6%, hypertension in 20.0%, active smokers 11.0%, and diabetes in 4.0%), an intermediate 10-year ASCVD risk (2.6%), and/or a significant family history of CHD (49.3%).

As reported in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology, 92.7% of participants had a low 10-year ASCVD risk below 5%, but 34.4% had CAC scores above 0 (median, 20 Agatston units).

Assuming a 25% testing yield (number needed to scan equals four to detect one CAC score above 0), the optimal age for a first scan in young men without risk factors was 42.3 years, and for women it was 57.6 years.

Young adults with one or more risk factors, however, would convert to CAC above 0 at least 3.3 years earlier on average. Diabetes had the strongest influence on the probability of conversion, with men and women predicted to develop incident CAC a respective 5.5 years and 7.3 years earlier on average.

The findings build on previous observations by the team showing that diabetes confers a 40% reduction in the so-called “warranty period” of a CAC score of 0, Dr. Dzaye noted. The National Lipid Association 2020 statement on CAC scoring also suggests it’s reasonable to obtain a CAC scan in people with diabetes aged 30 to 39 years.

“The predicted utility of CAC for ASCVD outcomes is similar in type 1 and type 2 diabetes; however, individuals with type 1 diabetes may actually develop CAC as young as 17 years of age,” he said. “Therefore, definitely, CAC studies in this population are required.”

In contrast, hypertension, dyslipidemia, active smoking, and a family history of CHD were individually associated with the development of CAC 3.3 to 4.3 years earlier. In general, the time to premature CAC was longer for women than for men with a given risk-factor profile.

The predicted age for a first CAC was 37.5 years for men and 48.9 years for women with an intermediate risk-factor profile (for example, smoking plus hypertension) and 33.8 years and 44.7 years, respectively, for those with a high-risk profile (for example, diabetes plus dyslipidemia).

Asked whether the risk equations can be used to guide CAC scanning in clinical practice, Dr. Dzaye said, “we very much believe that this can be used because for the process we published the internal validation, and we also did an external validation that is not published at the moment in [the] MESA [trial].”

He pointed out that study participants did not have a second CAC scan for true modeling of longitudinal CAC and do not represent the general population but, rather, a general cardiology referral population enriched with ASCVD risk factors. Future studies are needed that incorporate a more diverse population, multiple CAC scans, and genetic risk factors.

“This is helpful from a descriptive, epidemiologic point of view and helps us understand the approximate prevalence of coronary calcium greater than 0 in younger men and women, but I’m not convinced that it will or should change clinical practice,” cardiologist Philip Greenland, MD, a professor of preventive medicine and professor of medicine at Northwestern University in Chicago, said in an interview.

Dr. Greenland, who coauthored a review on CAC testing earlier this month, said CAC is the strongest tool we have to improve risk prediction beyond standard risk scores but does involve radiation exposure and some added costs. CAC testing is especially useful as a tiebreaker in older intermediate-risk patients who may be on the fence about starting primary prevention medications but could fall short among “younger, low-risk patients where, as they show here, the proportion of people who have a positive test is well below half.”

“So that means you’re going to have a very large number of people who are CAC 0, which is what we would expect in relatively younger people, but I wouldn’t be happy to try to explain that to a patient: ‘We’re not seeing coronary atherosclerosis right now, but we still want to treat your risk factors.’ That’s kind of a dissonant message,” Dr. Greenland said.

An accompanying editorial suggests “the study has filled an important clinical gap, providing highly actionable data that could help guide clinical decision making for ASCVD prevention.”

Nevertheless, Tasneem Naqvi, MD, Mayo Clinic, Scottsdale, Arizona, and Tamar Polonsky, MD, University of Chicago, question the generalizability of the results and point out that CAC screening at the authors’ recommended ages “could still miss a substantial number of young women with incident MI.”

Exposure to ionizing radiation with CAC is lower than that used in screening mammography for breast cancer but, they agree, should be considered, particularly in young women.

“Alternatively, ultrasonography avoids radiation altogether and can detect plaque earlier than the development of CAC,” write Dr. Naqvi and Dr. Polonsky. Further, the 2019 European Society of Cardiology guidelines for CV risk give ultrasound assessment of carotid artery and femoral plaque a class IIa recommendation and CAC a class IIb recommendation.

Commenting for this news organization, Roger Blumenthal, MD, director of the Johns Hopkins Ciccarone Center for the Prevention of Cardiovascular Disease, said the class IIb recommendation “never really made any sense because the data with coronary calcium is so much stronger than it is with carotid ultrasound.”

“Sometimes smart scientists and researchers differ, but in my strong opinion, the European Society of Cardiology in 2019 did not give it the right classification, while the group I was part of, the American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology [2019 guideline], got it right and emphasized that this is the most cost-effective and useful way to improve risk assessment.”

Dr. Blumenthal, who was not part of the study, noted that U.S. guidelines say CAC measurement is not intended as a screening test for everyone but may be used selectively as a decision aid.

“This study adds to the information about how to use that type of testing. So, I personally think it will be a highly referenced article in the next set of guidelines that the American Heart Association, American College of Cardiology, and other organizations have.”

The study was supported in part by a research grant from the National Institutes of Health National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. Dr. Dzaye, Dr. Blumenthal, Dr. Naqvi, and Dr. Polonsky report having no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

New risk equations can help determine the need for a first coronary artery calcium (CAC) scan in young adults to identify those most at risk for premature atherosclerosis, researchers say.

“To our knowledge this is the first time to derive a clinical risk equation for the initial conversion from CAC 0, which can be used actually to guide the timing of CAC testing in young adults,” Omar Dzaye, MD, MPH, PhD, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, said in an interview.

CAC is an independent predictor of adverse atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD), but routine screening is not recommended in low-risk groups. U.S. guidelines say CAC testing may be considered (class IIa) for risk stratification in adults 40 to 75 years at intermediate risk (estimated 10-year ASCVD risk 7.5% to 20%) when the decision to start preventive therapies is unclear.

The new sex-specific risk equations were derived from 22,346 adults 30 to 50 years of age who underwent CAC testing between 1991 and 2010 for ASCVD risk prediction at four high-volume centers in the CAC Consortium. The average age was 43.5 years, 25% were women, and 12.3% were non-White.

The participants were free of clinical ASCVD or CV symptoms at the time of scanning but had underlying traditional ASCVD risk factors (dyslipidemia in 49.6%, hypertension in 20.0%, active smokers 11.0%, and diabetes in 4.0%), an intermediate 10-year ASCVD risk (2.6%), and/or a significant family history of CHD (49.3%).

As reported in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology, 92.7% of participants had a low 10-year ASCVD risk below 5%, but 34.4% had CAC scores above 0 (median, 20 Agatston units).

Assuming a 25% testing yield (number needed to scan equals four to detect one CAC score above 0), the optimal age for a first scan in young men without risk factors was 42.3 years, and for women it was 57.6 years.

Young adults with one or more risk factors, however, would convert to CAC above 0 at least 3.3 years earlier on average. Diabetes had the strongest influence on the probability of conversion, with men and women predicted to develop incident CAC a respective 5.5 years and 7.3 years earlier on average.

The findings build on previous observations by the team showing that diabetes confers a 40% reduction in the so-called “warranty period” of a CAC score of 0, Dr. Dzaye noted. The National Lipid Association 2020 statement on CAC scoring also suggests it’s reasonable to obtain a CAC scan in people with diabetes aged 30 to 39 years.

“The predicted utility of CAC for ASCVD outcomes is similar in type 1 and type 2 diabetes; however, individuals with type 1 diabetes may actually develop CAC as young as 17 years of age,” he said. “Therefore, definitely, CAC studies in this population are required.”

In contrast, hypertension, dyslipidemia, active smoking, and a family history of CHD were individually associated with the development of CAC 3.3 to 4.3 years earlier. In general, the time to premature CAC was longer for women than for men with a given risk-factor profile.

The predicted age for a first CAC was 37.5 years for men and 48.9 years for women with an intermediate risk-factor profile (for example, smoking plus hypertension) and 33.8 years and 44.7 years, respectively, for those with a high-risk profile (for example, diabetes plus dyslipidemia).

Asked whether the risk equations can be used to guide CAC scanning in clinical practice, Dr. Dzaye said, “we very much believe that this can be used because for the process we published the internal validation, and we also did an external validation that is not published at the moment in [the] MESA [trial].”

He pointed out that study participants did not have a second CAC scan for true modeling of longitudinal CAC and do not represent the general population but, rather, a general cardiology referral population enriched with ASCVD risk factors. Future studies are needed that incorporate a more diverse population, multiple CAC scans, and genetic risk factors.

“This is helpful from a descriptive, epidemiologic point of view and helps us understand the approximate prevalence of coronary calcium greater than 0 in younger men and women, but I’m not convinced that it will or should change clinical practice,” cardiologist Philip Greenland, MD, a professor of preventive medicine and professor of medicine at Northwestern University in Chicago, said in an interview.

Dr. Greenland, who coauthored a review on CAC testing earlier this month, said CAC is the strongest tool we have to improve risk prediction beyond standard risk scores but does involve radiation exposure and some added costs. CAC testing is especially useful as a tiebreaker in older intermediate-risk patients who may be on the fence about starting primary prevention medications but could fall short among “younger, low-risk patients where, as they show here, the proportion of people who have a positive test is well below half.”

“So that means you’re going to have a very large number of people who are CAC 0, which is what we would expect in relatively younger people, but I wouldn’t be happy to try to explain that to a patient: ‘We’re not seeing coronary atherosclerosis right now, but we still want to treat your risk factors.’ That’s kind of a dissonant message,” Dr. Greenland said.

An accompanying editorial suggests “the study has filled an important clinical gap, providing highly actionable data that could help guide clinical decision making for ASCVD prevention.”

Nevertheless, Tasneem Naqvi, MD, Mayo Clinic, Scottsdale, Arizona, and Tamar Polonsky, MD, University of Chicago, question the generalizability of the results and point out that CAC screening at the authors’ recommended ages “could still miss a substantial number of young women with incident MI.”

Exposure to ionizing radiation with CAC is lower than that used in screening mammography for breast cancer but, they agree, should be considered, particularly in young women.

“Alternatively, ultrasonography avoids radiation altogether and can detect plaque earlier than the development of CAC,” write Dr. Naqvi and Dr. Polonsky. Further, the 2019 European Society of Cardiology guidelines for CV risk give ultrasound assessment of carotid artery and femoral plaque a class IIa recommendation and CAC a class IIb recommendation.

Commenting for this news organization, Roger Blumenthal, MD, director of the Johns Hopkins Ciccarone Center for the Prevention of Cardiovascular Disease, said the class IIb recommendation “never really made any sense because the data with coronary calcium is so much stronger than it is with carotid ultrasound.”

“Sometimes smart scientists and researchers differ, but in my strong opinion, the European Society of Cardiology in 2019 did not give it the right classification, while the group I was part of, the American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology [2019 guideline], got it right and emphasized that this is the most cost-effective and useful way to improve risk assessment.”

Dr. Blumenthal, who was not part of the study, noted that U.S. guidelines say CAC measurement is not intended as a screening test for everyone but may be used selectively as a decision aid.

“This study adds to the information about how to use that type of testing. So, I personally think it will be a highly referenced article in the next set of guidelines that the American Heart Association, American College of Cardiology, and other organizations have.”

The study was supported in part by a research grant from the National Institutes of Health National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. Dr. Dzaye, Dr. Blumenthal, Dr. Naqvi, and Dr. Polonsky report having no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The Food and Drug Administration has issued voluntary, short-term sodium reduction targets for food manufacturers, chain restaurants, and food service operators for processed, packaged, and prepared foods, with an eye toward reducing diet-related conditions such as heart disease and obesity.

According to the FDA, more than 70% of total sodium intake is from sodium added during food manufacturing and commercial food preparation.

The new targets seek to decrease average sodium intake from approximately 3,400 mg/day to 3,000 mg/day, about a 12% reduction, over the next 2.5 years, acting FDA Commissioner Janet Woodcock, MD, and Susan Mayne, PhD, director of the FDA’s Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition, said in joint statement.

Although this reduction keeps the average intake above the recommended limit of 2,300 mg/day for individuals 14 years and older as per the Dietary Guidelines for Americans, “we know that even these modest reductions made slowly over the next few years will substantially decrease diet-related diseases,” they added.

The FDA first proposed recommendations for reducing sodium content in draft guidance released in 2016.

Since, then a number of companies in the food industry have already made changes to sodium content in their products, “which is encouraging, but additional support across all types of foods to help consumers meet recommended sodium limits is needed,” Dr. Woodcock and Dr. Mayne said.

They emphasized that the new guidance represents short-term goals that the food industry should work to meet as soon as possible to help optimize public health.

“We will continue our discussions with the food industry as we monitor the sodium content of the food supply to evaluate progress. In the future, we plan to issue revised, subsequent targets to further lower the sodium content incrementally and continue to help reduce sodium intake,” Dr. Woodcock and Dr. Mayne said.
 

AHA: A good first step that does not go far enough

In a statement, the American Heart Association said the new targets will play “a critical role in helping people across the country achieve healthier levels of sodium and improved well-being overall. These targets will be an important driver to reduce sodium consumption, which can have significant health benefits and lead to lower medical costs.”

“Lowering sodium levels in the food supply would reduce risk of hypertension, heart disease, stroke, heart attack, and death in addition to saving billions of dollars in health care costs over the next decade,” the AHA said.

But the AHA also said lowering sodium intake to 3,000 mg/day is not enough.

“Lowering sodium further to 2,300 mg could prevent an estimated 450,000 cases of cardiovascular disease, gain 2 million quality-adjusted life-years, and save approximately $40 billion in health care costs over a 20-year period,” the AHA said.

The AHA is urging the FDA to “follow [this] action with additional targets to further lower the amount of sodium in the food supply and help people in America attain an appropriate sodium intake.”

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

The Food and Drug Administration has issued voluntary, short-term sodium reduction targets for food manufacturers, chain restaurants, and food service operators for processed, packaged, and prepared foods, with an eye toward reducing diet-related conditions such as heart disease and obesity.

According to the FDA, more than 70% of total sodium intake is from sodium added during food manufacturing and commercial food preparation.

The new targets seek to decrease average sodium intake from approximately 3,400 mg/day to 3,000 mg/day, about a 12% reduction, over the next 2.5 years, acting FDA Commissioner Janet Woodcock, MD, and Susan Mayne, PhD, director of the FDA’s Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition, said in joint statement.

Although this reduction keeps the average intake above the recommended limit of 2,300 mg/day for individuals 14 years and older as per the Dietary Guidelines for Americans, “we know that even these modest reductions made slowly over the next few years will substantially decrease diet-related diseases,” they added.

The FDA first proposed recommendations for reducing sodium content in draft guidance released in 2016.

Since, then a number of companies in the food industry have already made changes to sodium content in their products, “which is encouraging, but additional support across all types of foods to help consumers meet recommended sodium limits is needed,” Dr. Woodcock and Dr. Mayne said.

They emphasized that the new guidance represents short-term goals that the food industry should work to meet as soon as possible to help optimize public health.

“We will continue our discussions with the food industry as we monitor the sodium content of the food supply to evaluate progress. In the future, we plan to issue revised, subsequent targets to further lower the sodium content incrementally and continue to help reduce sodium intake,” Dr. Woodcock and Dr. Mayne said.
 

AHA: A good first step that does not go far enough

In a statement, the American Heart Association said the new targets will play “a critical role in helping people across the country achieve healthier levels of sodium and improved well-being overall. These targets will be an important driver to reduce sodium consumption, which can have significant health benefits and lead to lower medical costs.”

“Lowering sodium levels in the food supply would reduce risk of hypertension, heart disease, stroke, heart attack, and death in addition to saving billions of dollars in health care costs over the next decade,” the AHA said.

But the AHA also said lowering sodium intake to 3,000 mg/day is not enough.

“Lowering sodium further to 2,300 mg could prevent an estimated 450,000 cases of cardiovascular disease, gain 2 million quality-adjusted life-years, and save approximately $40 billion in health care costs over a 20-year period,” the AHA said.

The AHA is urging the FDA to “follow [this] action with additional targets to further lower the amount of sodium in the food supply and help people in America attain an appropriate sodium intake.”

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

The Food and Drug Administration has issued voluntary, short-term sodium reduction targets for food manufacturers, chain restaurants, and food service operators for processed, packaged, and prepared foods, with an eye toward reducing diet-related conditions such as heart disease and obesity.

According to the FDA, more than 70% of total sodium intake is from sodium added during food manufacturing and commercial food preparation.

The new targets seek to decrease average sodium intake from approximately 3,400 mg/day to 3,000 mg/day, about a 12% reduction, over the next 2.5 years, acting FDA Commissioner Janet Woodcock, MD, and Susan Mayne, PhD, director of the FDA’s Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition, said in joint statement.

Although this reduction keeps the average intake above the recommended limit of 2,300 mg/day for individuals 14 years and older as per the Dietary Guidelines for Americans, “we know that even these modest reductions made slowly over the next few years will substantially decrease diet-related diseases,” they added.

The FDA first proposed recommendations for reducing sodium content in draft guidance released in 2016.

Since, then a number of companies in the food industry have already made changes to sodium content in their products, “which is encouraging, but additional support across all types of foods to help consumers meet recommended sodium limits is needed,” Dr. Woodcock and Dr. Mayne said.

They emphasized that the new guidance represents short-term goals that the food industry should work to meet as soon as possible to help optimize public health.

“We will continue our discussions with the food industry as we monitor the sodium content of the food supply to evaluate progress. In the future, we plan to issue revised, subsequent targets to further lower the sodium content incrementally and continue to help reduce sodium intake,” Dr. Woodcock and Dr. Mayne said.
 

AHA: A good first step that does not go far enough

In a statement, the American Heart Association said the new targets will play “a critical role in helping people across the country achieve healthier levels of sodium and improved well-being overall. These targets will be an important driver to reduce sodium consumption, which can have significant health benefits and lead to lower medical costs.”

“Lowering sodium levels in the food supply would reduce risk of hypertension, heart disease, stroke, heart attack, and death in addition to saving billions of dollars in health care costs over the next decade,” the AHA said.

But the AHA also said lowering sodium intake to 3,000 mg/day is not enough.

“Lowering sodium further to 2,300 mg could prevent an estimated 450,000 cases of cardiovascular disease, gain 2 million quality-adjusted life-years, and save approximately $40 billion in health care costs over a 20-year period,” the AHA said.

The AHA is urging the FDA to “follow [this] action with additional targets to further lower the amount of sodium in the food supply and help people in America attain an appropriate sodium intake.”

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

In frail elderly adults with COVID-19 infections, treatment with omega-3 fatty acids may improve lipid responses and decrease levels of proinflammatory lipid mediators, results of a small randomized controlled trial suggest.

Results of the study, which included 22 patients with multiple comorbidities, were presented at the European Geriatric Medicine Society annual congress, a hybrid live and online meeting.

The patients, who had a median age of 81 years, were randomized to receive an intravenous infusion of an omega-3 polyunsaturated fatty acid (PUFA) emulsion containing 10 g of fish oil per 100 mL or a saline placebo.

Those who received the intravenous infusion had significant decreases from baseline to end of treatment in the neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (NLR), indicating marked reductions in systemic inflammation.

In contrast, patients randomized to a saline placebo had no significant improvements in NLR, Magnus Bäck, MD, PhD, from the Karolinska Institute in Stockholm reported at the meeting.

“Our lipidomic analysis also showed that omega-3 treatment skewed the lipid response, with reduced levels of proinflammatory lipid mediators, and increased levels of proresolving mediators,” according to a late-breaking abstract, which Dr. Bäck presented during the session.

Omega-3 treatment was not significantly associated with reduction in either C-reactive protein (CRP) or the proinflammatory cytokine interleukin-6, however.
 

‘Eicosanoid storm’

In a review article published in January 2021 in the open-access journal Frontiers in Physiology, Dr. Bäck and colleagues outlined the rationale for their randomized trial.

“Excessive inflammation has been reported in severe cases with respiratory failure and cardiovascular complications,” they wrote. “In addition to the release of cytokines, referred to as cytokine release syndrome or ‘cytokine storm,’ increased proinflammatory lipid mediators derived from the omega-6 polyunsaturated fatty acid (PUFA) arachidonic acid may cause an ‘eicosanoid storm,’ which contributes to the uncontrolled systemic inflammation.”

Omega-3 PUFA contains proresolving mediators that can limit inflammatory reactions, suggesting the possibility of an inflammation-resolving benefit in patients with COVID-19 without concerns about immunosuppression, the authors hypothesized.
 

Trial details

In the trial, COVID-Omega-F, they enrolled patients with a COVID-19 diagnosis requiring hospitalization. Patients with an allergy to fish oil or who had contraindications to intravenous PUFA administration (for example, risk for bleeding, shock, or emboli) were excluded.

Ten patients were randomly assigned to receive infusions of the omega-3 PUFA and 12 were assigned to receive infusions of the placebo, once daily for 5 days. The primary outcome measure was change in inflammatory biomarkers, including white blood cell counts, CRP, cytokines, and lipid mediators.

Baseline demographic and clinical characteristics were similar between the two study arms, with a median of about 7 days since the onset of symptoms, and 3.5 days since a diagnosis of COVID-19.

All patients had low lymphocyte responses reflected by a high NLR, a prognostic measure for worse outcomes in patients with COVID-19 infections, Dr. Bäck said.

Inflammation was moderate, with a CRP of 65 mg/L in the placebo group and 62 mg/L in the omega-3 group.

Seven patients in each study arm received concomitant corticoid treatment. Two patients in each arm died in hospital, but there were no serious treatment-related adverse events.
 

Inflammatory markers improve

As noted before, there was a significant decline in NLR from baseline among patients randomized to omega-3 (P = .02) but no corresponding decrease in patients assigned to placebo infusions.

“The significant decrease was largely driven by an increase in the lymphocyte count in the omega-3 treated group (P = .004), whereas lymphocytes did not significantly change,” Dr. Bäck said.

As expected, patients in the omega-3 group had pronounced increases in omega-3 fatty acids, including eicosapentaenoic acid and docosahexaenoic acid.

The metabolism of fatty acids also differed markedly between the groups, with a significant decrease in the omega-3 group but not the placebo group in proinflammatory mediators, and an increase in precursors to proresolving mediators, Dr. Bäck noted.
 

AFib concerns

In a question-and-answer part of the session, a physician who identified herself as “Senya from Russia” questioned the safety of omega-3 treatment in this population, “because recently there was a meta-analysis which showed that omega-3 fatty acids will increase the risk of atrial fibrillation in older adults especially.”

The systematic review and meta-analysis she referred to, published in Circulation and reported on by this news organization, showed that, among 81,210 patients with a mean age of 65 enrolled in seven randomized controlled trials, omega-3 fatty acid supplementation was associated with a 25% increase in risk for atrial fibrillation. This risk appeared to be higher in trials testing doses greater than 1 g/day, according to the paper.

“This was not monitored in this study,” Dr. Bäck replied. “It is true that the meta-analysis showed an increased incidence of atrial fibrillation, so it would be something to monitor in case this trial would be expanded to a larger population.”

The study was supported by the Karolinska Institute. Dr. Bäck disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

In frail elderly adults with COVID-19 infections, treatment with omega-3 fatty acids may improve lipid responses and decrease levels of proinflammatory lipid mediators, results of a small randomized controlled trial suggest.

Results of the study, which included 22 patients with multiple comorbidities, were presented at the European Geriatric Medicine Society annual congress, a hybrid live and online meeting.

The patients, who had a median age of 81 years, were randomized to receive an intravenous infusion of an omega-3 polyunsaturated fatty acid (PUFA) emulsion containing 10 g of fish oil per 100 mL or a saline placebo.

Those who received the intravenous infusion had significant decreases from baseline to end of treatment in the neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (NLR), indicating marked reductions in systemic inflammation.

In contrast, patients randomized to a saline placebo had no significant improvements in NLR, Magnus Bäck, MD, PhD, from the Karolinska Institute in Stockholm reported at the meeting.

“Our lipidomic analysis also showed that omega-3 treatment skewed the lipid response, with reduced levels of proinflammatory lipid mediators, and increased levels of proresolving mediators,” according to a late-breaking abstract, which Dr. Bäck presented during the session.

Omega-3 treatment was not significantly associated with reduction in either C-reactive protein (CRP) or the proinflammatory cytokine interleukin-6, however.
 

‘Eicosanoid storm’

In a review article published in January 2021 in the open-access journal Frontiers in Physiology, Dr. Bäck and colleagues outlined the rationale for their randomized trial.

“Excessive inflammation has been reported in severe cases with respiratory failure and cardiovascular complications,” they wrote. “In addition to the release of cytokines, referred to as cytokine release syndrome or ‘cytokine storm,’ increased proinflammatory lipid mediators derived from the omega-6 polyunsaturated fatty acid (PUFA) arachidonic acid may cause an ‘eicosanoid storm,’ which contributes to the uncontrolled systemic inflammation.”

Omega-3 PUFA contains proresolving mediators that can limit inflammatory reactions, suggesting the possibility of an inflammation-resolving benefit in patients with COVID-19 without concerns about immunosuppression, the authors hypothesized.
 

Trial details

In the trial, COVID-Omega-F, they enrolled patients with a COVID-19 diagnosis requiring hospitalization. Patients with an allergy to fish oil or who had contraindications to intravenous PUFA administration (for example, risk for bleeding, shock, or emboli) were excluded.

Ten patients were randomly assigned to receive infusions of the omega-3 PUFA and 12 were assigned to receive infusions of the placebo, once daily for 5 days. The primary outcome measure was change in inflammatory biomarkers, including white blood cell counts, CRP, cytokines, and lipid mediators.

Baseline demographic and clinical characteristics were similar between the two study arms, with a median of about 7 days since the onset of symptoms, and 3.5 days since a diagnosis of COVID-19.

All patients had low lymphocyte responses reflected by a high NLR, a prognostic measure for worse outcomes in patients with COVID-19 infections, Dr. Bäck said.

Inflammation was moderate, with a CRP of 65 mg/L in the placebo group and 62 mg/L in the omega-3 group.

Seven patients in each study arm received concomitant corticoid treatment. Two patients in each arm died in hospital, but there were no serious treatment-related adverse events.
 

Inflammatory markers improve

As noted before, there was a significant decline in NLR from baseline among patients randomized to omega-3 (P = .02) but no corresponding decrease in patients assigned to placebo infusions.

“The significant decrease was largely driven by an increase in the lymphocyte count in the omega-3 treated group (P = .004), whereas lymphocytes did not significantly change,” Dr. Bäck said.

As expected, patients in the omega-3 group had pronounced increases in omega-3 fatty acids, including eicosapentaenoic acid and docosahexaenoic acid.

The metabolism of fatty acids also differed markedly between the groups, with a significant decrease in the omega-3 group but not the placebo group in proinflammatory mediators, and an increase in precursors to proresolving mediators, Dr. Bäck noted.
 

AFib concerns

In a question-and-answer part of the session, a physician who identified herself as “Senya from Russia” questioned the safety of omega-3 treatment in this population, “because recently there was a meta-analysis which showed that omega-3 fatty acids will increase the risk of atrial fibrillation in older adults especially.”

The systematic review and meta-analysis she referred to, published in Circulation and reported on by this news organization, showed that, among 81,210 patients with a mean age of 65 enrolled in seven randomized controlled trials, omega-3 fatty acid supplementation was associated with a 25% increase in risk for atrial fibrillation. This risk appeared to be higher in trials testing doses greater than 1 g/day, according to the paper.

“This was not monitored in this study,” Dr. Bäck replied. “It is true that the meta-analysis showed an increased incidence of atrial fibrillation, so it would be something to monitor in case this trial would be expanded to a larger population.”

The study was supported by the Karolinska Institute. Dr. Bäck disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

In frail elderly adults with COVID-19 infections, treatment with omega-3 fatty acids may improve lipid responses and decrease levels of proinflammatory lipid mediators, results of a small randomized controlled trial suggest.

Results of the study, which included 22 patients with multiple comorbidities, were presented at the European Geriatric Medicine Society annual congress, a hybrid live and online meeting.

The patients, who had a median age of 81 years, were randomized to receive an intravenous infusion of an omega-3 polyunsaturated fatty acid (PUFA) emulsion containing 10 g of fish oil per 100 mL or a saline placebo.

Those who received the intravenous infusion had significant decreases from baseline to end of treatment in the neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (NLR), indicating marked reductions in systemic inflammation.

In contrast, patients randomized to a saline placebo had no significant improvements in NLR, Magnus Bäck, MD, PhD, from the Karolinska Institute in Stockholm reported at the meeting.

“Our lipidomic analysis also showed that omega-3 treatment skewed the lipid response, with reduced levels of proinflammatory lipid mediators, and increased levels of proresolving mediators,” according to a late-breaking abstract, which Dr. Bäck presented during the session.

Omega-3 treatment was not significantly associated with reduction in either C-reactive protein (CRP) or the proinflammatory cytokine interleukin-6, however.
 

‘Eicosanoid storm’

In a review article published in January 2021 in the open-access journal Frontiers in Physiology, Dr. Bäck and colleagues outlined the rationale for their randomized trial.

“Excessive inflammation has been reported in severe cases with respiratory failure and cardiovascular complications,” they wrote. “In addition to the release of cytokines, referred to as cytokine release syndrome or ‘cytokine storm,’ increased proinflammatory lipid mediators derived from the omega-6 polyunsaturated fatty acid (PUFA) arachidonic acid may cause an ‘eicosanoid storm,’ which contributes to the uncontrolled systemic inflammation.”

Omega-3 PUFA contains proresolving mediators that can limit inflammatory reactions, suggesting the possibility of an inflammation-resolving benefit in patients with COVID-19 without concerns about immunosuppression, the authors hypothesized.
 

Trial details

In the trial, COVID-Omega-F, they enrolled patients with a COVID-19 diagnosis requiring hospitalization. Patients with an allergy to fish oil or who had contraindications to intravenous PUFA administration (for example, risk for bleeding, shock, or emboli) were excluded.

Ten patients were randomly assigned to receive infusions of the omega-3 PUFA and 12 were assigned to receive infusions of the placebo, once daily for 5 days. The primary outcome measure was change in inflammatory biomarkers, including white blood cell counts, CRP, cytokines, and lipid mediators.

Baseline demographic and clinical characteristics were similar between the two study arms, with a median of about 7 days since the onset of symptoms, and 3.5 days since a diagnosis of COVID-19.

All patients had low lymphocyte responses reflected by a high NLR, a prognostic measure for worse outcomes in patients with COVID-19 infections, Dr. Bäck said.

Inflammation was moderate, with a CRP of 65 mg/L in the placebo group and 62 mg/L in the omega-3 group.

Seven patients in each study arm received concomitant corticoid treatment. Two patients in each arm died in hospital, but there were no serious treatment-related adverse events.
 

Inflammatory markers improve

As noted before, there was a significant decline in NLR from baseline among patients randomized to omega-3 (P = .02) but no corresponding decrease in patients assigned to placebo infusions.

“The significant decrease was largely driven by an increase in the lymphocyte count in the omega-3 treated group (P = .004), whereas lymphocytes did not significantly change,” Dr. Bäck said.

As expected, patients in the omega-3 group had pronounced increases in omega-3 fatty acids, including eicosapentaenoic acid and docosahexaenoic acid.

The metabolism of fatty acids also differed markedly between the groups, with a significant decrease in the omega-3 group but not the placebo group in proinflammatory mediators, and an increase in precursors to proresolving mediators, Dr. Bäck noted.
 

AFib concerns

In a question-and-answer part of the session, a physician who identified herself as “Senya from Russia” questioned the safety of omega-3 treatment in this population, “because recently there was a meta-analysis which showed that omega-3 fatty acids will increase the risk of atrial fibrillation in older adults especially.”

The systematic review and meta-analysis she referred to, published in Circulation and reported on by this news organization, showed that, among 81,210 patients with a mean age of 65 enrolled in seven randomized controlled trials, omega-3 fatty acid supplementation was associated with a 25% increase in risk for atrial fibrillation. This risk appeared to be higher in trials testing doses greater than 1 g/day, according to the paper.

“This was not monitored in this study,” Dr. Bäck replied. “It is true that the meta-analysis showed an increased incidence of atrial fibrillation, so it would be something to monitor in case this trial would be expanded to a larger population.”

The study was supported by the Karolinska Institute. Dr. Bäck disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

New draft recommendations from the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) on the use of aspirin for the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease (CVD) have been released and appear to limit the population in which it should be considered.  

David Sucsy/iStockphoto

“The USPSTF concludes with moderate certainty that aspirin use for the primary prevention of CVD events in adults ages 40 to 59 years who have a 10% or greater 10-year CVD risk has a small net benefit,” the recommendation notes. They conclude that for these patients, the decision to use aspirin “should be an individual one.”

“Persons who are not at increased risk for bleeding and are willing to take low-dose aspirin daily are more likely to benefit,” they note.

For older individuals, however, “The USPSTF concludes with moderate certainty that initiating aspirin use for the primary prevention of CVD events in adults age 60 years or older has no net benefit,” the task force concludes.

The new recommendations were posted online Oct. 12 and will be available for public comment until November 8. Once it is finalized, the recommendation will replace the 2016 USPSTF recommendation on aspirin use to prevent CVD and colorectal cancer (CRC), they note.

In that document, the task force recommended initiating low-dose aspirin for the primary prevention of both CVD and CRC in adults 50-59 years of age who had a 10% or greater 10-year CVD risk, were not at increased risk for bleeding, had a life expectancy of at least 10 years, and were willing to take daily low-dose aspirin for at least 10 years, with the decision to start being an individual one.

For older and younger patients, they found at that time that the evidence was “insufficient to assess the balance of benefits and harms of initiating aspirin use for the primary prevention of CVD and CRC in adults younger than age 50 years or adults aged 70 years or older.”

In the new draft document, “the USPSTF has changed the age ranges and grades of its recommendation on aspirin use.” Besides the recommendations for CVD prevention, they have also changed the previous recommendation of aspirin for the prevention of CRC given evidence generated from large primary CVD prevention trials.

“Based on new analyses of the evidence from primary CVD prevention populations, longer-term follow-up data from the Women’s Health Study (WHS) (JE Buring, personal communication, November 23, 2020), and new trial evidence, the USPSTF concluded that the evidence is inadequate that low-dose aspirin use reduces CRC incidence or mortality,” it states.  
 

Optimum dose

On the optimum dose for primary CVD prevention, the task force says the benefit appears similar for a low dose (≤100 mg/d) and all doses that have been studied in CVD prevention trials (50 to 500 mg/d). “A pragmatic approach would be to use 81 mg/d, which is the most commonly prescribed dose in the United States,” it states.

The USPSTF recommends using the ACC/AHA Pooled Cohort Equations to estimate cardiovascular risk but it points out that these equations are imperfect for risk prediction at the individual level, and suggests using these risk estimates as a starting point to discuss with appropriate candidates their desire for daily aspirin use. The benefits of initiating aspirin use are greater for individuals at higher risk for CVD events (eg, those with >15% or >20% 10-year CVD risk), they note.

“Decisions about initiating aspirin use should be based on shared decision-making between clinicians and patients about the potential benefits and harms. Persons who place a higher value on the potential benefits than the potential harms may choose to initiate low-dose aspirin use. Persons who place a higher value on the potential harms or on the burden of taking a daily preventive medication than the potential benefits may choose not to initiate low-dose aspirin use,” the task force says.

It also points out that the risk for bleeding increases modestly with advancing age. “For persons who have initiated aspirin use, the net benefits continue to accrue over time in the absence of a bleeding event. The net benefits, however, become smaller with advancing age because of an increased risk for bleeding, so modeling data suggest that it may be reasonable to consider stopping aspirin use around age 75 years,” it states.
 

Systematic review

The updated draft recommendations are based on a new systematic review commissioned by the USPSTF on the effectiveness of aspirin to reduce the risk of CVD events (myocardial infarction and stroke), cardiovascular mortality, and all-cause mortality in persons without a history of CVD.

The systematic review also investigated the effect of aspirin use on CRC incidence and mortality in primary CVD prevention populations, as well as the harms, particularly bleeding harms, associated with aspirin use.

In addition to the systematic evidence review, the USPSTF commissioned a microsimulation modeling study to assess the net balance of benefits and harms from aspirin use for primary prevention of CVD and CRC, stratified by age, sex, and CVD risk level. Modeling study parameter inputs were informed by the results of the systematic review, and the primary outcomes were net benefits expressed as quality-adjusted life-years and life-years. 

The USPSTF found 13 randomized clinical trials (RCTs) that reported on the benefits of aspirin use for the primary prevention of cardiovascular morbidity and mortality. The total number of participants was 161,680, and most trials used low-dose aspirin of 100 mg/d or less or aspirin every other day. The 13 primary prevention trials included a balanced number of male and female participants and included a broad distribution of ages, with mean age ranging from 53 years in the Physicians’ Health Study to 74 years in the ASPREE trial.

This body of evidence shows that aspirin use for primary prevention of CVD is associated with a decreased risk of myocardial infarction and stroke but not cardiovascular mortality or all-cause mortality. Results are quite similar when including studies using all doses of aspirin compared with studies using low-dose aspirin.

The USPSTF reviewed 14 RCTs in CVD primary prevention populations that reported on the bleeding harms of aspirin.

When looking at studies reporting on the harms of low-dose aspirin use (≤100 mg/d), which is most relevant to current practice, a pooled analysis of 10 trials showed that aspirin use was associated with a 58% increase in major gastrointestinal bleeding, and a pooled analysis of 11 trials showed a 31% increase in intracranial bleeds in the aspirin group compared with the control group. Low-dose aspirin use was not associated with a statistically significant increase in risk of fatal hemorrhagic stroke.

Data suggested that the increased risk of bleeding associated with aspirin use occurs relatively quickly after initiating aspirin, and data do not suggest that aspirin has a differential relative bleeding risk based on age, sex, presence of diabetes, level of CVD risk, or race or ethnicity. Although the increase in relative risk does not appear to differ based on age, the absolute risk of bleeding, and thus the magnitude of bleeding harm, does increase with age, and more so in adults age 60 years or older, they note.

The microsimulation model to estimate the magnitude of net benefit of low-dose aspirin use incorporated findings from the systematic review.

Modeling data demonstrated that aspirin use in both men and women ages 40-59 years with 10% or greater 10-year CVD risk generally provides a modest net benefit in both quality-adjusted life-years and life-years gained. Initiation of aspirin use in persons aged 60-69 years results in quality-adjusted life-years gained that range from slightly negative to slightly positive depending on CVD risk level, and life-years gained are generally negative.

In persons aged 70-79 years, initiation of aspirin use results in a loss of both quality-adjusted life-years and life-years at essentially all CVD risk levels modeled (ie, up to 20% 10-year CVD risk).

The USPSTF thus determined that aspirin use has a small net benefit in persons aged 40-59 years with 10% or greater 10-year CVD risk, and initiation of aspirin use has no net benefit in persons age 60 years or older.

When looking at net lifetime benefit of continuous aspirin use until stopping at age 65, 70, 75, 80, or 85 years, modeling data suggest that there is generally little incremental lifetime net benefit in continuing aspirin use beyond the age of 75-80 years.

The task force points out that the net benefit of continuing aspirin use by a person in their 60s or 70s is not the same as the net benefit of initiating aspirin use by a person in their 60s or 70s. This is because, in part, of the fact that CVD risk is heavily influenced by age. Persons who meet the eligibility criteria for aspirin use at a younger age (ie, ≥10% 10-year CVD risk in their 40s or 50s) typically have even higher CVD risk by their 60s or 70s compared with persons who first reach a 10% or greater 10-year CVD risk in their 60s or 70s, and may gain more benefit by continuing aspirin use than a person at lower risk might gain by initiating aspirin use, the USPSTF explains.

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

New draft recommendations from the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) on the use of aspirin for the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease (CVD) have been released and appear to limit the population in which it should be considered.  

David Sucsy/iStockphoto

“The USPSTF concludes with moderate certainty that aspirin use for the primary prevention of CVD events in adults ages 40 to 59 years who have a 10% or greater 10-year CVD risk has a small net benefit,” the recommendation notes. They conclude that for these patients, the decision to use aspirin “should be an individual one.”

“Persons who are not at increased risk for bleeding and are willing to take low-dose aspirin daily are more likely to benefit,” they note.

For older individuals, however, “The USPSTF concludes with moderate certainty that initiating aspirin use for the primary prevention of CVD events in adults age 60 years or older has no net benefit,” the task force concludes.

The new recommendations were posted online Oct. 12 and will be available for public comment until November 8. Once it is finalized, the recommendation will replace the 2016 USPSTF recommendation on aspirin use to prevent CVD and colorectal cancer (CRC), they note.

In that document, the task force recommended initiating low-dose aspirin for the primary prevention of both CVD and CRC in adults 50-59 years of age who had a 10% or greater 10-year CVD risk, were not at increased risk for bleeding, had a life expectancy of at least 10 years, and were willing to take daily low-dose aspirin for at least 10 years, with the decision to start being an individual one.

For older and younger patients, they found at that time that the evidence was “insufficient to assess the balance of benefits and harms of initiating aspirin use for the primary prevention of CVD and CRC in adults younger than age 50 years or adults aged 70 years or older.”

In the new draft document, “the USPSTF has changed the age ranges and grades of its recommendation on aspirin use.” Besides the recommendations for CVD prevention, they have also changed the previous recommendation of aspirin for the prevention of CRC given evidence generated from large primary CVD prevention trials.

“Based on new analyses of the evidence from primary CVD prevention populations, longer-term follow-up data from the Women’s Health Study (WHS) (JE Buring, personal communication, November 23, 2020), and new trial evidence, the USPSTF concluded that the evidence is inadequate that low-dose aspirin use reduces CRC incidence or mortality,” it states.  
 

Optimum dose

On the optimum dose for primary CVD prevention, the task force says the benefit appears similar for a low dose (≤100 mg/d) and all doses that have been studied in CVD prevention trials (50 to 500 mg/d). “A pragmatic approach would be to use 81 mg/d, which is the most commonly prescribed dose in the United States,” it states.

The USPSTF recommends using the ACC/AHA Pooled Cohort Equations to estimate cardiovascular risk but it points out that these equations are imperfect for risk prediction at the individual level, and suggests using these risk estimates as a starting point to discuss with appropriate candidates their desire for daily aspirin use. The benefits of initiating aspirin use are greater for individuals at higher risk for CVD events (eg, those with >15% or >20% 10-year CVD risk), they note.

“Decisions about initiating aspirin use should be based on shared decision-making between clinicians and patients about the potential benefits and harms. Persons who place a higher value on the potential benefits than the potential harms may choose to initiate low-dose aspirin use. Persons who place a higher value on the potential harms or on the burden of taking a daily preventive medication than the potential benefits may choose not to initiate low-dose aspirin use,” the task force says.

It also points out that the risk for bleeding increases modestly with advancing age. “For persons who have initiated aspirin use, the net benefits continue to accrue over time in the absence of a bleeding event. The net benefits, however, become smaller with advancing age because of an increased risk for bleeding, so modeling data suggest that it may be reasonable to consider stopping aspirin use around age 75 years,” it states.
 

Systematic review

The updated draft recommendations are based on a new systematic review commissioned by the USPSTF on the effectiveness of aspirin to reduce the risk of CVD events (myocardial infarction and stroke), cardiovascular mortality, and all-cause mortality in persons without a history of CVD.

The systematic review also investigated the effect of aspirin use on CRC incidence and mortality in primary CVD prevention populations, as well as the harms, particularly bleeding harms, associated with aspirin use.

In addition to the systematic evidence review, the USPSTF commissioned a microsimulation modeling study to assess the net balance of benefits and harms from aspirin use for primary prevention of CVD and CRC, stratified by age, sex, and CVD risk level. Modeling study parameter inputs were informed by the results of the systematic review, and the primary outcomes were net benefits expressed as quality-adjusted life-years and life-years. 

The USPSTF found 13 randomized clinical trials (RCTs) that reported on the benefits of aspirin use for the primary prevention of cardiovascular morbidity and mortality. The total number of participants was 161,680, and most trials used low-dose aspirin of 100 mg/d or less or aspirin every other day. The 13 primary prevention trials included a balanced number of male and female participants and included a broad distribution of ages, with mean age ranging from 53 years in the Physicians’ Health Study to 74 years in the ASPREE trial.

This body of evidence shows that aspirin use for primary prevention of CVD is associated with a decreased risk of myocardial infarction and stroke but not cardiovascular mortality or all-cause mortality. Results are quite similar when including studies using all doses of aspirin compared with studies using low-dose aspirin.

The USPSTF reviewed 14 RCTs in CVD primary prevention populations that reported on the bleeding harms of aspirin.

When looking at studies reporting on the harms of low-dose aspirin use (≤100 mg/d), which is most relevant to current practice, a pooled analysis of 10 trials showed that aspirin use was associated with a 58% increase in major gastrointestinal bleeding, and a pooled analysis of 11 trials showed a 31% increase in intracranial bleeds in the aspirin group compared with the control group. Low-dose aspirin use was not associated with a statistically significant increase in risk of fatal hemorrhagic stroke.

Data suggested that the increased risk of bleeding associated with aspirin use occurs relatively quickly after initiating aspirin, and data do not suggest that aspirin has a differential relative bleeding risk based on age, sex, presence of diabetes, level of CVD risk, or race or ethnicity. Although the increase in relative risk does not appear to differ based on age, the absolute risk of bleeding, and thus the magnitude of bleeding harm, does increase with age, and more so in adults age 60 years or older, they note.

The microsimulation model to estimate the magnitude of net benefit of low-dose aspirin use incorporated findings from the systematic review.

Modeling data demonstrated that aspirin use in both men and women ages 40-59 years with 10% or greater 10-year CVD risk generally provides a modest net benefit in both quality-adjusted life-years and life-years gained. Initiation of aspirin use in persons aged 60-69 years results in quality-adjusted life-years gained that range from slightly negative to slightly positive depending on CVD risk level, and life-years gained are generally negative.

In persons aged 70-79 years, initiation of aspirin use results in a loss of both quality-adjusted life-years and life-years at essentially all CVD risk levels modeled (ie, up to 20% 10-year CVD risk).

The USPSTF thus determined that aspirin use has a small net benefit in persons aged 40-59 years with 10% or greater 10-year CVD risk, and initiation of aspirin use has no net benefit in persons age 60 years or older.

When looking at net lifetime benefit of continuous aspirin use until stopping at age 65, 70, 75, 80, or 85 years, modeling data suggest that there is generally little incremental lifetime net benefit in continuing aspirin use beyond the age of 75-80 years.

The task force points out that the net benefit of continuing aspirin use by a person in their 60s or 70s is not the same as the net benefit of initiating aspirin use by a person in their 60s or 70s. This is because, in part, of the fact that CVD risk is heavily influenced by age. Persons who meet the eligibility criteria for aspirin use at a younger age (ie, ≥10% 10-year CVD risk in their 40s or 50s) typically have even higher CVD risk by their 60s or 70s compared with persons who first reach a 10% or greater 10-year CVD risk in their 60s or 70s, and may gain more benefit by continuing aspirin use than a person at lower risk might gain by initiating aspirin use, the USPSTF explains.

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

New draft recommendations from the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) on the use of aspirin for the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease (CVD) have been released and appear to limit the population in which it should be considered.  

David Sucsy/iStockphoto

“The USPSTF concludes with moderate certainty that aspirin use for the primary prevention of CVD events in adults ages 40 to 59 years who have a 10% or greater 10-year CVD risk has a small net benefit,” the recommendation notes. They conclude that for these patients, the decision to use aspirin “should be an individual one.”

“Persons who are not at increased risk for bleeding and are willing to take low-dose aspirin daily are more likely to benefit,” they note.

For older individuals, however, “The USPSTF concludes with moderate certainty that initiating aspirin use for the primary prevention of CVD events in adults age 60 years or older has no net benefit,” the task force concludes.

The new recommendations were posted online Oct. 12 and will be available for public comment until November 8. Once it is finalized, the recommendation will replace the 2016 USPSTF recommendation on aspirin use to prevent CVD and colorectal cancer (CRC), they note.

In that document, the task force recommended initiating low-dose aspirin for the primary prevention of both CVD and CRC in adults 50-59 years of age who had a 10% or greater 10-year CVD risk, were not at increased risk for bleeding, had a life expectancy of at least 10 years, and were willing to take daily low-dose aspirin for at least 10 years, with the decision to start being an individual one.

For older and younger patients, they found at that time that the evidence was “insufficient to assess the balance of benefits and harms of initiating aspirin use for the primary prevention of CVD and CRC in adults younger than age 50 years or adults aged 70 years or older.”

In the new draft document, “the USPSTF has changed the age ranges and grades of its recommendation on aspirin use.” Besides the recommendations for CVD prevention, they have also changed the previous recommendation of aspirin for the prevention of CRC given evidence generated from large primary CVD prevention trials.

“Based on new analyses of the evidence from primary CVD prevention populations, longer-term follow-up data from the Women’s Health Study (WHS) (JE Buring, personal communication, November 23, 2020), and new trial evidence, the USPSTF concluded that the evidence is inadequate that low-dose aspirin use reduces CRC incidence or mortality,” it states.  
 

Optimum dose

On the optimum dose for primary CVD prevention, the task force says the benefit appears similar for a low dose (≤100 mg/d) and all doses that have been studied in CVD prevention trials (50 to 500 mg/d). “A pragmatic approach would be to use 81 mg/d, which is the most commonly prescribed dose in the United States,” it states.

The USPSTF recommends using the ACC/AHA Pooled Cohort Equations to estimate cardiovascular risk but it points out that these equations are imperfect for risk prediction at the individual level, and suggests using these risk estimates as a starting point to discuss with appropriate candidates their desire for daily aspirin use. The benefits of initiating aspirin use are greater for individuals at higher risk for CVD events (eg, those with >15% or >20% 10-year CVD risk), they note.

“Decisions about initiating aspirin use should be based on shared decision-making between clinicians and patients about the potential benefits and harms. Persons who place a higher value on the potential benefits than the potential harms may choose to initiate low-dose aspirin use. Persons who place a higher value on the potential harms or on the burden of taking a daily preventive medication than the potential benefits may choose not to initiate low-dose aspirin use,” the task force says.

It also points out that the risk for bleeding increases modestly with advancing age. “For persons who have initiated aspirin use, the net benefits continue to accrue over time in the absence of a bleeding event. The net benefits, however, become smaller with advancing age because of an increased risk for bleeding, so modeling data suggest that it may be reasonable to consider stopping aspirin use around age 75 years,” it states.
 

Systematic review

The updated draft recommendations are based on a new systematic review commissioned by the USPSTF on the effectiveness of aspirin to reduce the risk of CVD events (myocardial infarction and stroke), cardiovascular mortality, and all-cause mortality in persons without a history of CVD.

The systematic review also investigated the effect of aspirin use on CRC incidence and mortality in primary CVD prevention populations, as well as the harms, particularly bleeding harms, associated with aspirin use.

In addition to the systematic evidence review, the USPSTF commissioned a microsimulation modeling study to assess the net balance of benefits and harms from aspirin use for primary prevention of CVD and CRC, stratified by age, sex, and CVD risk level. Modeling study parameter inputs were informed by the results of the systematic review, and the primary outcomes were net benefits expressed as quality-adjusted life-years and life-years. 

The USPSTF found 13 randomized clinical trials (RCTs) that reported on the benefits of aspirin use for the primary prevention of cardiovascular morbidity and mortality. The total number of participants was 161,680, and most trials used low-dose aspirin of 100 mg/d or less or aspirin every other day. The 13 primary prevention trials included a balanced number of male and female participants and included a broad distribution of ages, with mean age ranging from 53 years in the Physicians’ Health Study to 74 years in the ASPREE trial.

This body of evidence shows that aspirin use for primary prevention of CVD is associated with a decreased risk of myocardial infarction and stroke but not cardiovascular mortality or all-cause mortality. Results are quite similar when including studies using all doses of aspirin compared with studies using low-dose aspirin.

The USPSTF reviewed 14 RCTs in CVD primary prevention populations that reported on the bleeding harms of aspirin.

When looking at studies reporting on the harms of low-dose aspirin use (≤100 mg/d), which is most relevant to current practice, a pooled analysis of 10 trials showed that aspirin use was associated with a 58% increase in major gastrointestinal bleeding, and a pooled analysis of 11 trials showed a 31% increase in intracranial bleeds in the aspirin group compared with the control group. Low-dose aspirin use was not associated with a statistically significant increase in risk of fatal hemorrhagic stroke.

Data suggested that the increased risk of bleeding associated with aspirin use occurs relatively quickly after initiating aspirin, and data do not suggest that aspirin has a differential relative bleeding risk based on age, sex, presence of diabetes, level of CVD risk, or race or ethnicity. Although the increase in relative risk does not appear to differ based on age, the absolute risk of bleeding, and thus the magnitude of bleeding harm, does increase with age, and more so in adults age 60 years or older, they note.

The microsimulation model to estimate the magnitude of net benefit of low-dose aspirin use incorporated findings from the systematic review.

Modeling data demonstrated that aspirin use in both men and women ages 40-59 years with 10% or greater 10-year CVD risk generally provides a modest net benefit in both quality-adjusted life-years and life-years gained. Initiation of aspirin use in persons aged 60-69 years results in quality-adjusted life-years gained that range from slightly negative to slightly positive depending on CVD risk level, and life-years gained are generally negative.

In persons aged 70-79 years, initiation of aspirin use results in a loss of both quality-adjusted life-years and life-years at essentially all CVD risk levels modeled (ie, up to 20% 10-year CVD risk).

The USPSTF thus determined that aspirin use has a small net benefit in persons aged 40-59 years with 10% or greater 10-year CVD risk, and initiation of aspirin use has no net benefit in persons age 60 years or older.

When looking at net lifetime benefit of continuous aspirin use until stopping at age 65, 70, 75, 80, or 85 years, modeling data suggest that there is generally little incremental lifetime net benefit in continuing aspirin use beyond the age of 75-80 years.

The task force points out that the net benefit of continuing aspirin use by a person in their 60s or 70s is not the same as the net benefit of initiating aspirin use by a person in their 60s or 70s. This is because, in part, of the fact that CVD risk is heavily influenced by age. Persons who meet the eligibility criteria for aspirin use at a younger age (ie, ≥10% 10-year CVD risk in their 40s or 50s) typically have even higher CVD risk by their 60s or 70s compared with persons who first reach a 10% or greater 10-year CVD risk in their 60s or 70s, and may gain more benefit by continuing aspirin use than a person at lower risk might gain by initiating aspirin use, the USPSTF explains.

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

A study that compared three types of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) found that rivaroxaban was associated with a much higher risk of overall and major gastrointestinal bleeding than apixaban or dabigatran.

The results, which were published in the Annals of Internal Medicine, could help guide DOAC selection for high-risk groups with a prior history of peptic ulcer disease or major GI bleeding, said lead study authors Arnar Bragi Ingason, MD and Einar S. Björnsson, MD, PhD, in an email.

DOACs treat conditions such as atrial fibrillation, venous thromboembolism, and ischemic stroke and are known to cause GI bleeding. Previous studies have suggested that rivaroxaban poses a higher GI-bleeding risk than other DOACs.

These studies, which used large administrative databases, “had an inherent risk of selection bias due to insurance status, age, and comorbidities due to their origin from insurance/administrative databases. In addition, they lacked phenotypic details on GI bleeding events,” said Dr. Björnsson and Dr. Ingason, who are both of Landspitali University Hospital, Reykjavik, Iceland,

Daily dosage may exacerbate risk

Rivaroxaban is administered as a single daily dose, compared with apixaban’s and dabigatran’s twice-daily regimens. “We hypothesized that this may lead to a greater variance in drug plasma concentration, making these patients more susceptible to GI bleeding,” the lead authors said.

Using data from the Icelandic Medicine Registry, a national database of outpatient prescription information, they compared rates of GI bleeding among new users of apixaban, dabigatran, and rivaroxaban from 2014 to 2019. Overall, 5,868 patients receiving one of the DOACs took part in the study. Among these participants, 3,217 received rivaroxaban, 2,157 received apixaban, and 494 received dabigatran. The researchers used inverse probability weighting, Kaplan–Meier survival estimates, and Cox regression to compare GI bleeding.

Compared with dabigatran, rivaroxaban was associated with a 63%-104% higher overall risk for GI bleeding and 39%-95% higher risk for major GI bleeding. Rivaroxaban also had a 40%-42% higher overall risk for GI bleeding and 49%-50% higher risk for major GI bleeding, compared with apixaban.

The investigators were surprised by the low rate of upper GI bleeding for dabigatran, compared with the other two drugs. “However, these results must be interpreted in the context that the dabigatran group was relatively small,” said Dr. Björnsson and Dr. Ingason via email.

Overall, the study cohort was small, compared with previous registry studies.

Investigators also did not account for account for socioeconomic status or lifestyle factors, such as alcohol consumption or smoking. “However, because the cost of all DOACs is similar in Iceland, selection bias due to socioeconomic status is unlikely,” the investigators reported in their paper. “We are currently working on comparing the rates of thromboembolisms and overall major bleeding events between the drugs,” the lead authors said.
 

Clinicians should consider location of bleeding

Though retrospective, the study by Ingason et. al. “is likely as close as is feasible to a randomized trial as is possible,” said Don C. Rockey, MD, a professor of medicine at the Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, in an interview.

“From the clinician’s perspective, it is important to take away that there may be differences among the DOACs in terms of where in the GI tract the bleeding occurs,” said Dr. Rockey. In the study, the greatest differences appeared to be in the upper GI tract, with rivaroxaban outpacing apixaban and dabigatran. In patients who are at risk for upper GI bleeding, it may be reasonable to consider use of dabigatran or apixaban, he suggested.

“A limitation of the study is that it is likely underpowered overall,” said Dr. Rockey. It also wasn’t clear how many deaths occurred either directly from GI bleeding or as a complication of GI bleeding, he said.The study also didn’t differentiate major bleeding among DOACs specifically in the upper or lower GI tract, Dr. Rockey added.
 

Other studies yield similar results

Dr. Ingason and Dr. Björnsson said their work complements previous studies, and Neena S. Abraham, MD, MSc , who has conducted a similar investigation to the new study, agreed with that statement.

Data from the last 4 years overwhelmingly show that rivaroxaban is most likely to cause GI bleeding, said Dr. Abraham, professor of medicine and a consultant with Mayo Clinic’s division of gastroenterology and hepatology, in an interview.

A comparative safety study Dr. Abraham coauthored in 2017 of rivaroxaban, apixaban, and dabigatran in a much larger U.S. cohort of 372,380 patients revealed that rivaroxaban had the worst GI bleeding profile. Apixaban was 66% safer than rivaroxaban and 64% safer than dabigatran to prevent gastrointestinal bleeding.

“I believe our group was the first to conduct this study and show clinically significant differences in GI safety of the available direct oral anticoagulants,” she said. Other investigators have since published similar results, and the topic of the new study needs no further investigation, according to Dr. Abraham.

“It is time for physicians to choose a better choice when prescribing a direct oral anticoagulant to their atrial fibrillation patients, and that choice is not rivaroxaban,” she said.

The Icelandic Centre for Research and the Landspítali University Hospital Research Fund provided funds for this study. Dr. Ingason, Dr. Björnsson, Dr. Rockey, and Dr. Abraham reported no disclosures.

A study that compared three types of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) found that rivaroxaban was associated with a much higher risk of overall and major gastrointestinal bleeding than apixaban or dabigatran.

The results, which were published in the Annals of Internal Medicine, could help guide DOAC selection for high-risk groups with a prior history of peptic ulcer disease or major GI bleeding, said lead study authors Arnar Bragi Ingason, MD and Einar S. Björnsson, MD, PhD, in an email.

DOACs treat conditions such as atrial fibrillation, venous thromboembolism, and ischemic stroke and are known to cause GI bleeding. Previous studies have suggested that rivaroxaban poses a higher GI-bleeding risk than other DOACs.

These studies, which used large administrative databases, “had an inherent risk of selection bias due to insurance status, age, and comorbidities due to their origin from insurance/administrative databases. In addition, they lacked phenotypic details on GI bleeding events,” said Dr. Björnsson and Dr. Ingason, who are both of Landspitali University Hospital, Reykjavik, Iceland,

Daily dosage may exacerbate risk

Rivaroxaban is administered as a single daily dose, compared with apixaban’s and dabigatran’s twice-daily regimens. “We hypothesized that this may lead to a greater variance in drug plasma concentration, making these patients more susceptible to GI bleeding,” the lead authors said.

Using data from the Icelandic Medicine Registry, a national database of outpatient prescription information, they compared rates of GI bleeding among new users of apixaban, dabigatran, and rivaroxaban from 2014 to 2019. Overall, 5,868 patients receiving one of the DOACs took part in the study. Among these participants, 3,217 received rivaroxaban, 2,157 received apixaban, and 494 received dabigatran. The researchers used inverse probability weighting, Kaplan–Meier survival estimates, and Cox regression to compare GI bleeding.

Compared with dabigatran, rivaroxaban was associated with a 63%-104% higher overall risk for GI bleeding and 39%-95% higher risk for major GI bleeding. Rivaroxaban also had a 40%-42% higher overall risk for GI bleeding and 49%-50% higher risk for major GI bleeding, compared with apixaban.

The investigators were surprised by the low rate of upper GI bleeding for dabigatran, compared with the other two drugs. “However, these results must be interpreted in the context that the dabigatran group was relatively small,” said Dr. Björnsson and Dr. Ingason via email.

Overall, the study cohort was small, compared with previous registry studies.

Investigators also did not account for account for socioeconomic status or lifestyle factors, such as alcohol consumption or smoking. “However, because the cost of all DOACs is similar in Iceland, selection bias due to socioeconomic status is unlikely,” the investigators reported in their paper. “We are currently working on comparing the rates of thromboembolisms and overall major bleeding events between the drugs,” the lead authors said.
 

Clinicians should consider location of bleeding

Though retrospective, the study by Ingason et. al. “is likely as close as is feasible to a randomized trial as is possible,” said Don C. Rockey, MD, a professor of medicine at the Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, in an interview.

“From the clinician’s perspective, it is important to take away that there may be differences among the DOACs in terms of where in the GI tract the bleeding occurs,” said Dr. Rockey. In the study, the greatest differences appeared to be in the upper GI tract, with rivaroxaban outpacing apixaban and dabigatran. In patients who are at risk for upper GI bleeding, it may be reasonable to consider use of dabigatran or apixaban, he suggested.

“A limitation of the study is that it is likely underpowered overall,” said Dr. Rockey. It also wasn’t clear how many deaths occurred either directly from GI bleeding or as a complication of GI bleeding, he said.The study also didn’t differentiate major bleeding among DOACs specifically in the upper or lower GI tract, Dr. Rockey added.
 

Other studies yield similar results

Dr. Ingason and Dr. Björnsson said their work complements previous studies, and Neena S. Abraham, MD, MSc , who has conducted a similar investigation to the new study, agreed with that statement.

Data from the last 4 years overwhelmingly show that rivaroxaban is most likely to cause GI bleeding, said Dr. Abraham, professor of medicine and a consultant with Mayo Clinic’s division of gastroenterology and hepatology, in an interview.

A comparative safety study Dr. Abraham coauthored in 2017 of rivaroxaban, apixaban, and dabigatran in a much larger U.S. cohort of 372,380 patients revealed that rivaroxaban had the worst GI bleeding profile. Apixaban was 66% safer than rivaroxaban and 64% safer than dabigatran to prevent gastrointestinal bleeding.

“I believe our group was the first to conduct this study and show clinically significant differences in GI safety of the available direct oral anticoagulants,” she said. Other investigators have since published similar results, and the topic of the new study needs no further investigation, according to Dr. Abraham.

“It is time for physicians to choose a better choice when prescribing a direct oral anticoagulant to their atrial fibrillation patients, and that choice is not rivaroxaban,” she said.

The Icelandic Centre for Research and the Landspítali University Hospital Research Fund provided funds for this study. Dr. Ingason, Dr. Björnsson, Dr. Rockey, and Dr. Abraham reported no disclosures.

A study that compared three types of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) found that rivaroxaban was associated with a much higher risk of overall and major gastrointestinal bleeding than apixaban or dabigatran.

The results, which were published in the Annals of Internal Medicine, could help guide DOAC selection for high-risk groups with a prior history of peptic ulcer disease or major GI bleeding, said lead study authors Arnar Bragi Ingason, MD and Einar S. Björnsson, MD, PhD, in an email.

DOACs treat conditions such as atrial fibrillation, venous thromboembolism, and ischemic stroke and are known to cause GI bleeding. Previous studies have suggested that rivaroxaban poses a higher GI-bleeding risk than other DOACs.

These studies, which used large administrative databases, “had an inherent risk of selection bias due to insurance status, age, and comorbidities due to their origin from insurance/administrative databases. In addition, they lacked phenotypic details on GI bleeding events,” said Dr. Björnsson and Dr. Ingason, who are both of Landspitali University Hospital, Reykjavik, Iceland,

Daily dosage may exacerbate risk

Rivaroxaban is administered as a single daily dose, compared with apixaban’s and dabigatran’s twice-daily regimens. “We hypothesized that this may lead to a greater variance in drug plasma concentration, making these patients more susceptible to GI bleeding,” the lead authors said.

Using data from the Icelandic Medicine Registry, a national database of outpatient prescription information, they compared rates of GI bleeding among new users of apixaban, dabigatran, and rivaroxaban from 2014 to 2019. Overall, 5,868 patients receiving one of the DOACs took part in the study. Among these participants, 3,217 received rivaroxaban, 2,157 received apixaban, and 494 received dabigatran. The researchers used inverse probability weighting, Kaplan–Meier survival estimates, and Cox regression to compare GI bleeding.

Compared with dabigatran, rivaroxaban was associated with a 63%-104% higher overall risk for GI bleeding and 39%-95% higher risk for major GI bleeding. Rivaroxaban also had a 40%-42% higher overall risk for GI bleeding and 49%-50% higher risk for major GI bleeding, compared with apixaban.

The investigators were surprised by the low rate of upper GI bleeding for dabigatran, compared with the other two drugs. “However, these results must be interpreted in the context that the dabigatran group was relatively small,” said Dr. Björnsson and Dr. Ingason via email.

Overall, the study cohort was small, compared with previous registry studies.

Investigators also did not account for account for socioeconomic status or lifestyle factors, such as alcohol consumption or smoking. “However, because the cost of all DOACs is similar in Iceland, selection bias due to socioeconomic status is unlikely,” the investigators reported in their paper. “We are currently working on comparing the rates of thromboembolisms and overall major bleeding events between the drugs,” the lead authors said.
 

Clinicians should consider location of bleeding

Though retrospective, the study by Ingason et. al. “is likely as close as is feasible to a randomized trial as is possible,” said Don C. Rockey, MD, a professor of medicine at the Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, in an interview.

“From the clinician’s perspective, it is important to take away that there may be differences among the DOACs in terms of where in the GI tract the bleeding occurs,” said Dr. Rockey. In the study, the greatest differences appeared to be in the upper GI tract, with rivaroxaban outpacing apixaban and dabigatran. In patients who are at risk for upper GI bleeding, it may be reasonable to consider use of dabigatran or apixaban, he suggested.

“A limitation of the study is that it is likely underpowered overall,” said Dr. Rockey. It also wasn’t clear how many deaths occurred either directly from GI bleeding or as a complication of GI bleeding, he said.The study also didn’t differentiate major bleeding among DOACs specifically in the upper or lower GI tract, Dr. Rockey added.
 

Other studies yield similar results

Dr. Ingason and Dr. Björnsson said their work complements previous studies, and Neena S. Abraham, MD, MSc , who has conducted a similar investigation to the new study, agreed with that statement.

Data from the last 4 years overwhelmingly show that rivaroxaban is most likely to cause GI bleeding, said Dr. Abraham, professor of medicine and a consultant with Mayo Clinic’s division of gastroenterology and hepatology, in an interview.

A comparative safety study Dr. Abraham coauthored in 2017 of rivaroxaban, apixaban, and dabigatran in a much larger U.S. cohort of 372,380 patients revealed that rivaroxaban had the worst GI bleeding profile. Apixaban was 66% safer than rivaroxaban and 64% safer than dabigatran to prevent gastrointestinal bleeding.

“I believe our group was the first to conduct this study and show clinically significant differences in GI safety of the available direct oral anticoagulants,” she said. Other investigators have since published similar results, and the topic of the new study needs no further investigation, according to Dr. Abraham.

“It is time for physicians to choose a better choice when prescribing a direct oral anticoagulant to their atrial fibrillation patients, and that choice is not rivaroxaban,” she said.

The Icelandic Centre for Research and the Landspítali University Hospital Research Fund provided funds for this study. Dr. Ingason, Dr. Björnsson, Dr. Rockey, and Dr. Abraham reported no disclosures.

Recent literature features new descriptions of myocarditis linked to the two available mRNA vaccines against SARS-CoV-2. They tell a story largely consistent with experience to date, and support what might be its most useful public health message: The associated myocarditis is usually mild and self-limiting, and is far less likely to occur than myocarditis or death in unvaccinated people with COVID-19.

In line with previous research, the new analyses suggest the myocarditis – with onset usually a few days to a week after injection – has an overall incidence that ranges from less than 1 to perhaps 3 per 100,000 people who received at least one of the full mRNA-vaccine regimen’s two injections. Also, as in earlier studies, the incidence climbed higher – sometimes sharply – in certain groups by age and sex, particularly in young men and older male teens.

The new studies “are confirmatory, in terms of the risk being low,” but underscore that clinicians still must be wary of myocarditis as a potential complication of the mRNA vaccines, Biykem Bozkurt, MD, PhD, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, told this news organization.

Dr. Bozkurt, a leading heart failure specialist and researcher, did not contribute to any of the new reports but does study the myocarditis of COVID-19 and was lead author on a recent review of the potential vaccine complication’s features and possible mechanisms.

In the new myocarditis reports, she observed, more than 90% of the cases were mild and “resolved on their own without a major adverse outcome.” Dr. Bozkurt emphasized the need for perspective regarding the risk. For example, the myocarditis associated with SARS-CoV-2 infection is not only more likely than the vaccine-related myocarditis, but it’s also usually far more severe.

Dr. Bozkurt pointed to a recent study in which the mRNA vaccines, compared with no vaccination, appeared to escalate the myocarditis risk by a factor of 3, whereas the risk for myocarditis in SARS-CoV-2 infection was increased 18 times.

In contrast, she observed, the new myocarditis cases reported this week feature a few that are novel or are at least very rare, including the case of a patient who developed cardiogenic shock and another with fulminant myocarditis who died.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in May publicly described the apparent link between myocarditis and the two available mRNA vaccines against SARS-CoV-2: BNT162b2 (Pfizer-BioNTech) and mRNA-1273 (Moderna). The next month, the Food and Drug Administration added a warning about the risk to the labeling.
 

Less than 1 case per 100,000

Fifteen confirmed cases of myocarditis were identified among about 2.4 million members of Kaiser Permanente Southern California aged 18 or older who received at least one injection of the Pfizer or Moderna mRNA vaccines between December 2020 and July 2021, in a report published in JAMA Internal Medicine. The study counted cases up to 10 days after the first or second injection, of which there were 2 and 13, respectively.

All eight patients who received the Pfizer BNT162b2 vaccine and the eight given the Moderna mRNA-1273 vaccine were male with a median age of 25 years (interquartile range, 20-32 years).

“The main takeaway messages from our study are that the incidence of myocarditis after COVID-19 mRNA vaccinations is very low, that this condition is primarily observed in young men within a few days after the second dose, and that most patients recover quickly,” senior author Mingsum Lee, MD, PhD, Kaiser Permanente Los Angeles Medical Center, told this news organization.

“The incidence of vaccine-related myocarditis was significantly lower than rates of COVID-19 hospitalization during the same period and population area,” she added.

The group saw a per-million incidence of 0.8 and 5.8 myocarditis cases in the 10 days after first and second injections, respectively. That made for an incidence of 0.58 per 100,000, or 1 case per 172,414 fully vaccinated adults.

The group also considered a cohort of 1,577,741 unvaccinated people with a median age of 39 years (interquartile range, 28-53 years) during the same period. Of the 75 cases of myocarditis, 52% were in men, they reported.

Comparing the vaccinated and unvaccinated cohorts, they saw a 10-day vaccine-associated myocarditis incidence rate ratio of 0.38 (95% confidence interval, 0.05-1.40; P = .15) after the first dose, and 2.7 (95% CI, 1.4-4.8; P = .004) after the second dose.

In a comparison of the vaccinated group with itself using data from a 10-day period in the previous year, the corresponding myocarditis IRRs were 1.0 (P > .99) and 3.3 (P = .03), respectively.

Dr. Lee said none of the 15 patients required admission to an intensive care unit. “All patients with myocarditis responded well to treatment and felt better quickly,” she noted.

Myocarditis after an mRNA vaccine injection is rare and, Dr. Lee said emphatically, and “the benefits of the COVID-19 vaccine greatly outweigh the risks.”
 

Sex- and age-stratified rates

In a separate analysis of 5,442,696 people given a first dose of the Pfizer BNT162b2 vaccine and 5,125,635 given a second dose, there were 142 cases of myocarditis with onset 21 days after dose 1 and 30 days after dose 2. Of those cases, 136 were documented as “definite or probable” in an Israeli Ministry of Health database that covered up to the end of May 2021.

There were also 40 cases among vaccinated people seen after the 30-day window, which were considered not related to the vaccination, and 101 cases among unvaccinated people; of the latter, 29 had confirmed diagnoses of COVID-19.

Of the 136 people with definite or probable cases, the myocarditis was “generally mild” in 129 and usually resolved on its own, notes the report on the study, published in the New England Journal of Medicine, with lead author Dror Mevorach, MD, Hadassah-Hebrew University Medical Center, Jerusalem.

The estimated myocarditis incidence after a second such vaccine dose across the entire Israeli population, based on the current study, was about one per 26,000 males and one per 218,000 females, the group writes. Those figures compare with one case per 10,857 among “the general unvaccinated population.”

Again, the risk was concentrated among younger men and male adolescents. In an analysis limited to vaccinated people aged 16-19 years, myocarditis in the 21 days after a second mRNA injection was seen in about one of 6,637 males and one of 99,853 females, the group reported.

The standardized incidence ratio of 5.34 (95% CI, 4.48-6.40) after a second injection, across all groups, “was driven mostly by the diagnosis of myocarditis in younger male recipients.” Among that male subgroup, the ratios by age group were 13.60 (95% CI, 9.30-19.20) for 16-19 years, 8.53 (95% CI, 5.57-12.50) for 20-24 years, and 6.96 (95% CI, 4.25-10.75) for 25-29 years.

Among people who received a second injection, compared with unvaccinated people, the 30-day rate ratio was 2.35 (95% CI, 1.10-5.02). Again, the effect was concentrated in males aged 16-19 years. Among them, the myocarditis rate ratios in the 30 days after a second mRNA vaccine injection were 8.96 (95% CI, 4.50-17.83) for the 16-19 years group, 6.13 (95% CI, 3.16-11.88) for the 20-24 group, and 3.58 (95% CI, 1.82-7.01) for 25-29 years.

Most of the patients with myocarditis showed “significant clinical improvement,” with a mean hospitalization time of only 3-4 days, the report notes. Treatment consisted of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs “with or without colchicine for presumed pericardial inflammation.”

However, seven patients (4.9%) developed important complications, including left-ventricular dysfunction, ventricular arrhythmias, and heart failure. Among them was a 22-year-old patient who died of fulminant myocarditis within 24 hours of diagnosis, the group wrote.
 

From an Israeli health care organization

Published by the same journal as the study by Dr. Menvorach and associates, an analysis of a separate database showed largely consistent findings among patients in the largest of Israel’s four health care organizations charged by the government to administer health services.

The report, with authors led by Guy Witberg, MD, Rabin Medical Center, Petah Tikva, Israel, focused on members of the health care organization aged 16 years or older who had received at least one Pfizer mRNA vaccine dose by the end of May 2021.

The cohorts from the two separate reports surely overlap substantially, as the Ministry of Health analysis from Dr. Mevorach and colleagues derived from a nationwide database, and – as Dr. Witberg and associates wrote – the health care organization providing their data covers 52% of the Israeli population.

Of 2,558,421 vaccinated people in the analysis, of whom 94% received two doses, 54 developed confirmed myocarditis in the 42 days after the first dose. Their median age was 27 years (interquartile range, 21-35 years) and all but three (94%) were male. Of those 54 cases, 41 were considered mild and 12 intermediate in severity, and one was fulminant with the patient in cardiogenic shock, the group writes. In addition, nonsustained ventricular tachycardia and atrial fibrillation developed in 5% and 3% of cases, respectively.

The estimated myocarditis incidence in the 42 days after administration of at least one mRNA vaccine dose was 2.13 per 100,000 vaccinated people. In that group, Dr. Witberg and colleagues note, the corresponding incidences per 100,000 were 4.12 and 0.23 for males and females, respectively.

Also in the current report, incidences per 100,000 vaccinated people aged 16-29 years, by sex, included 5.49 (95% CI, 3.59-7.39) overall, and 10.69 (95% CI, 6.93-14.46) for males (the highest rate in the report).

There was only one case in a female aged 16-29 years, and two cases in females 30 years or older.

Of note, some authors of the current study are also authors on the high-profile report from Noam Barda, MD, and colleagues published in the New England Journal of Medicine, that used the same database to arrive at an mRNA-vaccine-related incidence of myocarditis of 2.7 per 100,000. Eligibility criteria and follow-up time were different in that report, as were case ascertainment criteria.

The myocarditis risk associated with the two mRNA vaccines is small compared with “the morbidity and mortality of COVID-19 infection, in which up to 28% of hospitalized patients showed signs of myocardial injury,” wrote Vinay Guduguntla, MD, University of California, San Francisco, and Mitchell H. Katz, MD, NYC Health + Hospitals, New York, in an editorial accompanying the report from Dr. Lee and associates.

“Randomized clinical trials show that COVID-19 mRNA vaccines represent a safe and effective method of preventing infection,” they stated. “The identification of rare myocarditis does not change clinical decision-making.”

Dr. Bozkurt, who is immediate past president of the Heart Failure Society of America, has disclosed consulting for Bayer and scPharmaceuticals and serving on a clinical events committee for a trial supported by Abbott Pharmaceuticals and on a data and safety monitoring board for a trial supported by Liva Nova Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Lee and the report’s other authors had no disclosures. Dr. Mevorach discloses consulting for Enlivex Therapeutics; disclosures for the other authors are available at NEJM.org. Dr. Witberg said he has no interests to disclose; disclosures for the other authors are available at NEJM.org. Dr. Guduguntla is an editorial fellow and Dr. Katz a deputy editor at JAMA Internal Medicine; neither had disclosures.

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

Recent literature features new descriptions of myocarditis linked to the two available mRNA vaccines against SARS-CoV-2. They tell a story largely consistent with experience to date, and support what might be its most useful public health message: The associated myocarditis is usually mild and self-limiting, and is far less likely to occur than myocarditis or death in unvaccinated people with COVID-19.

In line with previous research, the new analyses suggest the myocarditis – with onset usually a few days to a week after injection – has an overall incidence that ranges from less than 1 to perhaps 3 per 100,000 people who received at least one of the full mRNA-vaccine regimen’s two injections. Also, as in earlier studies, the incidence climbed higher – sometimes sharply – in certain groups by age and sex, particularly in young men and older male teens.

The new studies “are confirmatory, in terms of the risk being low,” but underscore that clinicians still must be wary of myocarditis as a potential complication of the mRNA vaccines, Biykem Bozkurt, MD, PhD, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, told this news organization.

Dr. Bozkurt, a leading heart failure specialist and researcher, did not contribute to any of the new reports but does study the myocarditis of COVID-19 and was lead author on a recent review of the potential vaccine complication’s features and possible mechanisms.

In the new myocarditis reports, she observed, more than 90% of the cases were mild and “resolved on their own without a major adverse outcome.” Dr. Bozkurt emphasized the need for perspective regarding the risk. For example, the myocarditis associated with SARS-CoV-2 infection is not only more likely than the vaccine-related myocarditis, but it’s also usually far more severe.

Dr. Bozkurt pointed to a recent study in which the mRNA vaccines, compared with no vaccination, appeared to escalate the myocarditis risk by a factor of 3, whereas the risk for myocarditis in SARS-CoV-2 infection was increased 18 times.

In contrast, she observed, the new myocarditis cases reported this week feature a few that are novel or are at least very rare, including the case of a patient who developed cardiogenic shock and another with fulminant myocarditis who died.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in May publicly described the apparent link between myocarditis and the two available mRNA vaccines against SARS-CoV-2: BNT162b2 (Pfizer-BioNTech) and mRNA-1273 (Moderna). The next month, the Food and Drug Administration added a warning about the risk to the labeling.
 

Less than 1 case per 100,000

Fifteen confirmed cases of myocarditis were identified among about 2.4 million members of Kaiser Permanente Southern California aged 18 or older who received at least one injection of the Pfizer or Moderna mRNA vaccines between December 2020 and July 2021, in a report published in JAMA Internal Medicine. The study counted cases up to 10 days after the first or second injection, of which there were 2 and 13, respectively.

All eight patients who received the Pfizer BNT162b2 vaccine and the eight given the Moderna mRNA-1273 vaccine were male with a median age of 25 years (interquartile range, 20-32 years).

“The main takeaway messages from our study are that the incidence of myocarditis after COVID-19 mRNA vaccinations is very low, that this condition is primarily observed in young men within a few days after the second dose, and that most patients recover quickly,” senior author Mingsum Lee, MD, PhD, Kaiser Permanente Los Angeles Medical Center, told this news organization.

“The incidence of vaccine-related myocarditis was significantly lower than rates of COVID-19 hospitalization during the same period and population area,” she added.

The group saw a per-million incidence of 0.8 and 5.8 myocarditis cases in the 10 days after first and second injections, respectively. That made for an incidence of 0.58 per 100,000, or 1 case per 172,414 fully vaccinated adults.

The group also considered a cohort of 1,577,741 unvaccinated people with a median age of 39 years (interquartile range, 28-53 years) during the same period. Of the 75 cases of myocarditis, 52% were in men, they reported.

Comparing the vaccinated and unvaccinated cohorts, they saw a 10-day vaccine-associated myocarditis incidence rate ratio of 0.38 (95% confidence interval, 0.05-1.40; P = .15) after the first dose, and 2.7 (95% CI, 1.4-4.8; P = .004) after the second dose.

In a comparison of the vaccinated group with itself using data from a 10-day period in the previous year, the corresponding myocarditis IRRs were 1.0 (P > .99) and 3.3 (P = .03), respectively.

Dr. Lee said none of the 15 patients required admission to an intensive care unit. “All patients with myocarditis responded well to treatment and felt better quickly,” she noted.

Myocarditis after an mRNA vaccine injection is rare and, Dr. Lee said emphatically, and “the benefits of the COVID-19 vaccine greatly outweigh the risks.”
 

Sex- and age-stratified rates

In a separate analysis of 5,442,696 people given a first dose of the Pfizer BNT162b2 vaccine and 5,125,635 given a second dose, there were 142 cases of myocarditis with onset 21 days after dose 1 and 30 days after dose 2. Of those cases, 136 were documented as “definite or probable” in an Israeli Ministry of Health database that covered up to the end of May 2021.

There were also 40 cases among vaccinated people seen after the 30-day window, which were considered not related to the vaccination, and 101 cases among unvaccinated people; of the latter, 29 had confirmed diagnoses of COVID-19.

Of the 136 people with definite or probable cases, the myocarditis was “generally mild” in 129 and usually resolved on its own, notes the report on the study, published in the New England Journal of Medicine, with lead author Dror Mevorach, MD, Hadassah-Hebrew University Medical Center, Jerusalem.

The estimated myocarditis incidence after a second such vaccine dose across the entire Israeli population, based on the current study, was about one per 26,000 males and one per 218,000 females, the group writes. Those figures compare with one case per 10,857 among “the general unvaccinated population.”

Again, the risk was concentrated among younger men and male adolescents. In an analysis limited to vaccinated people aged 16-19 years, myocarditis in the 21 days after a second mRNA injection was seen in about one of 6,637 males and one of 99,853 females, the group reported.

The standardized incidence ratio of 5.34 (95% CI, 4.48-6.40) after a second injection, across all groups, “was driven mostly by the diagnosis of myocarditis in younger male recipients.” Among that male subgroup, the ratios by age group were 13.60 (95% CI, 9.30-19.20) for 16-19 years, 8.53 (95% CI, 5.57-12.50) for 20-24 years, and 6.96 (95% CI, 4.25-10.75) for 25-29 years.

Among people who received a second injection, compared with unvaccinated people, the 30-day rate ratio was 2.35 (95% CI, 1.10-5.02). Again, the effect was concentrated in males aged 16-19 years. Among them, the myocarditis rate ratios in the 30 days after a second mRNA vaccine injection were 8.96 (95% CI, 4.50-17.83) for the 16-19 years group, 6.13 (95% CI, 3.16-11.88) for the 20-24 group, and 3.58 (95% CI, 1.82-7.01) for 25-29 years.

Most of the patients with myocarditis showed “significant clinical improvement,” with a mean hospitalization time of only 3-4 days, the report notes. Treatment consisted of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs “with or without colchicine for presumed pericardial inflammation.”

However, seven patients (4.9%) developed important complications, including left-ventricular dysfunction, ventricular arrhythmias, and heart failure. Among them was a 22-year-old patient who died of fulminant myocarditis within 24 hours of diagnosis, the group wrote.
 

From an Israeli health care organization

Published by the same journal as the study by Dr. Menvorach and associates, an analysis of a separate database showed largely consistent findings among patients in the largest of Israel’s four health care organizations charged by the government to administer health services.

The report, with authors led by Guy Witberg, MD, Rabin Medical Center, Petah Tikva, Israel, focused on members of the health care organization aged 16 years or older who had received at least one Pfizer mRNA vaccine dose by the end of May 2021.

The cohorts from the two separate reports surely overlap substantially, as the Ministry of Health analysis from Dr. Mevorach and colleagues derived from a nationwide database, and – as Dr. Witberg and associates wrote – the health care organization providing their data covers 52% of the Israeli population.

Of 2,558,421 vaccinated people in the analysis, of whom 94% received two doses, 54 developed confirmed myocarditis in the 42 days after the first dose. Their median age was 27 years (interquartile range, 21-35 years) and all but three (94%) were male. Of those 54 cases, 41 were considered mild and 12 intermediate in severity, and one was fulminant with the patient in cardiogenic shock, the group writes. In addition, nonsustained ventricular tachycardia and atrial fibrillation developed in 5% and 3% of cases, respectively.

The estimated myocarditis incidence in the 42 days after administration of at least one mRNA vaccine dose was 2.13 per 100,000 vaccinated people. In that group, Dr. Witberg and colleagues note, the corresponding incidences per 100,000 were 4.12 and 0.23 for males and females, respectively.

Also in the current report, incidences per 100,000 vaccinated people aged 16-29 years, by sex, included 5.49 (95% CI, 3.59-7.39) overall, and 10.69 (95% CI, 6.93-14.46) for males (the highest rate in the report).

There was only one case in a female aged 16-29 years, and two cases in females 30 years or older.

Of note, some authors of the current study are also authors on the high-profile report from Noam Barda, MD, and colleagues published in the New England Journal of Medicine, that used the same database to arrive at an mRNA-vaccine-related incidence of myocarditis of 2.7 per 100,000. Eligibility criteria and follow-up time were different in that report, as were case ascertainment criteria.

The myocarditis risk associated with the two mRNA vaccines is small compared with “the morbidity and mortality of COVID-19 infection, in which up to 28% of hospitalized patients showed signs of myocardial injury,” wrote Vinay Guduguntla, MD, University of California, San Francisco, and Mitchell H. Katz, MD, NYC Health + Hospitals, New York, in an editorial accompanying the report from Dr. Lee and associates.

“Randomized clinical trials show that COVID-19 mRNA vaccines represent a safe and effective method of preventing infection,” they stated. “The identification of rare myocarditis does not change clinical decision-making.”

Dr. Bozkurt, who is immediate past president of the Heart Failure Society of America, has disclosed consulting for Bayer and scPharmaceuticals and serving on a clinical events committee for a trial supported by Abbott Pharmaceuticals and on a data and safety monitoring board for a trial supported by Liva Nova Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Lee and the report’s other authors had no disclosures. Dr. Mevorach discloses consulting for Enlivex Therapeutics; disclosures for the other authors are available at NEJM.org. Dr. Witberg said he has no interests to disclose; disclosures for the other authors are available at NEJM.org. Dr. Guduguntla is an editorial fellow and Dr. Katz a deputy editor at JAMA Internal Medicine; neither had disclosures.

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

Recent literature features new descriptions of myocarditis linked to the two available mRNA vaccines against SARS-CoV-2. They tell a story largely consistent with experience to date, and support what might be its most useful public health message: The associated myocarditis is usually mild and self-limiting, and is far less likely to occur than myocarditis or death in unvaccinated people with COVID-19.

In line with previous research, the new analyses suggest the myocarditis – with onset usually a few days to a week after injection – has an overall incidence that ranges from less than 1 to perhaps 3 per 100,000 people who received at least one of the full mRNA-vaccine regimen’s two injections. Also, as in earlier studies, the incidence climbed higher – sometimes sharply – in certain groups by age and sex, particularly in young men and older male teens.

The new studies “are confirmatory, in terms of the risk being low,” but underscore that clinicians still must be wary of myocarditis as a potential complication of the mRNA vaccines, Biykem Bozkurt, MD, PhD, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, told this news organization.

Dr. Bozkurt, a leading heart failure specialist and researcher, did not contribute to any of the new reports but does study the myocarditis of COVID-19 and was lead author on a recent review of the potential vaccine complication’s features and possible mechanisms.

In the new myocarditis reports, she observed, more than 90% of the cases were mild and “resolved on their own without a major adverse outcome.” Dr. Bozkurt emphasized the need for perspective regarding the risk. For example, the myocarditis associated with SARS-CoV-2 infection is not only more likely than the vaccine-related myocarditis, but it’s also usually far more severe.

Dr. Bozkurt pointed to a recent study in which the mRNA vaccines, compared with no vaccination, appeared to escalate the myocarditis risk by a factor of 3, whereas the risk for myocarditis in SARS-CoV-2 infection was increased 18 times.

In contrast, she observed, the new myocarditis cases reported this week feature a few that are novel or are at least very rare, including the case of a patient who developed cardiogenic shock and another with fulminant myocarditis who died.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in May publicly described the apparent link between myocarditis and the two available mRNA vaccines against SARS-CoV-2: BNT162b2 (Pfizer-BioNTech) and mRNA-1273 (Moderna). The next month, the Food and Drug Administration added a warning about the risk to the labeling.
 

Less than 1 case per 100,000

Fifteen confirmed cases of myocarditis were identified among about 2.4 million members of Kaiser Permanente Southern California aged 18 or older who received at least one injection of the Pfizer or Moderna mRNA vaccines between December 2020 and July 2021, in a report published in JAMA Internal Medicine. The study counted cases up to 10 days after the first or second injection, of which there were 2 and 13, respectively.

All eight patients who received the Pfizer BNT162b2 vaccine and the eight given the Moderna mRNA-1273 vaccine were male with a median age of 25 years (interquartile range, 20-32 years).

“The main takeaway messages from our study are that the incidence of myocarditis after COVID-19 mRNA vaccinations is very low, that this condition is primarily observed in young men within a few days after the second dose, and that most patients recover quickly,” senior author Mingsum Lee, MD, PhD, Kaiser Permanente Los Angeles Medical Center, told this news organization.

“The incidence of vaccine-related myocarditis was significantly lower than rates of COVID-19 hospitalization during the same period and population area,” she added.

The group saw a per-million incidence of 0.8 and 5.8 myocarditis cases in the 10 days after first and second injections, respectively. That made for an incidence of 0.58 per 100,000, or 1 case per 172,414 fully vaccinated adults.

The group also considered a cohort of 1,577,741 unvaccinated people with a median age of 39 years (interquartile range, 28-53 years) during the same period. Of the 75 cases of myocarditis, 52% were in men, they reported.

Comparing the vaccinated and unvaccinated cohorts, they saw a 10-day vaccine-associated myocarditis incidence rate ratio of 0.38 (95% confidence interval, 0.05-1.40; P = .15) after the first dose, and 2.7 (95% CI, 1.4-4.8; P = .004) after the second dose.

In a comparison of the vaccinated group with itself using data from a 10-day period in the previous year, the corresponding myocarditis IRRs were 1.0 (P > .99) and 3.3 (P = .03), respectively.

Dr. Lee said none of the 15 patients required admission to an intensive care unit. “All patients with myocarditis responded well to treatment and felt better quickly,” she noted.

Myocarditis after an mRNA vaccine injection is rare and, Dr. Lee said emphatically, and “the benefits of the COVID-19 vaccine greatly outweigh the risks.”
 

Sex- and age-stratified rates

In a separate analysis of 5,442,696 people given a first dose of the Pfizer BNT162b2 vaccine and 5,125,635 given a second dose, there were 142 cases of myocarditis with onset 21 days after dose 1 and 30 days after dose 2. Of those cases, 136 were documented as “definite or probable” in an Israeli Ministry of Health database that covered up to the end of May 2021.

There were also 40 cases among vaccinated people seen after the 30-day window, which were considered not related to the vaccination, and 101 cases among unvaccinated people; of the latter, 29 had confirmed diagnoses of COVID-19.

Of the 136 people with definite or probable cases, the myocarditis was “generally mild” in 129 and usually resolved on its own, notes the report on the study, published in the New England Journal of Medicine, with lead author Dror Mevorach, MD, Hadassah-Hebrew University Medical Center, Jerusalem.

The estimated myocarditis incidence after a second such vaccine dose across the entire Israeli population, based on the current study, was about one per 26,000 males and one per 218,000 females, the group writes. Those figures compare with one case per 10,857 among “the general unvaccinated population.”

Again, the risk was concentrated among younger men and male adolescents. In an analysis limited to vaccinated people aged 16-19 years, myocarditis in the 21 days after a second mRNA injection was seen in about one of 6,637 males and one of 99,853 females, the group reported.

The standardized incidence ratio of 5.34 (95% CI, 4.48-6.40) after a second injection, across all groups, “was driven mostly by the diagnosis of myocarditis in younger male recipients.” Among that male subgroup, the ratios by age group were 13.60 (95% CI, 9.30-19.20) for 16-19 years, 8.53 (95% CI, 5.57-12.50) for 20-24 years, and 6.96 (95% CI, 4.25-10.75) for 25-29 years.

Among people who received a second injection, compared with unvaccinated people, the 30-day rate ratio was 2.35 (95% CI, 1.10-5.02). Again, the effect was concentrated in males aged 16-19 years. Among them, the myocarditis rate ratios in the 30 days after a second mRNA vaccine injection were 8.96 (95% CI, 4.50-17.83) for the 16-19 years group, 6.13 (95% CI, 3.16-11.88) for the 20-24 group, and 3.58 (95% CI, 1.82-7.01) for 25-29 years.

Most of the patients with myocarditis showed “significant clinical improvement,” with a mean hospitalization time of only 3-4 days, the report notes. Treatment consisted of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs “with or without colchicine for presumed pericardial inflammation.”

However, seven patients (4.9%) developed important complications, including left-ventricular dysfunction, ventricular arrhythmias, and heart failure. Among them was a 22-year-old patient who died of fulminant myocarditis within 24 hours of diagnosis, the group wrote.
 

From an Israeli health care organization

Published by the same journal as the study by Dr. Menvorach and associates, an analysis of a separate database showed largely consistent findings among patients in the largest of Israel’s four health care organizations charged by the government to administer health services.

The report, with authors led by Guy Witberg, MD, Rabin Medical Center, Petah Tikva, Israel, focused on members of the health care organization aged 16 years or older who had received at least one Pfizer mRNA vaccine dose by the end of May 2021.

The cohorts from the two separate reports surely overlap substantially, as the Ministry of Health analysis from Dr. Mevorach and colleagues derived from a nationwide database, and – as Dr. Witberg and associates wrote – the health care organization providing their data covers 52% of the Israeli population.

Of 2,558,421 vaccinated people in the analysis, of whom 94% received two doses, 54 developed confirmed myocarditis in the 42 days after the first dose. Their median age was 27 years (interquartile range, 21-35 years) and all but three (94%) were male. Of those 54 cases, 41 were considered mild and 12 intermediate in severity, and one was fulminant with the patient in cardiogenic shock, the group writes. In addition, nonsustained ventricular tachycardia and atrial fibrillation developed in 5% and 3% of cases, respectively.

The estimated myocarditis incidence in the 42 days after administration of at least one mRNA vaccine dose was 2.13 per 100,000 vaccinated people. In that group, Dr. Witberg and colleagues note, the corresponding incidences per 100,000 were 4.12 and 0.23 for males and females, respectively.

Also in the current report, incidences per 100,000 vaccinated people aged 16-29 years, by sex, included 5.49 (95% CI, 3.59-7.39) overall, and 10.69 (95% CI, 6.93-14.46) for males (the highest rate in the report).

There was only one case in a female aged 16-29 years, and two cases in females 30 years or older.

Of note, some authors of the current study are also authors on the high-profile report from Noam Barda, MD, and colleagues published in the New England Journal of Medicine, that used the same database to arrive at an mRNA-vaccine-related incidence of myocarditis of 2.7 per 100,000. Eligibility criteria and follow-up time were different in that report, as were case ascertainment criteria.

The myocarditis risk associated with the two mRNA vaccines is small compared with “the morbidity and mortality of COVID-19 infection, in which up to 28% of hospitalized patients showed signs of myocardial injury,” wrote Vinay Guduguntla, MD, University of California, San Francisco, and Mitchell H. Katz, MD, NYC Health + Hospitals, New York, in an editorial accompanying the report from Dr. Lee and associates.

“Randomized clinical trials show that COVID-19 mRNA vaccines represent a safe and effective method of preventing infection,” they stated. “The identification of rare myocarditis does not change clinical decision-making.”

Dr. Bozkurt, who is immediate past president of the Heart Failure Society of America, has disclosed consulting for Bayer and scPharmaceuticals and serving on a clinical events committee for a trial supported by Abbott Pharmaceuticals and on a data and safety monitoring board for a trial supported by Liva Nova Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Lee and the report’s other authors had no disclosures. Dr. Mevorach discloses consulting for Enlivex Therapeutics; disclosures for the other authors are available at NEJM.org. Dr. Witberg said he has no interests to disclose; disclosures for the other authors are available at NEJM.org. Dr. Guduguntla is an editorial fellow and Dr. Katz a deputy editor at JAMA Internal Medicine; neither had disclosures.

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

Taking high-doses of marine omega-3 fatty acids, more than 1 gram daily, may raise the risk for atrial fibrillation (AFib), according to a meta-analysis of relevant research. 

However, the risk of developing AFib appears to be “relatively small” for those taking 1 gram or less of fish oil per day, Christine M. Albert, MD, chair of the department of cardiology at the Smidt Heart Institute at Cedars-Sinai, Los Angeles, told this news organization.

The study was published online Oct. 6 in the journal Circulation.

It’s estimated that 7.8% of U.S. adults – almost 19 million in all – take fish oil supplements, often unbeknownst to their health care providers, the researchers noted. Yet, the literature on the effects of omega-3 fatty acid supplementation on cardiovascular outcomes are mixed.

“Some, but not all” large-scale randomized controlled trials investigating the effects of marine omega-3 fatty acid supplements on cardiovascular outcomes have reported increased risks for AFib. The potential reasons for differing findings may be dose related, the authors note in their paper.

The goal of this meta-analysis was to “bring clarity, answers, and actionable information” to doctors and patients, said Dr. Albert. The results suggest, however, that there may not be a “straightforward answer” to whether fish oil is good or bad for AFib. Instead, the answer may depend on the dose, she added.
 

Pooled data

After screening 4,049 articles and abstracts, the researchers included in their analysis seven large-scale randomized controlled trials reporting cardiovascular outcomes of marine omega-3 fatty acids.

The trials reported results for AFib, either as prespecified outcome, adverse event, or a reason for hospitalization. Each had a minimum of 500 patients and a median follow-up of at least 1 year. 

Trials examining the effects of omega-3 fatty acids on recurrent AFib in patients with established AFib or postoperative AFib were excluded.

The seven trials enrolled a total of 81,210 patients (mean age, 65 years; 39% women); 72.6% of participants were enrolled in clinical trials testing ≤1 gram of marine omega-3 fatty acids per day and 27.4% were enrolled in clinical trials testing >1 gram of the supplement per day. The weighted average follow-up was 4.9 years.

Overall, use of omega-3 fatty acids was associated with a 25% increased risk for AFib (hazard ratio, 1.25; 95% confidence interval, 1.07-1.46; P = .013).

In analyses stratified by dose, the risk for AFib was “significantly more pronounced” in trials testing high doses of marine omega-3 fatty acid supplements (>1 gram per day: HR, 1.49; 95% CI, 1.04-2.15; P = .042) compared with those testing lower doses (≤1 gram per day: HR, 1.12; 95% CI, 1.03-1.22; P = .024; P for interaction < .001).

In meta-regression, the HR for AFib increased per 1 gram increase in daily omega-3 fatty acid dose (HR. 1.11; 95% CI, 1.06-1.15; P = .001).
 

Risk-benefit balance

“This meta-analysis adds new evidence regarding the risk of AFib in patients taking marine omega-3 fatty acid supplements,” wrote Dr. Albert and colleagues.

“Since the benefit of omega-3 fatty acids also appears to be dose dependent, the associated risk of AFib should be balanced against the benefit on atherosclerotic cardiovascular outcomes,” they suggested.

They cautioned that the meta-analysis pooled aggregate-level trial data, not individual patient data. Therefore, subgroup analyses by age or other patient level characteristics were not possible.

The risk of developing AFib increases with advancing age and is more common in men than in women. Additional risk factors include elevated blood pressure, coronary artery disease, heart failure, heart valve defects, obesity, and diabetes.

The authors said the potential risk of developing AFib with high doses of omega-3 fatty acid supplements should be discussed with patients and they should know the signs and symptoms of the condition.

The study had no specific funding. Dr. Albert has received grants from St. Jude Medical, Abbott, and Roche Diagnostics.

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

Taking high-doses of marine omega-3 fatty acids, more than 1 gram daily, may raise the risk for atrial fibrillation (AFib), according to a meta-analysis of relevant research. 

However, the risk of developing AFib appears to be “relatively small” for those taking 1 gram or less of fish oil per day, Christine M. Albert, MD, chair of the department of cardiology at the Smidt Heart Institute at Cedars-Sinai, Los Angeles, told this news organization.

The study was published online Oct. 6 in the journal Circulation.

It’s estimated that 7.8% of U.S. adults – almost 19 million in all – take fish oil supplements, often unbeknownst to their health care providers, the researchers noted. Yet, the literature on the effects of omega-3 fatty acid supplementation on cardiovascular outcomes are mixed.

“Some, but not all” large-scale randomized controlled trials investigating the effects of marine omega-3 fatty acid supplements on cardiovascular outcomes have reported increased risks for AFib. The potential reasons for differing findings may be dose related, the authors note in their paper.

The goal of this meta-analysis was to “bring clarity, answers, and actionable information” to doctors and patients, said Dr. Albert. The results suggest, however, that there may not be a “straightforward answer” to whether fish oil is good or bad for AFib. Instead, the answer may depend on the dose, she added.
 

Pooled data

After screening 4,049 articles and abstracts, the researchers included in their analysis seven large-scale randomized controlled trials reporting cardiovascular outcomes of marine omega-3 fatty acids.

The trials reported results for AFib, either as prespecified outcome, adverse event, or a reason for hospitalization. Each had a minimum of 500 patients and a median follow-up of at least 1 year. 

Trials examining the effects of omega-3 fatty acids on recurrent AFib in patients with established AFib or postoperative AFib were excluded.

The seven trials enrolled a total of 81,210 patients (mean age, 65 years; 39% women); 72.6% of participants were enrolled in clinical trials testing ≤1 gram of marine omega-3 fatty acids per day and 27.4% were enrolled in clinical trials testing >1 gram of the supplement per day. The weighted average follow-up was 4.9 years.

Overall, use of omega-3 fatty acids was associated with a 25% increased risk for AFib (hazard ratio, 1.25; 95% confidence interval, 1.07-1.46; P = .013).

In analyses stratified by dose, the risk for AFib was “significantly more pronounced” in trials testing high doses of marine omega-3 fatty acid supplements (>1 gram per day: HR, 1.49; 95% CI, 1.04-2.15; P = .042) compared with those testing lower doses (≤1 gram per day: HR, 1.12; 95% CI, 1.03-1.22; P = .024; P for interaction < .001).

In meta-regression, the HR for AFib increased per 1 gram increase in daily omega-3 fatty acid dose (HR. 1.11; 95% CI, 1.06-1.15; P = .001).
 

Risk-benefit balance

“This meta-analysis adds new evidence regarding the risk of AFib in patients taking marine omega-3 fatty acid supplements,” wrote Dr. Albert and colleagues.

“Since the benefit of omega-3 fatty acids also appears to be dose dependent, the associated risk of AFib should be balanced against the benefit on atherosclerotic cardiovascular outcomes,” they suggested.

They cautioned that the meta-analysis pooled aggregate-level trial data, not individual patient data. Therefore, subgroup analyses by age or other patient level characteristics were not possible.

The risk of developing AFib increases with advancing age and is more common in men than in women. Additional risk factors include elevated blood pressure, coronary artery disease, heart failure, heart valve defects, obesity, and diabetes.

The authors said the potential risk of developing AFib with high doses of omega-3 fatty acid supplements should be discussed with patients and they should know the signs and symptoms of the condition.

The study had no specific funding. Dr. Albert has received grants from St. Jude Medical, Abbott, and Roche Diagnostics.

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

Taking high-doses of marine omega-3 fatty acids, more than 1 gram daily, may raise the risk for atrial fibrillation (AFib), according to a meta-analysis of relevant research. 

However, the risk of developing AFib appears to be “relatively small” for those taking 1 gram or less of fish oil per day, Christine M. Albert, MD, chair of the department of cardiology at the Smidt Heart Institute at Cedars-Sinai, Los Angeles, told this news organization.

The study was published online Oct. 6 in the journal Circulation.

It’s estimated that 7.8% of U.S. adults – almost 19 million in all – take fish oil supplements, often unbeknownst to their health care providers, the researchers noted. Yet, the literature on the effects of omega-3 fatty acid supplementation on cardiovascular outcomes are mixed.

“Some, but not all” large-scale randomized controlled trials investigating the effects of marine omega-3 fatty acid supplements on cardiovascular outcomes have reported increased risks for AFib. The potential reasons for differing findings may be dose related, the authors note in their paper.

The goal of this meta-analysis was to “bring clarity, answers, and actionable information” to doctors and patients, said Dr. Albert. The results suggest, however, that there may not be a “straightforward answer” to whether fish oil is good or bad for AFib. Instead, the answer may depend on the dose, she added.
 

Pooled data

After screening 4,049 articles and abstracts, the researchers included in their analysis seven large-scale randomized controlled trials reporting cardiovascular outcomes of marine omega-3 fatty acids.

The trials reported results for AFib, either as prespecified outcome, adverse event, or a reason for hospitalization. Each had a minimum of 500 patients and a median follow-up of at least 1 year. 

Trials examining the effects of omega-3 fatty acids on recurrent AFib in patients with established AFib or postoperative AFib were excluded.

The seven trials enrolled a total of 81,210 patients (mean age, 65 years; 39% women); 72.6% of participants were enrolled in clinical trials testing ≤1 gram of marine omega-3 fatty acids per day and 27.4% were enrolled in clinical trials testing >1 gram of the supplement per day. The weighted average follow-up was 4.9 years.

Overall, use of omega-3 fatty acids was associated with a 25% increased risk for AFib (hazard ratio, 1.25; 95% confidence interval, 1.07-1.46; P = .013).

In analyses stratified by dose, the risk for AFib was “significantly more pronounced” in trials testing high doses of marine omega-3 fatty acid supplements (>1 gram per day: HR, 1.49; 95% CI, 1.04-2.15; P = .042) compared with those testing lower doses (≤1 gram per day: HR, 1.12; 95% CI, 1.03-1.22; P = .024; P for interaction < .001).

In meta-regression, the HR for AFib increased per 1 gram increase in daily omega-3 fatty acid dose (HR. 1.11; 95% CI, 1.06-1.15; P = .001).
 

Risk-benefit balance

“This meta-analysis adds new evidence regarding the risk of AFib in patients taking marine omega-3 fatty acid supplements,” wrote Dr. Albert and colleagues.

“Since the benefit of omega-3 fatty acids also appears to be dose dependent, the associated risk of AFib should be balanced against the benefit on atherosclerotic cardiovascular outcomes,” they suggested.

They cautioned that the meta-analysis pooled aggregate-level trial data, not individual patient data. Therefore, subgroup analyses by age or other patient level characteristics were not possible.

The risk of developing AFib increases with advancing age and is more common in men than in women. Additional risk factors include elevated blood pressure, coronary artery disease, heart failure, heart valve defects, obesity, and diabetes.

The authors said the potential risk of developing AFib with high doses of omega-3 fatty acid supplements should be discussed with patients and they should know the signs and symptoms of the condition.

The study had no specific funding. Dr. Albert has received grants from St. Jude Medical, Abbott, and Roche Diagnostics.

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

The rapid transition to and reliance on telehealth to manage patients with heart failure during the COVID-19 pandemic does not appear to impact clinical outcomes, according to real-world data.

HF outpatients managed with telehealth visits did not show a significantly higher adjusted risk for subsequent ED visits, hospital admissions, intensive care use, or death at 30 and 90 days, the investigators reported in JACC: Heart Failure.

“Telehealth is safe and effective in probably some of our highest-risk patients who traditionally have needed hands-on, in-person assessment and evaluation – those patients who have heart failure – so we shouldn’t be afraid to use it all the time, not when needed as a minimum,” senior author Brett W. Sperry, MD, said in an interview.

Heart failure is a perfect case example to examine telehealth because the chronic condition not only requires continual assessment and medication adjustments, but HF patients are also particularly vulnerable to complications related to COVID-19 infection, he noted. A small, single-center report on telehealth early in Italy’s outbreak showed fewer HF hospitalizations and similar mortality, compared with in-person visits in 2019 but, overall, few data exist.

The current analysis took a wider sweep, comparing HF patients seen from March 15 to June 15, 2020 with those seen during the same time period in 2018 and 2019 at 16 cardiology clinics in Saint Luke’s Health System, which serves the Kansas City metro area and surrounding suburbs in Missouri and Kansas.

Among 8,263 unique patients and 15,421 visits identified, telehealth was not used in 2018 or 2019 but accounted for 88.5% of visits during the study period in 2020, 70% of which were by telephone and 30% of which were by video.

“We had zero telehealth before March 2020 and basically built an entire telehealth apparatus in a week or 2,” explained Dr. Sperry. “Initially it was a lot of telephone visits while we were getting the video stuff figured out, which is reflected in the paper, and then went to mostly video visits.”

Despite the pandemic, however, more outpatients were seen in 2020 than in 2018 and 2019 (4,063 vs. 3675 and 3,619 patients, respectively). This likely reflects the shift of personnel and resources from hospital duties to outpatient virtual visits, which were strongly recommended by the Heart Failure Society of America and other professional societies to manage patients during the pandemic, he said.

Unadjusted analyses demonstrated fewer ED visits and hospital admissions and more ICU admissions and all-cause mortality in 2020 than in previous years.

A propensity-matched analysis involving 4541 pairs of patients, however, showed admissions to the ED or hospital were lower after the telehealth visits than after in-person visits at 30 days (6.8% vs 10.4%; P < .001) and 90 days (17.9% vs. 23.3%; P < .001).

Among hospitalized patients, there was no difference between telehealth and in-patient visits in ICU admissions at 30 or 90 days. Mortality was also similar at 30 days (0.8% vs. 0.7%; P = .465) and 90 days (2.9% vs. 2.4%; P = .133).

Dr. Sperry said the pendulum has swung since 2020 and that the team is back to seeing most people in person, with about 15% of his clinic visits that day done via video. Standardized quality of life assessments prior to outpatient visits can help triage patients to telehealth in-patient visits, but in-person visits will still be needed for cases with greater acuity, older patients, and those with limited or no access to quality telephone videos or the internet.

“It isn’t for everyone,” Dr. Sperry said. “You’re going to need some kind of hybrid model with both in-person and video visits available and be able to offer both for patients and be able to titrate that as the pandemic changes in the future.”

Ankit Bhatia, MD, an advanced HF cardiologist at Christ Hospital in Cincinnati, who was not part of the study, said in an interview the use of telehealth in 85% of patients may be higher than the norm at most centers but that the study provides much-needed data.

“I’m really appreciative of a study like this because we were all in such a rush last year to get patients seen that very few people thought how could we design a study to really ensure we’re treating our patients within an equipoise with prior practices,” he said.

“The fact that they were able to do that [85%] and demonstrate in a propensity-matched analysis that outcomes were similar really just shows that telehealth is a strategy that we can use well in patients with heart failure to extend our ability to take care of them,” said Dr. Bhatia, a member of the American College of Cardiology Health Care Innovation Council.

Even beyond the pandemic, he said, the trend in health care is for patients to want health care delivered closer to home and for health care systems to become more patient centric. “This accelerated that but what I think this study showed me was that it’s okay to have this be part of my care model and I’m not sacrificing on my patient care if I choose to intersperse telehealth with inpatient visits.”

Besides the inherent limitations of retrospective studies, the authors noted that diagnoses in the study were based on ICD-10 codes and that subsequent ED visits or hospitalizations outside the single system may have been underreported. A further limitation is that they could not identify the cause of death or reasons for hospital encounters.

“Further data are needed to confirm the relative safety of a telehealth strategy in the HF population over a more sustained period of time, although we hypothesize that greater risks would be observed early after telehealth visits, where patients’ acuity might be misjudged,” they wrote.

Dr. Sperry is a consultant to Pfizer and Alnylam. Coauthor John A. Spertus is the principal investigator of grants from National Institutes of Health, Abbott Vascular, and the American College of Cardiology Foundation; is a consultant to Janssen, Novartis, Amgen, Myokardia, AstraZeneca, Bayer, and Merck; serves on the scientific advisory board of United Healthcare and the board of directors for Blue Cross Blue Shield of Kansas City; owns the copyright to the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire, Seattle Angina Questionnaire, and Peripheral Artery Questionnaire; and has an equity interest in Health Outcomes Sciences. All other authors and Dr. Bhatia reported no relevant conflicts.

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

The rapid transition to and reliance on telehealth to manage patients with heart failure during the COVID-19 pandemic does not appear to impact clinical outcomes, according to real-world data.

HF outpatients managed with telehealth visits did not show a significantly higher adjusted risk for subsequent ED visits, hospital admissions, intensive care use, or death at 30 and 90 days, the investigators reported in JACC: Heart Failure.

“Telehealth is safe and effective in probably some of our highest-risk patients who traditionally have needed hands-on, in-person assessment and evaluation – those patients who have heart failure – so we shouldn’t be afraid to use it all the time, not when needed as a minimum,” senior author Brett W. Sperry, MD, said in an interview.

Heart failure is a perfect case example to examine telehealth because the chronic condition not only requires continual assessment and medication adjustments, but HF patients are also particularly vulnerable to complications related to COVID-19 infection, he noted. A small, single-center report on telehealth early in Italy’s outbreak showed fewer HF hospitalizations and similar mortality, compared with in-person visits in 2019 but, overall, few data exist.

The current analysis took a wider sweep, comparing HF patients seen from March 15 to June 15, 2020 with those seen during the same time period in 2018 and 2019 at 16 cardiology clinics in Saint Luke’s Health System, which serves the Kansas City metro area and surrounding suburbs in Missouri and Kansas.

Among 8,263 unique patients and 15,421 visits identified, telehealth was not used in 2018 or 2019 but accounted for 88.5% of visits during the study period in 2020, 70% of which were by telephone and 30% of which were by video.

“We had zero telehealth before March 2020 and basically built an entire telehealth apparatus in a week or 2,” explained Dr. Sperry. “Initially it was a lot of telephone visits while we were getting the video stuff figured out, which is reflected in the paper, and then went to mostly video visits.”

Despite the pandemic, however, more outpatients were seen in 2020 than in 2018 and 2019 (4,063 vs. 3675 and 3,619 patients, respectively). This likely reflects the shift of personnel and resources from hospital duties to outpatient virtual visits, which were strongly recommended by the Heart Failure Society of America and other professional societies to manage patients during the pandemic, he said.

Unadjusted analyses demonstrated fewer ED visits and hospital admissions and more ICU admissions and all-cause mortality in 2020 than in previous years.

A propensity-matched analysis involving 4541 pairs of patients, however, showed admissions to the ED or hospital were lower after the telehealth visits than after in-person visits at 30 days (6.8% vs 10.4%; P < .001) and 90 days (17.9% vs. 23.3%; P < .001).

Among hospitalized patients, there was no difference between telehealth and in-patient visits in ICU admissions at 30 or 90 days. Mortality was also similar at 30 days (0.8% vs. 0.7%; P = .465) and 90 days (2.9% vs. 2.4%; P = .133).

Dr. Sperry said the pendulum has swung since 2020 and that the team is back to seeing most people in person, with about 15% of his clinic visits that day done via video. Standardized quality of life assessments prior to outpatient visits can help triage patients to telehealth in-patient visits, but in-person visits will still be needed for cases with greater acuity, older patients, and those with limited or no access to quality telephone videos or the internet.

“It isn’t for everyone,” Dr. Sperry said. “You’re going to need some kind of hybrid model with both in-person and video visits available and be able to offer both for patients and be able to titrate that as the pandemic changes in the future.”

Ankit Bhatia, MD, an advanced HF cardiologist at Christ Hospital in Cincinnati, who was not part of the study, said in an interview the use of telehealth in 85% of patients may be higher than the norm at most centers but that the study provides much-needed data.

“I’m really appreciative of a study like this because we were all in such a rush last year to get patients seen that very few people thought how could we design a study to really ensure we’re treating our patients within an equipoise with prior practices,” he said.

“The fact that they were able to do that [85%] and demonstrate in a propensity-matched analysis that outcomes were similar really just shows that telehealth is a strategy that we can use well in patients with heart failure to extend our ability to take care of them,” said Dr. Bhatia, a member of the American College of Cardiology Health Care Innovation Council.

Even beyond the pandemic, he said, the trend in health care is for patients to want health care delivered closer to home and for health care systems to become more patient centric. “This accelerated that but what I think this study showed me was that it’s okay to have this be part of my care model and I’m not sacrificing on my patient care if I choose to intersperse telehealth with inpatient visits.”

Besides the inherent limitations of retrospective studies, the authors noted that diagnoses in the study were based on ICD-10 codes and that subsequent ED visits or hospitalizations outside the single system may have been underreported. A further limitation is that they could not identify the cause of death or reasons for hospital encounters.

“Further data are needed to confirm the relative safety of a telehealth strategy in the HF population over a more sustained period of time, although we hypothesize that greater risks would be observed early after telehealth visits, where patients’ acuity might be misjudged,” they wrote.

Dr. Sperry is a consultant to Pfizer and Alnylam. Coauthor John A. Spertus is the principal investigator of grants from National Institutes of Health, Abbott Vascular, and the American College of Cardiology Foundation; is a consultant to Janssen, Novartis, Amgen, Myokardia, AstraZeneca, Bayer, and Merck; serves on the scientific advisory board of United Healthcare and the board of directors for Blue Cross Blue Shield of Kansas City; owns the copyright to the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire, Seattle Angina Questionnaire, and Peripheral Artery Questionnaire; and has an equity interest in Health Outcomes Sciences. All other authors and Dr. Bhatia reported no relevant conflicts.

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

The rapid transition to and reliance on telehealth to manage patients with heart failure during the COVID-19 pandemic does not appear to impact clinical outcomes, according to real-world data.

HF outpatients managed with telehealth visits did not show a significantly higher adjusted risk for subsequent ED visits, hospital admissions, intensive care use, or death at 30 and 90 days, the investigators reported in JACC: Heart Failure.

“Telehealth is safe and effective in probably some of our highest-risk patients who traditionally have needed hands-on, in-person assessment and evaluation – those patients who have heart failure – so we shouldn’t be afraid to use it all the time, not when needed as a minimum,” senior author Brett W. Sperry, MD, said in an interview.

Heart failure is a perfect case example to examine telehealth because the chronic condition not only requires continual assessment and medication adjustments, but HF patients are also particularly vulnerable to complications related to COVID-19 infection, he noted. A small, single-center report on telehealth early in Italy’s outbreak showed fewer HF hospitalizations and similar mortality, compared with in-person visits in 2019 but, overall, few data exist.

The current analysis took a wider sweep, comparing HF patients seen from March 15 to June 15, 2020 with those seen during the same time period in 2018 and 2019 at 16 cardiology clinics in Saint Luke’s Health System, which serves the Kansas City metro area and surrounding suburbs in Missouri and Kansas.

Among 8,263 unique patients and 15,421 visits identified, telehealth was not used in 2018 or 2019 but accounted for 88.5% of visits during the study period in 2020, 70% of which were by telephone and 30% of which were by video.

“We had zero telehealth before March 2020 and basically built an entire telehealth apparatus in a week or 2,” explained Dr. Sperry. “Initially it was a lot of telephone visits while we were getting the video stuff figured out, which is reflected in the paper, and then went to mostly video visits.”

Despite the pandemic, however, more outpatients were seen in 2020 than in 2018 and 2019 (4,063 vs. 3675 and 3,619 patients, respectively). This likely reflects the shift of personnel and resources from hospital duties to outpatient virtual visits, which were strongly recommended by the Heart Failure Society of America and other professional societies to manage patients during the pandemic, he said.

Unadjusted analyses demonstrated fewer ED visits and hospital admissions and more ICU admissions and all-cause mortality in 2020 than in previous years.

A propensity-matched analysis involving 4541 pairs of patients, however, showed admissions to the ED or hospital were lower after the telehealth visits than after in-person visits at 30 days (6.8% vs 10.4%; P < .001) and 90 days (17.9% vs. 23.3%; P < .001).

Among hospitalized patients, there was no difference between telehealth and in-patient visits in ICU admissions at 30 or 90 days. Mortality was also similar at 30 days (0.8% vs. 0.7%; P = .465) and 90 days (2.9% vs. 2.4%; P = .133).

Dr. Sperry said the pendulum has swung since 2020 and that the team is back to seeing most people in person, with about 15% of his clinic visits that day done via video. Standardized quality of life assessments prior to outpatient visits can help triage patients to telehealth in-patient visits, but in-person visits will still be needed for cases with greater acuity, older patients, and those with limited or no access to quality telephone videos or the internet.

“It isn’t for everyone,” Dr. Sperry said. “You’re going to need some kind of hybrid model with both in-person and video visits available and be able to offer both for patients and be able to titrate that as the pandemic changes in the future.”

Ankit Bhatia, MD, an advanced HF cardiologist at Christ Hospital in Cincinnati, who was not part of the study, said in an interview the use of telehealth in 85% of patients may be higher than the norm at most centers but that the study provides much-needed data.

“I’m really appreciative of a study like this because we were all in such a rush last year to get patients seen that very few people thought how could we design a study to really ensure we’re treating our patients within an equipoise with prior practices,” he said.

“The fact that they were able to do that [85%] and demonstrate in a propensity-matched analysis that outcomes were similar really just shows that telehealth is a strategy that we can use well in patients with heart failure to extend our ability to take care of them,” said Dr. Bhatia, a member of the American College of Cardiology Health Care Innovation Council.

Even beyond the pandemic, he said, the trend in health care is for patients to want health care delivered closer to home and for health care systems to become more patient centric. “This accelerated that but what I think this study showed me was that it’s okay to have this be part of my care model and I’m not sacrificing on my patient care if I choose to intersperse telehealth with inpatient visits.”

Besides the inherent limitations of retrospective studies, the authors noted that diagnoses in the study were based on ICD-10 codes and that subsequent ED visits or hospitalizations outside the single system may have been underreported. A further limitation is that they could not identify the cause of death or reasons for hospital encounters.

“Further data are needed to confirm the relative safety of a telehealth strategy in the HF population over a more sustained period of time, although we hypothesize that greater risks would be observed early after telehealth visits, where patients’ acuity might be misjudged,” they wrote.

Dr. Sperry is a consultant to Pfizer and Alnylam. Coauthor John A. Spertus is the principal investigator of grants from National Institutes of Health, Abbott Vascular, and the American College of Cardiology Foundation; is a consultant to Janssen, Novartis, Amgen, Myokardia, AstraZeneca, Bayer, and Merck; serves on the scientific advisory board of United Healthcare and the board of directors for Blue Cross Blue Shield of Kansas City; owns the copyright to the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire, Seattle Angina Questionnaire, and Peripheral Artery Questionnaire; and has an equity interest in Health Outcomes Sciences. All other authors and Dr. Bhatia reported no relevant conflicts.

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

New research shows that supine orthostatic hypotension is more common and better predicts falls and orthostatic symptoms than seated OH, supporting a supine OH protocol in clinical practice, the researchers say.

“Older adults at risk for falls undergoing assessment for OH should lie supine rather than sitting prior to standing to get the most informative OH assessment,” study author Stephen Juraschek, MD, PhD, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center/Harvard Medical School, Boston, said in an interview.

“The findings call for a change in current practice,” Dr. Juraschek said.

He presented the study Sept. 29 at the joint scientific sessions of the American Heart Association Council on Hypertension, AHA Council on Kidney in Cardiovascular Disease, and American Society of Hypertension.

The seated position for detecting OH is “commonly used for convenience. Since many clinics already perform a seated blood pressure, it saves time for people to stand shortly afterward,” he explained.

“It has also been thought that the two are interchangeable [i.e., the change in blood pressure from seated to standing was just a lower magnitude than the change from supine to standing]. However, we showed that the physiology is on average quite different, questioning prior perspectives on the interchangeability of the two protocols,” he added.

The researchers studied 522 adults (mean age, 76 years; 42% women) at high risk for falls and with vitamin D levels in the insufficient/deficient range participating in the Study to Understand Fall Reduction and Vitamin D (STURDY).

The study showed that vitamin D supplementation was not associated with OH or the main study outcome of falls.

The study used two different OH assessment protocols – seated to standing and supine to standing – and Dr. Juraschek’s team used the data to gauge the impact of supine and seated positions on OH prevalence and its relation with fall risk and orthostatic symptoms.

OH was defined as a drop in systolic BP of at least 20 mm Hg or diastolic BP of at least 10 mm Hg.

At baseline, mean BP was 129/68 mm Hg. Mean BP increased 3.4/2.6 mm Hg after sitting, but decreased 3.7/0.7 mm Hg after lying supine.

Of the 953 OH assessments (supine and seated), OH was detected in 14.8% of the supine measurements but in only 2.2% of the seated measures.

Supine OH better predicted falls (hazard ratio, 1.60; 95% CI, 0.98-2.61; P = .06) than seated OH (HR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.30-1.60; P = .39).

Although both were nonsignificant, “potentially due to power,” the association with falls was stronger for supine OH than for seated OH, Dr. Juraschek said.

In addition, seated OH was not associated with orthostatic symptoms, whereas supine OH was significantly associated with a greater risk of fainting, blacking out, seeing spots, room spinning, and headache in the previous month (P = .048-.002).
 

Useful study confirms anecdotal evidence

This is a “useful study” from a “reputable” group, “and the results reveal what I would have expected,” Robert Carey, MD, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, who wasn’t involved in the study, said in an interview.

The findings, Dr. Carey said, show that measuring supine, compared with standing, “actually correlates much better with the untoward effects of orthostatic hypotension which are falls and symptoms such as dizziness and spots before your eyes.”

“Seated BP is mostly used for convenience and a little bit shorter protocol. Most clinical trials do seated orthostatic hypotension measurements. I’ve always taught my medical students and others to use the supine to standing because I’ve just anecdotally felt that this was a much better way of detecting true orthostatic hypotension and that’s how we do it at the University of Virginia Hospital,” Dr. Carey said.

The study had no funding. Dr. Juraschek and Dr. Carey have no relevant conflicts of interest.

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

New research shows that supine orthostatic hypotension is more common and better predicts falls and orthostatic symptoms than seated OH, supporting a supine OH protocol in clinical practice, the researchers say.

“Older adults at risk for falls undergoing assessment for OH should lie supine rather than sitting prior to standing to get the most informative OH assessment,” study author Stephen Juraschek, MD, PhD, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center/Harvard Medical School, Boston, said in an interview.

“The findings call for a change in current practice,” Dr. Juraschek said.

He presented the study Sept. 29 at the joint scientific sessions of the American Heart Association Council on Hypertension, AHA Council on Kidney in Cardiovascular Disease, and American Society of Hypertension.

The seated position for detecting OH is “commonly used for convenience. Since many clinics already perform a seated blood pressure, it saves time for people to stand shortly afterward,” he explained.

“It has also been thought that the two are interchangeable [i.e., the change in blood pressure from seated to standing was just a lower magnitude than the change from supine to standing]. However, we showed that the physiology is on average quite different, questioning prior perspectives on the interchangeability of the two protocols,” he added.

The researchers studied 522 adults (mean age, 76 years; 42% women) at high risk for falls and with vitamin D levels in the insufficient/deficient range participating in the Study to Understand Fall Reduction and Vitamin D (STURDY).

The study showed that vitamin D supplementation was not associated with OH or the main study outcome of falls.

The study used two different OH assessment protocols – seated to standing and supine to standing – and Dr. Juraschek’s team used the data to gauge the impact of supine and seated positions on OH prevalence and its relation with fall risk and orthostatic symptoms.

OH was defined as a drop in systolic BP of at least 20 mm Hg or diastolic BP of at least 10 mm Hg.

At baseline, mean BP was 129/68 mm Hg. Mean BP increased 3.4/2.6 mm Hg after sitting, but decreased 3.7/0.7 mm Hg after lying supine.

Of the 953 OH assessments (supine and seated), OH was detected in 14.8% of the supine measurements but in only 2.2% of the seated measures.

Supine OH better predicted falls (hazard ratio, 1.60; 95% CI, 0.98-2.61; P = .06) than seated OH (HR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.30-1.60; P = .39).

Although both were nonsignificant, “potentially due to power,” the association with falls was stronger for supine OH than for seated OH, Dr. Juraschek said.

In addition, seated OH was not associated with orthostatic symptoms, whereas supine OH was significantly associated with a greater risk of fainting, blacking out, seeing spots, room spinning, and headache in the previous month (P = .048-.002).
 

Useful study confirms anecdotal evidence

This is a “useful study” from a “reputable” group, “and the results reveal what I would have expected,” Robert Carey, MD, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, who wasn’t involved in the study, said in an interview.

The findings, Dr. Carey said, show that measuring supine, compared with standing, “actually correlates much better with the untoward effects of orthostatic hypotension which are falls and symptoms such as dizziness and spots before your eyes.”

“Seated BP is mostly used for convenience and a little bit shorter protocol. Most clinical trials do seated orthostatic hypotension measurements. I’ve always taught my medical students and others to use the supine to standing because I’ve just anecdotally felt that this was a much better way of detecting true orthostatic hypotension and that’s how we do it at the University of Virginia Hospital,” Dr. Carey said.

The study had no funding. Dr. Juraschek and Dr. Carey have no relevant conflicts of interest.

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

New research shows that supine orthostatic hypotension is more common and better predicts falls and orthostatic symptoms than seated OH, supporting a supine OH protocol in clinical practice, the researchers say.

“Older adults at risk for falls undergoing assessment for OH should lie supine rather than sitting prior to standing to get the most informative OH assessment,” study author Stephen Juraschek, MD, PhD, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center/Harvard Medical School, Boston, said in an interview.

“The findings call for a change in current practice,” Dr. Juraschek said.

He presented the study Sept. 29 at the joint scientific sessions of the American Heart Association Council on Hypertension, AHA Council on Kidney in Cardiovascular Disease, and American Society of Hypertension.

The seated position for detecting OH is “commonly used for convenience. Since many clinics already perform a seated blood pressure, it saves time for people to stand shortly afterward,” he explained.

“It has also been thought that the two are interchangeable [i.e., the change in blood pressure from seated to standing was just a lower magnitude than the change from supine to standing]. However, we showed that the physiology is on average quite different, questioning prior perspectives on the interchangeability of the two protocols,” he added.

The researchers studied 522 adults (mean age, 76 years; 42% women) at high risk for falls and with vitamin D levels in the insufficient/deficient range participating in the Study to Understand Fall Reduction and Vitamin D (STURDY).

The study showed that vitamin D supplementation was not associated with OH or the main study outcome of falls.

The study used two different OH assessment protocols – seated to standing and supine to standing – and Dr. Juraschek’s team used the data to gauge the impact of supine and seated positions on OH prevalence and its relation with fall risk and orthostatic symptoms.

OH was defined as a drop in systolic BP of at least 20 mm Hg or diastolic BP of at least 10 mm Hg.

At baseline, mean BP was 129/68 mm Hg. Mean BP increased 3.4/2.6 mm Hg after sitting, but decreased 3.7/0.7 mm Hg after lying supine.

Of the 953 OH assessments (supine and seated), OH was detected in 14.8% of the supine measurements but in only 2.2% of the seated measures.

Supine OH better predicted falls (hazard ratio, 1.60; 95% CI, 0.98-2.61; P = .06) than seated OH (HR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.30-1.60; P = .39).

Although both were nonsignificant, “potentially due to power,” the association with falls was stronger for supine OH than for seated OH, Dr. Juraschek said.

In addition, seated OH was not associated with orthostatic symptoms, whereas supine OH was significantly associated with a greater risk of fainting, blacking out, seeing spots, room spinning, and headache in the previous month (P = .048-.002).
 

Useful study confirms anecdotal evidence

This is a “useful study” from a “reputable” group, “and the results reveal what I would have expected,” Robert Carey, MD, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, who wasn’t involved in the study, said in an interview.

The findings, Dr. Carey said, show that measuring supine, compared with standing, “actually correlates much better with the untoward effects of orthostatic hypotension which are falls and symptoms such as dizziness and spots before your eyes.”

“Seated BP is mostly used for convenience and a little bit shorter protocol. Most clinical trials do seated orthostatic hypotension measurements. I’ve always taught my medical students and others to use the supine to standing because I’ve just anecdotally felt that this was a much better way of detecting true orthostatic hypotension and that’s how we do it at the University of Virginia Hospital,” Dr. Carey said.

The study had no funding. Dr. Juraschek and Dr. Carey have no relevant conflicts of interest.

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

Statin use is associated with increased likelihood of diabetes progression, according to a new matched cohort analysis of data from the Department of Veteran Affairs.

Patients with diabetes who were on statins were more likely to begin taking insulin, become hyperglycemic, and to develop acute glycemic complications, and they were also more likely to be prescribed medications from more glucose-lowering drug classes.

Although previous observational and randomized, controlled trials suggested a link between statin use and diabetes progression, they typically relied on measures like insulin resistance, hemoglobin A1c, or fasting blood glucose levels. The new work, however, outlines changes in glycemic control.

The differences between fasting glucose levels and A1c levels were generally smaller than the differences in insulin sensitivity. But A1c and fasting glucose may underestimate a potential effect of statins, since physicians may escalate antidiabetes therapy in response to changes.

Insulin sensitivity is also rarely measured in real-world settings. “This study translated findings reported on academic studies of increased insulin resistance associated with statin use in research papers into everyday language of patient care. That is, patients on statins may need to escalate their antidiabetes therapy and there may have higher occurrences of uncontrolled diabetes events,” lead author Ishak Mansi, MD, said in an interview.

The study was published online in JAMA Internal Medicine.

Dr. Mansi, who is staff internist at the VA North Texas Health System and a professor of medicine and data and population science at the University of Texas, both in Dallas, cautioned about overinterpretation of the findings. “This is an observational study; therefore, it can establish association, but not causation.”
 

No reason to turn down statins

Dr. Mansi noted that it’s important to distinguish between those being prescribed statins as a primary preventive measurement against cardiovascular disease, and those starting statins with preexisting cardiovascular disease for secondary prevention. Statins are a key therapeutic class for secondary prevention. “Their benefits are tremendous, and we should emphasize that no patient should stop taking their statins based on our study – rather, they should talk to their doctors,” said Dr. Mansi.

The study is one of few to look at statin use and diabetes progression in patients who already have diabetes, and the first with a propensity-matched design, according to Om Ganda, MD, who was asked for comment. The results should not deter physicians from prescribing and patients from accepting statins. “Statins should not be withheld in people with high risk of cardiovascular disease, even for primary prevention, as the risk of progression of glucose levels is relatively much smaller and manageable, rather than risking cardiovascular events by stopping or not initiating when indicated by current guidelines,” said Dr. Ganda, who is the medical director of the Lipid Clinic at the Joslin Diabetes Center and an associate professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, both in Boston.

It’s possible that statins could increase risk of diabetes progression through promoting insulin resistance, and they may also reduce beta-cell function, which could in turn reduce insulin secretion, according to Dr. Ganda.

The study group included 83,022 pairs of statin users and matched controls, of whom 95% were men; 68.2% were White; 22% were Black; 2.1% were Native American, Pacific Islander, or Alaska Native; and 0.8% were Asian. The mean age was 60 years.

Some 56% of statin users experienced diabetes progression, compared with 48% of control patients (odds ratio, 1.37; P < .001). Progression was defined as intensification of diabetes therapy through new use of insulin or increase in the number of medication classes, new onset chronic hyperglycemia, or acute complications from hyperglycemia.

The association was seen in the component measures, including an increased number of glucose-lowering medication classes (OR, 1.41; P < .001), the frequency of new insulin use (OR, 1.16; P < .001), persistent glycemia (OR, 1.13; P < .001), and a new diagnosis of ketoacidosis or uncontrolled diabetes (OR, 1.24; P < .001).

There was also a dose-response relationship between the intensity of LDL cholesterol–lowering medication and diabetes progression.
 

More research needed

The findings don’t necessarily have a strong clinical impact, but the researchers hope it pushes toward greater personalization of statin treatment. The benefits of statins have been well studied, but their potential harms have not received the same attention. Dr. Mansi hopes to learn more about which populations stand to gain the most for primary cardiovascular disease prevention, such as older versus younger populations, healthier or sicker patients, and those with well-controlled versus uncontrolled diabetes. “Answering these questions [would] impact hundreds of millions of patients and cannot be postponed,” said Dr. Mansi. He also called for dedicated funding for research into the adverse events of frequently used medications.

Dr. Mansi and Dr. Ganda have no relevant financial disclosures.

Statin use is associated with increased likelihood of diabetes progression, according to a new matched cohort analysis of data from the Department of Veteran Affairs.

Patients with diabetes who were on statins were more likely to begin taking insulin, become hyperglycemic, and to develop acute glycemic complications, and they were also more likely to be prescribed medications from more glucose-lowering drug classes.

Although previous observational and randomized, controlled trials suggested a link between statin use and diabetes progression, they typically relied on measures like insulin resistance, hemoglobin A1c, or fasting blood glucose levels. The new work, however, outlines changes in glycemic control.

The differences between fasting glucose levels and A1c levels were generally smaller than the differences in insulin sensitivity. But A1c and fasting glucose may underestimate a potential effect of statins, since physicians may escalate antidiabetes therapy in response to changes.

Insulin sensitivity is also rarely measured in real-world settings. “This study translated findings reported on academic studies of increased insulin resistance associated with statin use in research papers into everyday language of patient care. That is, patients on statins may need to escalate their antidiabetes therapy and there may have higher occurrences of uncontrolled diabetes events,” lead author Ishak Mansi, MD, said in an interview.

The study was published online in JAMA Internal Medicine.

Dr. Mansi, who is staff internist at the VA North Texas Health System and a professor of medicine and data and population science at the University of Texas, both in Dallas, cautioned about overinterpretation of the findings. “This is an observational study; therefore, it can establish association, but not causation.”
 

No reason to turn down statins

Dr. Mansi noted that it’s important to distinguish between those being prescribed statins as a primary preventive measurement against cardiovascular disease, and those starting statins with preexisting cardiovascular disease for secondary prevention. Statins are a key therapeutic class for secondary prevention. “Their benefits are tremendous, and we should emphasize that no patient should stop taking their statins based on our study – rather, they should talk to their doctors,” said Dr. Mansi.

The study is one of few to look at statin use and diabetes progression in patients who already have diabetes, and the first with a propensity-matched design, according to Om Ganda, MD, who was asked for comment. The results should not deter physicians from prescribing and patients from accepting statins. “Statins should not be withheld in people with high risk of cardiovascular disease, even for primary prevention, as the risk of progression of glucose levels is relatively much smaller and manageable, rather than risking cardiovascular events by stopping or not initiating when indicated by current guidelines,” said Dr. Ganda, who is the medical director of the Lipid Clinic at the Joslin Diabetes Center and an associate professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, both in Boston.

It’s possible that statins could increase risk of diabetes progression through promoting insulin resistance, and they may also reduce beta-cell function, which could in turn reduce insulin secretion, according to Dr. Ganda.

The study group included 83,022 pairs of statin users and matched controls, of whom 95% were men; 68.2% were White; 22% were Black; 2.1% were Native American, Pacific Islander, or Alaska Native; and 0.8% were Asian. The mean age was 60 years.

Some 56% of statin users experienced diabetes progression, compared with 48% of control patients (odds ratio, 1.37; P < .001). Progression was defined as intensification of diabetes therapy through new use of insulin or increase in the number of medication classes, new onset chronic hyperglycemia, or acute complications from hyperglycemia.

The association was seen in the component measures, including an increased number of glucose-lowering medication classes (OR, 1.41; P < .001), the frequency of new insulin use (OR, 1.16; P < .001), persistent glycemia (OR, 1.13; P < .001), and a new diagnosis of ketoacidosis or uncontrolled diabetes (OR, 1.24; P < .001).

There was also a dose-response relationship between the intensity of LDL cholesterol–lowering medication and diabetes progression.
 

More research needed

The findings don’t necessarily have a strong clinical impact, but the researchers hope it pushes toward greater personalization of statin treatment. The benefits of statins have been well studied, but their potential harms have not received the same attention. Dr. Mansi hopes to learn more about which populations stand to gain the most for primary cardiovascular disease prevention, such as older versus younger populations, healthier or sicker patients, and those with well-controlled versus uncontrolled diabetes. “Answering these questions [would] impact hundreds of millions of patients and cannot be postponed,” said Dr. Mansi. He also called for dedicated funding for research into the adverse events of frequently used medications.

Dr. Mansi and Dr. Ganda have no relevant financial disclosures.

Statin use is associated with increased likelihood of diabetes progression, according to a new matched cohort analysis of data from the Department of Veteran Affairs.

Patients with diabetes who were on statins were more likely to begin taking insulin, become hyperglycemic, and to develop acute glycemic complications, and they were also more likely to be prescribed medications from more glucose-lowering drug classes.

Although previous observational and randomized, controlled trials suggested a link between statin use and diabetes progression, they typically relied on measures like insulin resistance, hemoglobin A1c, or fasting blood glucose levels. The new work, however, outlines changes in glycemic control.

The differences between fasting glucose levels and A1c levels were generally smaller than the differences in insulin sensitivity. But A1c and fasting glucose may underestimate a potential effect of statins, since physicians may escalate antidiabetes therapy in response to changes.

Insulin sensitivity is also rarely measured in real-world settings. “This study translated findings reported on academic studies of increased insulin resistance associated with statin use in research papers into everyday language of patient care. That is, patients on statins may need to escalate their antidiabetes therapy and there may have higher occurrences of uncontrolled diabetes events,” lead author Ishak Mansi, MD, said in an interview.

The study was published online in JAMA Internal Medicine.

Dr. Mansi, who is staff internist at the VA North Texas Health System and a professor of medicine and data and population science at the University of Texas, both in Dallas, cautioned about overinterpretation of the findings. “This is an observational study; therefore, it can establish association, but not causation.”
 

No reason to turn down statins

Dr. Mansi noted that it’s important to distinguish between those being prescribed statins as a primary preventive measurement against cardiovascular disease, and those starting statins with preexisting cardiovascular disease for secondary prevention. Statins are a key therapeutic class for secondary prevention. “Their benefits are tremendous, and we should emphasize that no patient should stop taking their statins based on our study – rather, they should talk to their doctors,” said Dr. Mansi.

The study is one of few to look at statin use and diabetes progression in patients who already have diabetes, and the first with a propensity-matched design, according to Om Ganda, MD, who was asked for comment. The results should not deter physicians from prescribing and patients from accepting statins. “Statins should not be withheld in people with high risk of cardiovascular disease, even for primary prevention, as the risk of progression of glucose levels is relatively much smaller and manageable, rather than risking cardiovascular events by stopping or not initiating when indicated by current guidelines,” said Dr. Ganda, who is the medical director of the Lipid Clinic at the Joslin Diabetes Center and an associate professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, both in Boston.

It’s possible that statins could increase risk of diabetes progression through promoting insulin resistance, and they may also reduce beta-cell function, which could in turn reduce insulin secretion, according to Dr. Ganda.

The study group included 83,022 pairs of statin users and matched controls, of whom 95% were men; 68.2% were White; 22% were Black; 2.1% were Native American, Pacific Islander, or Alaska Native; and 0.8% were Asian. The mean age was 60 years.

Some 56% of statin users experienced diabetes progression, compared with 48% of control patients (odds ratio, 1.37; P < .001). Progression was defined as intensification of diabetes therapy through new use of insulin or increase in the number of medication classes, new onset chronic hyperglycemia, or acute complications from hyperglycemia.

The association was seen in the component measures, including an increased number of glucose-lowering medication classes (OR, 1.41; P < .001), the frequency of new insulin use (OR, 1.16; P < .001), persistent glycemia (OR, 1.13; P < .001), and a new diagnosis of ketoacidosis or uncontrolled diabetes (OR, 1.24; P < .001).

There was also a dose-response relationship between the intensity of LDL cholesterol–lowering medication and diabetes progression.
 

More research needed

The findings don’t necessarily have a strong clinical impact, but the researchers hope it pushes toward greater personalization of statin treatment. The benefits of statins have been well studied, but their potential harms have not received the same attention. Dr. Mansi hopes to learn more about which populations stand to gain the most for primary cardiovascular disease prevention, such as older versus younger populations, healthier or sicker patients, and those with well-controlled versus uncontrolled diabetes. “Answering these questions [would] impact hundreds of millions of patients and cannot be postponed,” said Dr. Mansi. He also called for dedicated funding for research into the adverse events of frequently used medications.

Dr. Mansi and Dr. Ganda have no relevant financial disclosures.