Cardiology

Diabetes persists as a risk factor for cardiovascular events, but where it once meant the same risk of heart attack or stroke as cardiovascular disease itself, a large Canadian population study reports that’s no longer the case. Thanks to advances in diabetes management over the past quarter century, diabetes is no longer considered equivalent to CVD as a risk factor for cardiovascular events, researchers from the University of Toronto reported.

The retrospective, population-based study used administrative data from Ontario’s provincial universal health care system. The researchers created five population-based cohorts of adults at 5-year intervals from 1994 to 2014, consisting of 1.87 million adults in the first cohort and 1.5 million in the last. In that 20-year span, the prevalence of diabetes in this population tripled, from 3.1% to 9%.

“In the last 25 years we’ve seen wholesale changes in the way people approach diabetes,” lead study author Calvin Ke, MD, PhD, an endocrinologist and assistant professor at the University of Toronto, said in an interview. “Part of the findings show that diabetes and cardiovascular disease were equivalent for risk of cardiovascular events in 1994, but by 2014 that was not the case.”

However, Dr. Ke added, “Diabetes is still a very strong cardiovascular risk factor.”

The investigators for the study, reported as a research letter in JAMA, analyzed the risk of cardiovascular events in four subgroups: those who had both diabetes and CVD, CVD only, diabetes only, and no CVD or diabetes.

Between 1994 and 2014, the cardiovascular event rates declined significantly among people with diabetes alone, compared with people with no disease: from 28.4 to 12.7 per 1,000 person-years, or an absolute risk increase (ARI) of 4.4% and a relative risk (RR) more than double (2.06), in 1994 to 14 vs. 8 per 1,000 person-years, and an ARI of 2% and RR less than double (1.58) 20 years later.

Among people with CVD only, those values shifted from 36.1 per 1,000 person-years, ARI of 5.1% and RR of 2.16 in 1994 to 23.9, ARI of 3.7% and RR still more than double (2.06) in 2014.

People with both CVD and diabetes had the highest CVD event rates across all 5-year cohorts: 74 per 1,000 person-years, ARI of 12% and RR almost four times greater (3.81) in 1994 than people with no disease. By 2014, the ARI in this group was 7.6% and the RR 3.10.

The investigators calculated that event rates from 1994 to 2014 declined across all four subgroups, with rate ratios of 0.49 for diabetes only, 0.66 for CVD only, 0.60 for both diabetes and CVD, and 0.63 for neither disease.

Shift in practice

The study noted that the shift in diabetes as a risk factor for heart attack and stroke is “a change that likely reflects the use of modern, multifactorial approaches to diabetes.”

“A number of changes have occurred in practice that really focus on this idea of a multifactorial approach to diabetes: more aggressive management of blood sugar, blood pressure, and lipids,” Dr. Ke said. “We know from the statin trials that statins can reduce the risk of heart disease significantly, and the use of statins increased from 28.4% in 1999 to 56.3% in 2018 in the United States,” Dr. Ke said. He added that statin use in Canada in adults ages 40 and older went from 1.2% in 1994 to 58.4% in 2010-2015. Use of ACE inhibitors and angiotensin receptor blockers for hypertension followed similar trends, contributing further to reducing risks for heart attack and stroke, Dr. Ke said.

Dr. Ke also noted that the evolution of guidelines and advances in treatments for both CVD and diabetes since 1994 have contributed to improving risks for people with diabetes. SGLT2 inhibitors have been linked to a 2%-6% reduction in hemoglobin A1c, he said. “All of these factors combined have had a major effect on the reduced risk of cardiovascular events.”

Prakash Deedwania, MD, professor at the University of California, San Francisco, Fresno, said that this study confirms a trend that others have reported regarding the risk of CVD in diabetes. The large database covering millions of adults is a study strength, he said.

And the findings, Dr. Deedwania added, underscore what’s been published in clinical guidelines, notably the American Heart Association scientific statement for managing CVD risk in patients with diabetes. “This means that, from observations made 20-plus years ago, when most people were not being treated for diabetes or heart disease, the pendulum has swung,” he said.

However, he added, “The authors state clearly that it does not mean that diabetes is not associated with a higher risk of cardiovascular events; it just means it is no longer equivalent to CVD.”

Managing diabetes continues to be “particularly important,” Dr. Deedwania said, because the prevalence of diabetes continues to rise. “This is a phenomenal risk, and it emphasizes that, to really conquer or control diabetes, we should make every effort to prevent diabetes,” he said.

Dr. Ke and Dr. Deedwania have no relevant financial relationships to disclose.

Diabetes persists as a risk factor for cardiovascular events, but where it once meant the same risk of heart attack or stroke as cardiovascular disease itself, a large Canadian population study reports that’s no longer the case. Thanks to advances in diabetes management over the past quarter century, diabetes is no longer considered equivalent to CVD as a risk factor for cardiovascular events, researchers from the University of Toronto reported.

The retrospective, population-based study used administrative data from Ontario’s provincial universal health care system. The researchers created five population-based cohorts of adults at 5-year intervals from 1994 to 2014, consisting of 1.87 million adults in the first cohort and 1.5 million in the last. In that 20-year span, the prevalence of diabetes in this population tripled, from 3.1% to 9%.

“In the last 25 years we’ve seen wholesale changes in the way people approach diabetes,” lead study author Calvin Ke, MD, PhD, an endocrinologist and assistant professor at the University of Toronto, said in an interview. “Part of the findings show that diabetes and cardiovascular disease were equivalent for risk of cardiovascular events in 1994, but by 2014 that was not the case.”

However, Dr. Ke added, “Diabetes is still a very strong cardiovascular risk factor.”

The investigators for the study, reported as a research letter in JAMA, analyzed the risk of cardiovascular events in four subgroups: those who had both diabetes and CVD, CVD only, diabetes only, and no CVD or diabetes.

Between 1994 and 2014, the cardiovascular event rates declined significantly among people with diabetes alone, compared with people with no disease: from 28.4 to 12.7 per 1,000 person-years, or an absolute risk increase (ARI) of 4.4% and a relative risk (RR) more than double (2.06), in 1994 to 14 vs. 8 per 1,000 person-years, and an ARI of 2% and RR less than double (1.58) 20 years later.

Among people with CVD only, those values shifted from 36.1 per 1,000 person-years, ARI of 5.1% and RR of 2.16 in 1994 to 23.9, ARI of 3.7% and RR still more than double (2.06) in 2014.

People with both CVD and diabetes had the highest CVD event rates across all 5-year cohorts: 74 per 1,000 person-years, ARI of 12% and RR almost four times greater (3.81) in 1994 than people with no disease. By 2014, the ARI in this group was 7.6% and the RR 3.10.

The investigators calculated that event rates from 1994 to 2014 declined across all four subgroups, with rate ratios of 0.49 for diabetes only, 0.66 for CVD only, 0.60 for both diabetes and CVD, and 0.63 for neither disease.

Shift in practice

The study noted that the shift in diabetes as a risk factor for heart attack and stroke is “a change that likely reflects the use of modern, multifactorial approaches to diabetes.”

“A number of changes have occurred in practice that really focus on this idea of a multifactorial approach to diabetes: more aggressive management of blood sugar, blood pressure, and lipids,” Dr. Ke said. “We know from the statin trials that statins can reduce the risk of heart disease significantly, and the use of statins increased from 28.4% in 1999 to 56.3% in 2018 in the United States,” Dr. Ke said. He added that statin use in Canada in adults ages 40 and older went from 1.2% in 1994 to 58.4% in 2010-2015. Use of ACE inhibitors and angiotensin receptor blockers for hypertension followed similar trends, contributing further to reducing risks for heart attack and stroke, Dr. Ke said.

Dr. Ke also noted that the evolution of guidelines and advances in treatments for both CVD and diabetes since 1994 have contributed to improving risks for people with diabetes. SGLT2 inhibitors have been linked to a 2%-6% reduction in hemoglobin A1c, he said. “All of these factors combined have had a major effect on the reduced risk of cardiovascular events.”

Prakash Deedwania, MD, professor at the University of California, San Francisco, Fresno, said that this study confirms a trend that others have reported regarding the risk of CVD in diabetes. The large database covering millions of adults is a study strength, he said.

And the findings, Dr. Deedwania added, underscore what’s been published in clinical guidelines, notably the American Heart Association scientific statement for managing CVD risk in patients with diabetes. “This means that, from observations made 20-plus years ago, when most people were not being treated for diabetes or heart disease, the pendulum has swung,” he said.

However, he added, “The authors state clearly that it does not mean that diabetes is not associated with a higher risk of cardiovascular events; it just means it is no longer equivalent to CVD.”

Managing diabetes continues to be “particularly important,” Dr. Deedwania said, because the prevalence of diabetes continues to rise. “This is a phenomenal risk, and it emphasizes that, to really conquer or control diabetes, we should make every effort to prevent diabetes,” he said.

Dr. Ke and Dr. Deedwania have no relevant financial relationships to disclose.

Diabetes persists as a risk factor for cardiovascular events, but where it once meant the same risk of heart attack or stroke as cardiovascular disease itself, a large Canadian population study reports that’s no longer the case. Thanks to advances in diabetes management over the past quarter century, diabetes is no longer considered equivalent to CVD as a risk factor for cardiovascular events, researchers from the University of Toronto reported.

The retrospective, population-based study used administrative data from Ontario’s provincial universal health care system. The researchers created five population-based cohorts of adults at 5-year intervals from 1994 to 2014, consisting of 1.87 million adults in the first cohort and 1.5 million in the last. In that 20-year span, the prevalence of diabetes in this population tripled, from 3.1% to 9%.

“In the last 25 years we’ve seen wholesale changes in the way people approach diabetes,” lead study author Calvin Ke, MD, PhD, an endocrinologist and assistant professor at the University of Toronto, said in an interview. “Part of the findings show that diabetes and cardiovascular disease were equivalent for risk of cardiovascular events in 1994, but by 2014 that was not the case.”

However, Dr. Ke added, “Diabetes is still a very strong cardiovascular risk factor.”

The investigators for the study, reported as a research letter in JAMA, analyzed the risk of cardiovascular events in four subgroups: those who had both diabetes and CVD, CVD only, diabetes only, and no CVD or diabetes.

Between 1994 and 2014, the cardiovascular event rates declined significantly among people with diabetes alone, compared with people with no disease: from 28.4 to 12.7 per 1,000 person-years, or an absolute risk increase (ARI) of 4.4% and a relative risk (RR) more than double (2.06), in 1994 to 14 vs. 8 per 1,000 person-years, and an ARI of 2% and RR less than double (1.58) 20 years later.

Among people with CVD only, those values shifted from 36.1 per 1,000 person-years, ARI of 5.1% and RR of 2.16 in 1994 to 23.9, ARI of 3.7% and RR still more than double (2.06) in 2014.

People with both CVD and diabetes had the highest CVD event rates across all 5-year cohorts: 74 per 1,000 person-years, ARI of 12% and RR almost four times greater (3.81) in 1994 than people with no disease. By 2014, the ARI in this group was 7.6% and the RR 3.10.

The investigators calculated that event rates from 1994 to 2014 declined across all four subgroups, with rate ratios of 0.49 for diabetes only, 0.66 for CVD only, 0.60 for both diabetes and CVD, and 0.63 for neither disease.

Shift in practice

The study noted that the shift in diabetes as a risk factor for heart attack and stroke is “a change that likely reflects the use of modern, multifactorial approaches to diabetes.”

“A number of changes have occurred in practice that really focus on this idea of a multifactorial approach to diabetes: more aggressive management of blood sugar, blood pressure, and lipids,” Dr. Ke said. “We know from the statin trials that statins can reduce the risk of heart disease significantly, and the use of statins increased from 28.4% in 1999 to 56.3% in 2018 in the United States,” Dr. Ke said. He added that statin use in Canada in adults ages 40 and older went from 1.2% in 1994 to 58.4% in 2010-2015. Use of ACE inhibitors and angiotensin receptor blockers for hypertension followed similar trends, contributing further to reducing risks for heart attack and stroke, Dr. Ke said.

Dr. Ke also noted that the evolution of guidelines and advances in treatments for both CVD and diabetes since 1994 have contributed to improving risks for people with diabetes. SGLT2 inhibitors have been linked to a 2%-6% reduction in hemoglobin A1c, he said. “All of these factors combined have had a major effect on the reduced risk of cardiovascular events.”

Prakash Deedwania, MD, professor at the University of California, San Francisco, Fresno, said that this study confirms a trend that others have reported regarding the risk of CVD in diabetes. The large database covering millions of adults is a study strength, he said.

And the findings, Dr. Deedwania added, underscore what’s been published in clinical guidelines, notably the American Heart Association scientific statement for managing CVD risk in patients with diabetes. “This means that, from observations made 20-plus years ago, when most people were not being treated for diabetes or heart disease, the pendulum has swung,” he said.

However, he added, “The authors state clearly that it does not mean that diabetes is not associated with a higher risk of cardiovascular events; it just means it is no longer equivalent to CVD.”

Managing diabetes continues to be “particularly important,” Dr. Deedwania said, because the prevalence of diabetes continues to rise. “This is a phenomenal risk, and it emphasizes that, to really conquer or control diabetes, we should make every effort to prevent diabetes,” he said.

Dr. Ke and Dr. Deedwania have no relevant financial relationships to disclose.

Apixaban offers greater protection than rivaroxaban against ischemic stroke, systemic embolism, and bleeding in patients with both atrial fibrillation (AFib) and valvular heart disease (VHD), a new study finds.

Compared with rivaroxaban, apixaban cut risks nearly in half, suggesting that clinicians should consider these new data when choosing an anticoagulant, reported lead author Ghadeer K. Dawwas, PhD, of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, and colleagues.

In the new retrospective study involving almost 20,000 patients, Dr. Dawwas and her colleagues “emulated a target trial” using private insurance claims from Optum’s deidentified Clinformatics Data Mart Database. The cohort was narrowed from a screened population of 58,210 patients with concurrent AFib and VHD to 9,947 new apixaban users who could be closely matched with 9,947 new rivaroxaban users. Covariates included provider specialty, type of VHD, demographic characteristics, measures of health care use, baseline use of medications, and baseline comorbidities.

The primary effectiveness outcome was a composite of systemic embolism and ischemic stroke, while the primary safety outcome was a composite of intracranial or gastrointestinal bleeding.

“Although several ongoing trials aim to compare apixaban with warfarin in patients with AFib and VHD, none of these trials will directly compare apixaban and rivaroxaban,” the investigators wrote. Their report is in Annals of Internal Medicine.

Dr. Dawwas and colleagues previously showed that direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) were safer and more effective than warfarin in the same patient population. Comparing apixaban and rivaroxaban – the two most common DOACs – was the next logical step, Dr. Dawwas said in an interview.
 

Study results

Compared with rivaroxaban, patients who received apixaban had a 43% reduced risk of stroke or embolism (hazard ratio [HR], 0.57; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.40-0.80). Apixaban’s ability to protect against bleeding appeared even more pronounced, with a 49% reduced risk over rivaroxaban (HR, 0.51; 95% CI, 0.41-0.62).

Comparing the two agents on an absolute basis, apixaban reduced risk of embolism or stroke by 0.2% within the first 6 months of treatment initiation, and 1.1% within the first year of initiation. At the same time points, absolute risk reductions for bleeding were 1.2% and 1.9%, respectively.

The investigators noted that their results held consistent in an alternative analysis that considered separate types of VHD.

“Based on the results from our analysis, we showed that apixaban is effective and safe in patients with atrial fibrillation and valvular heart diseases,” Dr. Dawwas said.
 

Head-to-head trial needed to change practice

Christopher M. Bianco, DO, associate professor of medicine at West Virginia University Heart and Vascular Institute, Morgantown, said the findings “add to the growing body of literature,” but “a head-to-head trial would be necessary to make a definitive change to clinical practice.”

Dr. Bianco, who recently conducted a retrospective analysis of apixaban and rivaroxaban that found no difference in safety and efficacy among a different patient population, said these kinds of studies are helpful in generating hypotheses, but they can’t account for all relevant clinical factors.

“There are just so many things that go into the decision-making process of [prescribing] apixaban and rivaroxaban,” he said. “Even though [Dr. Dawwas and colleagues] used propensity matching, you’re never going to be able to sort that out with a retrospective analysis.”

Specifically, Dr. Bianco noted that the findings did not include dose data. This is a key gap, he said, considering how often real-world datasets have shown that providers underdose DOACs for a number of unaccountable reasons, and how frequently patients exhibit poor adherence.

The study also lacked detail concerning the degree of renal dysfunction, which can determine drug eligibility, Dr. Bianco said. Furthermore, attempts to stratify patients based on thrombosis and bleeding risk were likely “insufficient,” he added.

Dr. Bianco also cautioned that the investigators defined valvular heart disease as any valve-related disease of any severity. In contrast, previous studies have generally restricted valvular heart disease to patients with mitral stenosis or prosthetic valves.

“This is definitely not the traditional definition of valvular heart disease, so the title is a little bit misleading in that sense, although they certainly do disclose that in the methods,” Dr. Bianco said.

On a more positive note, he highlighted the size of the patient population, and the real-world data, which included many patients who would be excluded from clinical trials.

More broadly, the study helps drive research forward, Dr. Bianco concluded; namely, by attracting financial support for a more powerful head-to-head trial that drug makers are unlikely to fund due to inherent market risk.

This study was supported by the National Institutes of Health. The investigators disclosed additional relationships with Takeda, Spark, Sanofi, and others. Dr. Bianco disclosed no conflicts of interest.

Apixaban offers greater protection than rivaroxaban against ischemic stroke, systemic embolism, and bleeding in patients with both atrial fibrillation (AFib) and valvular heart disease (VHD), a new study finds.

Compared with rivaroxaban, apixaban cut risks nearly in half, suggesting that clinicians should consider these new data when choosing an anticoagulant, reported lead author Ghadeer K. Dawwas, PhD, of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, and colleagues.

In the new retrospective study involving almost 20,000 patients, Dr. Dawwas and her colleagues “emulated a target trial” using private insurance claims from Optum’s deidentified Clinformatics Data Mart Database. The cohort was narrowed from a screened population of 58,210 patients with concurrent AFib and VHD to 9,947 new apixaban users who could be closely matched with 9,947 new rivaroxaban users. Covariates included provider specialty, type of VHD, demographic characteristics, measures of health care use, baseline use of medications, and baseline comorbidities.

The primary effectiveness outcome was a composite of systemic embolism and ischemic stroke, while the primary safety outcome was a composite of intracranial or gastrointestinal bleeding.

“Although several ongoing trials aim to compare apixaban with warfarin in patients with AFib and VHD, none of these trials will directly compare apixaban and rivaroxaban,” the investigators wrote. Their report is in Annals of Internal Medicine.

Dr. Dawwas and colleagues previously showed that direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) were safer and more effective than warfarin in the same patient population. Comparing apixaban and rivaroxaban – the two most common DOACs – was the next logical step, Dr. Dawwas said in an interview.
 

Study results

Compared with rivaroxaban, patients who received apixaban had a 43% reduced risk of stroke or embolism (hazard ratio [HR], 0.57; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.40-0.80). Apixaban’s ability to protect against bleeding appeared even more pronounced, with a 49% reduced risk over rivaroxaban (HR, 0.51; 95% CI, 0.41-0.62).

Comparing the two agents on an absolute basis, apixaban reduced risk of embolism or stroke by 0.2% within the first 6 months of treatment initiation, and 1.1% within the first year of initiation. At the same time points, absolute risk reductions for bleeding were 1.2% and 1.9%, respectively.

The investigators noted that their results held consistent in an alternative analysis that considered separate types of VHD.

“Based on the results from our analysis, we showed that apixaban is effective and safe in patients with atrial fibrillation and valvular heart diseases,” Dr. Dawwas said.
 

Head-to-head trial needed to change practice

Christopher M. Bianco, DO, associate professor of medicine at West Virginia University Heart and Vascular Institute, Morgantown, said the findings “add to the growing body of literature,” but “a head-to-head trial would be necessary to make a definitive change to clinical practice.”

Dr. Bianco, who recently conducted a retrospective analysis of apixaban and rivaroxaban that found no difference in safety and efficacy among a different patient population, said these kinds of studies are helpful in generating hypotheses, but they can’t account for all relevant clinical factors.

“There are just so many things that go into the decision-making process of [prescribing] apixaban and rivaroxaban,” he said. “Even though [Dr. Dawwas and colleagues] used propensity matching, you’re never going to be able to sort that out with a retrospective analysis.”

Specifically, Dr. Bianco noted that the findings did not include dose data. This is a key gap, he said, considering how often real-world datasets have shown that providers underdose DOACs for a number of unaccountable reasons, and how frequently patients exhibit poor adherence.

The study also lacked detail concerning the degree of renal dysfunction, which can determine drug eligibility, Dr. Bianco said. Furthermore, attempts to stratify patients based on thrombosis and bleeding risk were likely “insufficient,” he added.

Dr. Bianco also cautioned that the investigators defined valvular heart disease as any valve-related disease of any severity. In contrast, previous studies have generally restricted valvular heart disease to patients with mitral stenosis or prosthetic valves.

“This is definitely not the traditional definition of valvular heart disease, so the title is a little bit misleading in that sense, although they certainly do disclose that in the methods,” Dr. Bianco said.

On a more positive note, he highlighted the size of the patient population, and the real-world data, which included many patients who would be excluded from clinical trials.

More broadly, the study helps drive research forward, Dr. Bianco concluded; namely, by attracting financial support for a more powerful head-to-head trial that drug makers are unlikely to fund due to inherent market risk.

This study was supported by the National Institutes of Health. The investigators disclosed additional relationships with Takeda, Spark, Sanofi, and others. Dr. Bianco disclosed no conflicts of interest.

Apixaban offers greater protection than rivaroxaban against ischemic stroke, systemic embolism, and bleeding in patients with both atrial fibrillation (AFib) and valvular heart disease (VHD), a new study finds.

Compared with rivaroxaban, apixaban cut risks nearly in half, suggesting that clinicians should consider these new data when choosing an anticoagulant, reported lead author Ghadeer K. Dawwas, PhD, of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, and colleagues.

In the new retrospective study involving almost 20,000 patients, Dr. Dawwas and her colleagues “emulated a target trial” using private insurance claims from Optum’s deidentified Clinformatics Data Mart Database. The cohort was narrowed from a screened population of 58,210 patients with concurrent AFib and VHD to 9,947 new apixaban users who could be closely matched with 9,947 new rivaroxaban users. Covariates included provider specialty, type of VHD, demographic characteristics, measures of health care use, baseline use of medications, and baseline comorbidities.

The primary effectiveness outcome was a composite of systemic embolism and ischemic stroke, while the primary safety outcome was a composite of intracranial or gastrointestinal bleeding.

“Although several ongoing trials aim to compare apixaban with warfarin in patients with AFib and VHD, none of these trials will directly compare apixaban and rivaroxaban,” the investigators wrote. Their report is in Annals of Internal Medicine.

Dr. Dawwas and colleagues previously showed that direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) were safer and more effective than warfarin in the same patient population. Comparing apixaban and rivaroxaban – the two most common DOACs – was the next logical step, Dr. Dawwas said in an interview.
 

Study results

Compared with rivaroxaban, patients who received apixaban had a 43% reduced risk of stroke or embolism (hazard ratio [HR], 0.57; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.40-0.80). Apixaban’s ability to protect against bleeding appeared even more pronounced, with a 49% reduced risk over rivaroxaban (HR, 0.51; 95% CI, 0.41-0.62).

Comparing the two agents on an absolute basis, apixaban reduced risk of embolism or stroke by 0.2% within the first 6 months of treatment initiation, and 1.1% within the first year of initiation. At the same time points, absolute risk reductions for bleeding were 1.2% and 1.9%, respectively.

The investigators noted that their results held consistent in an alternative analysis that considered separate types of VHD.

“Based on the results from our analysis, we showed that apixaban is effective and safe in patients with atrial fibrillation and valvular heart diseases,” Dr. Dawwas said.
 

Head-to-head trial needed to change practice

Christopher M. Bianco, DO, associate professor of medicine at West Virginia University Heart and Vascular Institute, Morgantown, said the findings “add to the growing body of literature,” but “a head-to-head trial would be necessary to make a definitive change to clinical practice.”

Dr. Bianco, who recently conducted a retrospective analysis of apixaban and rivaroxaban that found no difference in safety and efficacy among a different patient population, said these kinds of studies are helpful in generating hypotheses, but they can’t account for all relevant clinical factors.

“There are just so many things that go into the decision-making process of [prescribing] apixaban and rivaroxaban,” he said. “Even though [Dr. Dawwas and colleagues] used propensity matching, you’re never going to be able to sort that out with a retrospective analysis.”

Specifically, Dr. Bianco noted that the findings did not include dose data. This is a key gap, he said, considering how often real-world datasets have shown that providers underdose DOACs for a number of unaccountable reasons, and how frequently patients exhibit poor adherence.

The study also lacked detail concerning the degree of renal dysfunction, which can determine drug eligibility, Dr. Bianco said. Furthermore, attempts to stratify patients based on thrombosis and bleeding risk were likely “insufficient,” he added.

Dr. Bianco also cautioned that the investigators defined valvular heart disease as any valve-related disease of any severity. In contrast, previous studies have generally restricted valvular heart disease to patients with mitral stenosis or prosthetic valves.

“This is definitely not the traditional definition of valvular heart disease, so the title is a little bit misleading in that sense, although they certainly do disclose that in the methods,” Dr. Bianco said.

On a more positive note, he highlighted the size of the patient population, and the real-world data, which included many patients who would be excluded from clinical trials.

More broadly, the study helps drive research forward, Dr. Bianco concluded; namely, by attracting financial support for a more powerful head-to-head trial that drug makers are unlikely to fund due to inherent market risk.

This study was supported by the National Institutes of Health. The investigators disclosed additional relationships with Takeda, Spark, Sanofi, and others. Dr. Bianco disclosed no conflicts of interest.

People with a rare genetic condition that causes extremely elevated levels of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) may miss out on decades of treatment because of a lack of lipid screening in childhood, researchers reported at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Pediatrics.

The condition, homozygous familial hypercholesterolemia (FH), raises the risk for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) as early as the first decade of life.

Routine screening for FH is uncommon, however, the researchers said. Lack of familiarity with guidelines and limited access to lipid specialists have been cited as possible reasons for inconsistent screening practices.

“These findings and recent improvement in lipid lowering therapies make a compelling case for rigorous compliance with AAP’s guidelines on lipid screening for children with a family history of FH or ASCVD at age 2,” study coauthor Mary P. McGowan, MD, chief medical officer of the Family Heart Foundation, said in a statement about the new study.
 

Early consequences

To characterize patients with homozygous FH, Dr. McGowan and her colleagues examined data from 67 participants in the CASCADE-FH registry. The Family Heart Foundation created the registry in 2013, and 40 medical centers in the United States contribute data to the repository. The researchers had access to data about patients with homozygous FH from 20 centers in the registry.

Dr. McGowan’s group compared 16 patients with homozygous FH who enrolled in the registry when they were children and 51 patients who were adults at the time of their enrollment.

Patients enrolled as children had a median age at diagnosis of 2 years (interquartile range [IQR], 2-3.5), whereas patients enrolled as adults had a median age at diagnosis of 12.6 years (IQR, 4.1-26.5).

The median untreated level of LDL-C in those enrolled as children was 776 mg/dL (IQR, 704-892). Among those enrolled as adults, it was 533 mg/dL (IQR, 467-702).

Approximately 19% of those enrolled as children had evidence of aortic valve stenosis, and 43.8% had evidence of ASCVD. The median age at onset of ASCVD was 8.9 years. One child was diagnosed with ASCVD at age 2 years and underwent liver transplant at age 4 years. Another was diagnosed with the condition at age 3 years and underwent liver transplant at age 8 years. Two children underwent coronary artery bypass grafting at ages 6 years and 14 years. Five participants underwent liver transplant before age 18 years.

About 56% of participants who enrolled as children had xanthomas, or fat deposits in tendons, and none had corneal arcus — a gray-white line of fat deposits around the edge of the cornea, both of which can indicate homozygous FH in children.

Treatment reduced LDL-C substantially, but only 25% of children achieved goal levels of cholesterol, the researchers reported. Patients who received more lipid-lowering therapies had a better chance of reaching their target levels, they found.

The data raise “the possibility that only children with the most severe phenotypes are diagnosed before adulthood,” the researchers said.

Clinical diagnosis of homozygous FH can be based on LDL-C levels, family history, and the presence of xanthomas, the researchers noted. Many children do not have physical findings, however, and a lipid panel or genetic testing may be necessary.

“There is a clear need to implement universal screening” to identify all children with homozygous FH and heterozygous FH, a less severe and more common form of FH, Dr. McGowan said.
 

Possible missed cases

As many as 1 in 250 people may have heterozygous FH, and 1 in 300,000 people may have homozygous FH, according to estimates. Patients with homozygous FH have two FH genes, one from each parent. In patients with homozygous FH, levels of LDL-C levels typically range between 400 and 1,000 mg/dL without treatment, which is four to 10 times higher than normal concentrations of the blood fat, according to the Family Heart Foundation.

“This study adds to a growing body of literature – including our own work – demonstrating that recommended universal screening occurs in barely 1 in 5 children. This means some patients are not being recognized as having treatable diseases,” said Justin H. Berger, MD, PhD, a pediatric cardiologist at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia.

Even among children who are at the highest risk for early onset adult-type heart disease, only a quarter to two-thirds receive recommended screening, said Dr. Berger, who was not a member of the study team.

While Dr. Berger advocates universal lipid screening, improving screening rates in practice probably isn’t as simple as telling clinicians to screen more, he said. “Increasing testing will increase health care spending and the burden on busy primary care providers without addressing who will subsequently evaluate and manage children with abnormal lipid screening results,” Dr. Berger said.

Instead, clinicians may want to focus on screening patients who are at risk, which “could have dramatic benefits for their life-long cardiovascular health,” he said.

Dr. McGowan disclosed ties to Abbott and Regeneron, and her coauthors disclosed ties to Esperion Therapeutics and research funding from Regeneron and REGENXBIO. Dr. Berger disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

People with a rare genetic condition that causes extremely elevated levels of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) may miss out on decades of treatment because of a lack of lipid screening in childhood, researchers reported at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Pediatrics.

The condition, homozygous familial hypercholesterolemia (FH), raises the risk for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) as early as the first decade of life.

Routine screening for FH is uncommon, however, the researchers said. Lack of familiarity with guidelines and limited access to lipid specialists have been cited as possible reasons for inconsistent screening practices.

“These findings and recent improvement in lipid lowering therapies make a compelling case for rigorous compliance with AAP’s guidelines on lipid screening for children with a family history of FH or ASCVD at age 2,” study coauthor Mary P. McGowan, MD, chief medical officer of the Family Heart Foundation, said in a statement about the new study.
 

Early consequences

To characterize patients with homozygous FH, Dr. McGowan and her colleagues examined data from 67 participants in the CASCADE-FH registry. The Family Heart Foundation created the registry in 2013, and 40 medical centers in the United States contribute data to the repository. The researchers had access to data about patients with homozygous FH from 20 centers in the registry.

Dr. McGowan’s group compared 16 patients with homozygous FH who enrolled in the registry when they were children and 51 patients who were adults at the time of their enrollment.

Patients enrolled as children had a median age at diagnosis of 2 years (interquartile range [IQR], 2-3.5), whereas patients enrolled as adults had a median age at diagnosis of 12.6 years (IQR, 4.1-26.5).

The median untreated level of LDL-C in those enrolled as children was 776 mg/dL (IQR, 704-892). Among those enrolled as adults, it was 533 mg/dL (IQR, 467-702).

Approximately 19% of those enrolled as children had evidence of aortic valve stenosis, and 43.8% had evidence of ASCVD. The median age at onset of ASCVD was 8.9 years. One child was diagnosed with ASCVD at age 2 years and underwent liver transplant at age 4 years. Another was diagnosed with the condition at age 3 years and underwent liver transplant at age 8 years. Two children underwent coronary artery bypass grafting at ages 6 years and 14 years. Five participants underwent liver transplant before age 18 years.

About 56% of participants who enrolled as children had xanthomas, or fat deposits in tendons, and none had corneal arcus — a gray-white line of fat deposits around the edge of the cornea, both of which can indicate homozygous FH in children.

Treatment reduced LDL-C substantially, but only 25% of children achieved goal levels of cholesterol, the researchers reported. Patients who received more lipid-lowering therapies had a better chance of reaching their target levels, they found.

The data raise “the possibility that only children with the most severe phenotypes are diagnosed before adulthood,” the researchers said.

Clinical diagnosis of homozygous FH can be based on LDL-C levels, family history, and the presence of xanthomas, the researchers noted. Many children do not have physical findings, however, and a lipid panel or genetic testing may be necessary.

“There is a clear need to implement universal screening” to identify all children with homozygous FH and heterozygous FH, a less severe and more common form of FH, Dr. McGowan said.
 

Possible missed cases

As many as 1 in 250 people may have heterozygous FH, and 1 in 300,000 people may have homozygous FH, according to estimates. Patients with homozygous FH have two FH genes, one from each parent. In patients with homozygous FH, levels of LDL-C levels typically range between 400 and 1,000 mg/dL without treatment, which is four to 10 times higher than normal concentrations of the blood fat, according to the Family Heart Foundation.

“This study adds to a growing body of literature – including our own work – demonstrating that recommended universal screening occurs in barely 1 in 5 children. This means some patients are not being recognized as having treatable diseases,” said Justin H. Berger, MD, PhD, a pediatric cardiologist at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia.

Even among children who are at the highest risk for early onset adult-type heart disease, only a quarter to two-thirds receive recommended screening, said Dr. Berger, who was not a member of the study team.

While Dr. Berger advocates universal lipid screening, improving screening rates in practice probably isn’t as simple as telling clinicians to screen more, he said. “Increasing testing will increase health care spending and the burden on busy primary care providers without addressing who will subsequently evaluate and manage children with abnormal lipid screening results,” Dr. Berger said.

Instead, clinicians may want to focus on screening patients who are at risk, which “could have dramatic benefits for their life-long cardiovascular health,” he said.

Dr. McGowan disclosed ties to Abbott and Regeneron, and her coauthors disclosed ties to Esperion Therapeutics and research funding from Regeneron and REGENXBIO. Dr. Berger disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

People with a rare genetic condition that causes extremely elevated levels of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) may miss out on decades of treatment because of a lack of lipid screening in childhood, researchers reported at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Pediatrics.

The condition, homozygous familial hypercholesterolemia (FH), raises the risk for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) as early as the first decade of life.

Routine screening for FH is uncommon, however, the researchers said. Lack of familiarity with guidelines and limited access to lipid specialists have been cited as possible reasons for inconsistent screening practices.

“These findings and recent improvement in lipid lowering therapies make a compelling case for rigorous compliance with AAP’s guidelines on lipid screening for children with a family history of FH or ASCVD at age 2,” study coauthor Mary P. McGowan, MD, chief medical officer of the Family Heart Foundation, said in a statement about the new study.
 

Early consequences

To characterize patients with homozygous FH, Dr. McGowan and her colleagues examined data from 67 participants in the CASCADE-FH registry. The Family Heart Foundation created the registry in 2013, and 40 medical centers in the United States contribute data to the repository. The researchers had access to data about patients with homozygous FH from 20 centers in the registry.

Dr. McGowan’s group compared 16 patients with homozygous FH who enrolled in the registry when they were children and 51 patients who were adults at the time of their enrollment.

Patients enrolled as children had a median age at diagnosis of 2 years (interquartile range [IQR], 2-3.5), whereas patients enrolled as adults had a median age at diagnosis of 12.6 years (IQR, 4.1-26.5).

The median untreated level of LDL-C in those enrolled as children was 776 mg/dL (IQR, 704-892). Among those enrolled as adults, it was 533 mg/dL (IQR, 467-702).

Approximately 19% of those enrolled as children had evidence of aortic valve stenosis, and 43.8% had evidence of ASCVD. The median age at onset of ASCVD was 8.9 years. One child was diagnosed with ASCVD at age 2 years and underwent liver transplant at age 4 years. Another was diagnosed with the condition at age 3 years and underwent liver transplant at age 8 years. Two children underwent coronary artery bypass grafting at ages 6 years and 14 years. Five participants underwent liver transplant before age 18 years.

About 56% of participants who enrolled as children had xanthomas, or fat deposits in tendons, and none had corneal arcus — a gray-white line of fat deposits around the edge of the cornea, both of which can indicate homozygous FH in children.

Treatment reduced LDL-C substantially, but only 25% of children achieved goal levels of cholesterol, the researchers reported. Patients who received more lipid-lowering therapies had a better chance of reaching their target levels, they found.

The data raise “the possibility that only children with the most severe phenotypes are diagnosed before adulthood,” the researchers said.

Clinical diagnosis of homozygous FH can be based on LDL-C levels, family history, and the presence of xanthomas, the researchers noted. Many children do not have physical findings, however, and a lipid panel or genetic testing may be necessary.

“There is a clear need to implement universal screening” to identify all children with homozygous FH and heterozygous FH, a less severe and more common form of FH, Dr. McGowan said.
 

Possible missed cases

As many as 1 in 250 people may have heterozygous FH, and 1 in 300,000 people may have homozygous FH, according to estimates. Patients with homozygous FH have two FH genes, one from each parent. In patients with homozygous FH, levels of LDL-C levels typically range between 400 and 1,000 mg/dL without treatment, which is four to 10 times higher than normal concentrations of the blood fat, according to the Family Heart Foundation.

“This study adds to a growing body of literature – including our own work – demonstrating that recommended universal screening occurs in barely 1 in 5 children. This means some patients are not being recognized as having treatable diseases,” said Justin H. Berger, MD, PhD, a pediatric cardiologist at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia.

Even among children who are at the highest risk for early onset adult-type heart disease, only a quarter to two-thirds receive recommended screening, said Dr. Berger, who was not a member of the study team.

While Dr. Berger advocates universal lipid screening, improving screening rates in practice probably isn’t as simple as telling clinicians to screen more, he said. “Increasing testing will increase health care spending and the burden on busy primary care providers without addressing who will subsequently evaluate and manage children with abnormal lipid screening results,” Dr. Berger said.

Instead, clinicians may want to focus on screening patients who are at risk, which “could have dramatic benefits for their life-long cardiovascular health,” he said.

Dr. McGowan disclosed ties to Abbott and Regeneron, and her coauthors disclosed ties to Esperion Therapeutics and research funding from Regeneron and REGENXBIO. Dr. Berger disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Treatment with finerenone produced roughly similar reductions in heart failure–related outcomes in people with type 2 diabetes and chronic kidney disease (CKD) across the spectrum of kidney function, compared with placebo, including those who had albuminuria but a preserved estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), in a post hoc analysis of pooled data from more than 13,000 people.

The findings, from the two pivotal trials for the agent, “reinforce the importance of routine eGFR and UACR [urinary albumin-to-creatinine ratio] screening” in people with type 2 diabetes to identify new candidates for treatment with finerenone (Kerendia), Gerasimos Filippatos, MD, and coauthors said in a report published online in JACC: Heart Failure.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge news

Among the 13,026 patients in the two combined trials, 40% had a preserved eGFR of greater than 60 mL/min per 1.73 m^{2 despite also having albuminuria with a UACR of at least 30 mg/g}, showing how often this combination occurs. But many clinicians “do not follow the guidelines” and fail to measure the UACR in these patients in routine practice, noted Dr. Filippatos at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology in August.

“We now have something to do for these patients,” treat them with finerenone, said Dr. Filippatos, professor and director of heart failure at the Attikon University Hospital, Athens.

The availability of finerenone following its U.S. approval in 2021 means clinicians “must get used to measuring UACR” in people with type 2 diabetes even when their eGFR is normal, especially people with type 2 diabetes plus high cardiovascular disease risk, he said.

The Food and Drug Administration approved finerenone, a nonsteroidal mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist, for treating people with type 2 diabetes and CKD in July 2021, but its uptake has been slow, experts say. In a talk in September 2022 during the annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes, Jennifer B. Green, MD, estimated that U.S. uptake of finerenone for appropriate people with type 2 diabetes had not advanced beyond 10%.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

A recent review also noted that uptake of screening for elevated UACR in U.S. patients with type 2 diabetes was in the range of 10%-40% during 2017-2019, a “shockingly low rate,” said Dr. Green, a professor and diabetes specialist at Duke University, Durham, N.C.
 

A new reason to screen for albuminuria

“It’s an extremely important message,” Johann Bauersachs, MD, commented in an interview. Results from “many studies have shown that albuminuria is an excellent additional marker for cardiovascular disease risk. But measurement of albuminuria is not widely done, despite guidelines that recommend annual albuminuria testing in people with type 2 diabetes,” said Dr. Bauersachs, professor and head of the department of cardiology at Hannover (Germany) Medical School.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

“Even before there was finerenone, there were reasons to measure UACR, but I hope adding finerenone will help, and more clinicians will incorporate UACR into their routine practice,” said Dr. Bauersachs, who was not involved with the finerenone studies.

The analyses reported by Dr. Filippatos and coauthors used data from two related trials of finerenone, FIDELIO-DKD and FIGARO-DKD, combined by prespecified design into a single dataset, FIDELITY, with a total of 13,026 participants eligible for analysis and followed for a median of 3 years. All had type 2 diabetes and CKD based on having a UACR of at least 30 mg/g. Their eGFR levels could run as high as 74 mL/min per 1.73 m² in FIDELIO-DKD, and as high as 90 mL/min/1.73m² in FIGARO-DKD. The two trials excluded people with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction, and those with a serum potassium greater than 4.8 mmol/L.

In the FIDELITY dataset treatment with finerenone led to a significant 17% reduction in the combined incidence of cardiovascular death or first hospitalization for heart failure relative to those who received placebo. This relative risk reduction was not affected by either eGFR or UACR values at baseline, the new analysis showed.

The analysis also demonstrated a nonsignificant trend toward greater reductions in heart failure–related outcomes among study participants who began with an eGFR in the normal range of at least 60 mL/min per 1.73 m². The researchers also found a nonsignificant trend to a greater reduction in heart failure–related events among those with a UACR of less than 300 mg/g.
 

Finerenone favors patients with less advanced CKD

In short “the magnitude of the treatment benefit tended to favor patients with less advanced CKD,” concluded the researchers, suggesting that “earlier intervention [with finerenone] in the CKD course is likely to provide the greatest long-term benefit on heart failure–related outcomes.” This led them to further infer “the importance of not only routine assessing eGFR, but also perhaps more importantly, routinely screening for UACR to facilitate early diagnosis and early intervention in patients with type 2 diabetes.”

Findings from FIDELIO-DKD and FIGARO-DKD led to recent guideline additions for finerenone by several medical groups. In August 2022, the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists released an update to its guideline for managing people with diabetes that recommended treating people with type 2 diabetes with finerenone when they have a UACR of at least 30 mg/g if they are already treated with a maximum-tolerated dose of a renin-angiotensin system inhibitor, have a normal serum potassium level, and have an eGFR of at least 25 mL/min per 1.73 m2. The identical recommendation also appeared in a Consensus Report from the American Diabetes Association and KDIGO, an international organization promoting evidence-based management of patients with CKD.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge news

“Finerenone provides a very important contribution because it improves prognosis even in very well managed patients” with type 2 diabetes, commented Lars Rydén, MD, professor of cardiology at the Karolinska Institute in Stockholm, as designated discussant for the report by Dr. Filippatos at the ESC congress.

The findings from the FIDELITY analysis are “trustworthy, and clinically important,” Dr. Rydén said. When left untreated, diabetic kidney disease “reduces life expectancy by an average of 16 years.”

The finerenone trials were sponsored by Bayer, which markets finerenone (Kerendia). Dr. Filippatos has received lecture fees from Bayer as well as from Amgen, Medtronic, Novartis, Servier, and Vifor. Dr. Green has financial ties to Bayer as well as to Anji, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim/Lilly, Hawthorne Effect/Omada, Merck, Novo Nordisk, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi/Lexicon, and Valo. Dr. Bauersachs has been a consultant to Bayer as well as to Amgen, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Cardior, Cervia, CVRx, Novartis, Pfizer, and Vifor, and he has received research funding from Abiomed. Dr. Rydén has financial ties to Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, and Novo Nordisk.

Treatment with finerenone produced roughly similar reductions in heart failure–related outcomes in people with type 2 diabetes and chronic kidney disease (CKD) across the spectrum of kidney function, compared with placebo, including those who had albuminuria but a preserved estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), in a post hoc analysis of pooled data from more than 13,000 people.

The findings, from the two pivotal trials for the agent, “reinforce the importance of routine eGFR and UACR [urinary albumin-to-creatinine ratio] screening” in people with type 2 diabetes to identify new candidates for treatment with finerenone (Kerendia), Gerasimos Filippatos, MD, and coauthors said in a report published online in JACC: Heart Failure.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge news

Among the 13,026 patients in the two combined trials, 40% had a preserved eGFR of greater than 60 mL/min per 1.73 m^{2 despite also having albuminuria with a UACR of at least 30 mg/g}, showing how often this combination occurs. But many clinicians “do not follow the guidelines” and fail to measure the UACR in these patients in routine practice, noted Dr. Filippatos at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology in August.

“We now have something to do for these patients,” treat them with finerenone, said Dr. Filippatos, professor and director of heart failure at the Attikon University Hospital, Athens.

The availability of finerenone following its U.S. approval in 2021 means clinicians “must get used to measuring UACR” in people with type 2 diabetes even when their eGFR is normal, especially people with type 2 diabetes plus high cardiovascular disease risk, he said.

The Food and Drug Administration approved finerenone, a nonsteroidal mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist, for treating people with type 2 diabetes and CKD in July 2021, but its uptake has been slow, experts say. In a talk in September 2022 during the annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes, Jennifer B. Green, MD, estimated that U.S. uptake of finerenone for appropriate people with type 2 diabetes had not advanced beyond 10%.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

A recent review also noted that uptake of screening for elevated UACR in U.S. patients with type 2 diabetes was in the range of 10%-40% during 2017-2019, a “shockingly low rate,” said Dr. Green, a professor and diabetes specialist at Duke University, Durham, N.C.
 

A new reason to screen for albuminuria

“It’s an extremely important message,” Johann Bauersachs, MD, commented in an interview. Results from “many studies have shown that albuminuria is an excellent additional marker for cardiovascular disease risk. But measurement of albuminuria is not widely done, despite guidelines that recommend annual albuminuria testing in people with type 2 diabetes,” said Dr. Bauersachs, professor and head of the department of cardiology at Hannover (Germany) Medical School.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

“Even before there was finerenone, there were reasons to measure UACR, but I hope adding finerenone will help, and more clinicians will incorporate UACR into their routine practice,” said Dr. Bauersachs, who was not involved with the finerenone studies.

The analyses reported by Dr. Filippatos and coauthors used data from two related trials of finerenone, FIDELIO-DKD and FIGARO-DKD, combined by prespecified design into a single dataset, FIDELITY, with a total of 13,026 participants eligible for analysis and followed for a median of 3 years. All had type 2 diabetes and CKD based on having a UACR of at least 30 mg/g. Their eGFR levels could run as high as 74 mL/min per 1.73 m² in FIDELIO-DKD, and as high as 90 mL/min/1.73m² in FIGARO-DKD. The two trials excluded people with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction, and those with a serum potassium greater than 4.8 mmol/L.

In the FIDELITY dataset treatment with finerenone led to a significant 17% reduction in the combined incidence of cardiovascular death or first hospitalization for heart failure relative to those who received placebo. This relative risk reduction was not affected by either eGFR or UACR values at baseline, the new analysis showed.

The analysis also demonstrated a nonsignificant trend toward greater reductions in heart failure–related outcomes among study participants who began with an eGFR in the normal range of at least 60 mL/min per 1.73 m². The researchers also found a nonsignificant trend to a greater reduction in heart failure–related events among those with a UACR of less than 300 mg/g.
 

Finerenone favors patients with less advanced CKD

In short “the magnitude of the treatment benefit tended to favor patients with less advanced CKD,” concluded the researchers, suggesting that “earlier intervention [with finerenone] in the CKD course is likely to provide the greatest long-term benefit on heart failure–related outcomes.” This led them to further infer “the importance of not only routine assessing eGFR, but also perhaps more importantly, routinely screening for UACR to facilitate early diagnosis and early intervention in patients with type 2 diabetes.”

Findings from FIDELIO-DKD and FIGARO-DKD led to recent guideline additions for finerenone by several medical groups. In August 2022, the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists released an update to its guideline for managing people with diabetes that recommended treating people with type 2 diabetes with finerenone when they have a UACR of at least 30 mg/g if they are already treated with a maximum-tolerated dose of a renin-angiotensin system inhibitor, have a normal serum potassium level, and have an eGFR of at least 25 mL/min per 1.73 m2. The identical recommendation also appeared in a Consensus Report from the American Diabetes Association and KDIGO, an international organization promoting evidence-based management of patients with CKD.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge news

“Finerenone provides a very important contribution because it improves prognosis even in very well managed patients” with type 2 diabetes, commented Lars Rydén, MD, professor of cardiology at the Karolinska Institute in Stockholm, as designated discussant for the report by Dr. Filippatos at the ESC congress.

The findings from the FIDELITY analysis are “trustworthy, and clinically important,” Dr. Rydén said. When left untreated, diabetic kidney disease “reduces life expectancy by an average of 16 years.”

The finerenone trials were sponsored by Bayer, which markets finerenone (Kerendia). Dr. Filippatos has received lecture fees from Bayer as well as from Amgen, Medtronic, Novartis, Servier, and Vifor. Dr. Green has financial ties to Bayer as well as to Anji, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim/Lilly, Hawthorne Effect/Omada, Merck, Novo Nordisk, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi/Lexicon, and Valo. Dr. Bauersachs has been a consultant to Bayer as well as to Amgen, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Cardior, Cervia, CVRx, Novartis, Pfizer, and Vifor, and he has received research funding from Abiomed. Dr. Rydén has financial ties to Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, and Novo Nordisk.

Treatment with finerenone produced roughly similar reductions in heart failure–related outcomes in people with type 2 diabetes and chronic kidney disease (CKD) across the spectrum of kidney function, compared with placebo, including those who had albuminuria but a preserved estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), in a post hoc analysis of pooled data from more than 13,000 people.

The findings, from the two pivotal trials for the agent, “reinforce the importance of routine eGFR and UACR [urinary albumin-to-creatinine ratio] screening” in people with type 2 diabetes to identify new candidates for treatment with finerenone (Kerendia), Gerasimos Filippatos, MD, and coauthors said in a report published online in JACC: Heart Failure.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge news

Among the 13,026 patients in the two combined trials, 40% had a preserved eGFR of greater than 60 mL/min per 1.73 m^{2 despite also having albuminuria with a UACR of at least 30 mg/g}, showing how often this combination occurs. But many clinicians “do not follow the guidelines” and fail to measure the UACR in these patients in routine practice, noted Dr. Filippatos at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology in August.

“We now have something to do for these patients,” treat them with finerenone, said Dr. Filippatos, professor and director of heart failure at the Attikon University Hospital, Athens.

The availability of finerenone following its U.S. approval in 2021 means clinicians “must get used to measuring UACR” in people with type 2 diabetes even when their eGFR is normal, especially people with type 2 diabetes plus high cardiovascular disease risk, he said.

The Food and Drug Administration approved finerenone, a nonsteroidal mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist, for treating people with type 2 diabetes and CKD in July 2021, but its uptake has been slow, experts say. In a talk in September 2022 during the annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes, Jennifer B. Green, MD, estimated that U.S. uptake of finerenone for appropriate people with type 2 diabetes had not advanced beyond 10%.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

A recent review also noted that uptake of screening for elevated UACR in U.S. patients with type 2 diabetes was in the range of 10%-40% during 2017-2019, a “shockingly low rate,” said Dr. Green, a professor and diabetes specialist at Duke University, Durham, N.C.
 

A new reason to screen for albuminuria

“It’s an extremely important message,” Johann Bauersachs, MD, commented in an interview. Results from “many studies have shown that albuminuria is an excellent additional marker for cardiovascular disease risk. But measurement of albuminuria is not widely done, despite guidelines that recommend annual albuminuria testing in people with type 2 diabetes,” said Dr. Bauersachs, professor and head of the department of cardiology at Hannover (Germany) Medical School.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

“Even before there was finerenone, there were reasons to measure UACR, but I hope adding finerenone will help, and more clinicians will incorporate UACR into their routine practice,” said Dr. Bauersachs, who was not involved with the finerenone studies.

The analyses reported by Dr. Filippatos and coauthors used data from two related trials of finerenone, FIDELIO-DKD and FIGARO-DKD, combined by prespecified design into a single dataset, FIDELITY, with a total of 13,026 participants eligible for analysis and followed for a median of 3 years. All had type 2 diabetes and CKD based on having a UACR of at least 30 mg/g. Their eGFR levels could run as high as 74 mL/min per 1.73 m² in FIDELIO-DKD, and as high as 90 mL/min/1.73m² in FIGARO-DKD. The two trials excluded people with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction, and those with a serum potassium greater than 4.8 mmol/L.

In the FIDELITY dataset treatment with finerenone led to a significant 17% reduction in the combined incidence of cardiovascular death or first hospitalization for heart failure relative to those who received placebo. This relative risk reduction was not affected by either eGFR or UACR values at baseline, the new analysis showed.

The analysis also demonstrated a nonsignificant trend toward greater reductions in heart failure–related outcomes among study participants who began with an eGFR in the normal range of at least 60 mL/min per 1.73 m². The researchers also found a nonsignificant trend to a greater reduction in heart failure–related events among those with a UACR of less than 300 mg/g.
 

Finerenone favors patients with less advanced CKD

In short “the magnitude of the treatment benefit tended to favor patients with less advanced CKD,” concluded the researchers, suggesting that “earlier intervention [with finerenone] in the CKD course is likely to provide the greatest long-term benefit on heart failure–related outcomes.” This led them to further infer “the importance of not only routine assessing eGFR, but also perhaps more importantly, routinely screening for UACR to facilitate early diagnosis and early intervention in patients with type 2 diabetes.”

Findings from FIDELIO-DKD and FIGARO-DKD led to recent guideline additions for finerenone by several medical groups. In August 2022, the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists released an update to its guideline for managing people with diabetes that recommended treating people with type 2 diabetes with finerenone when they have a UACR of at least 30 mg/g if they are already treated with a maximum-tolerated dose of a renin-angiotensin system inhibitor, have a normal serum potassium level, and have an eGFR of at least 25 mL/min per 1.73 m2. The identical recommendation also appeared in a Consensus Report from the American Diabetes Association and KDIGO, an international organization promoting evidence-based management of patients with CKD.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge news

“Finerenone provides a very important contribution because it improves prognosis even in very well managed patients” with type 2 diabetes, commented Lars Rydén, MD, professor of cardiology at the Karolinska Institute in Stockholm, as designated discussant for the report by Dr. Filippatos at the ESC congress.

The findings from the FIDELITY analysis are “trustworthy, and clinically important,” Dr. Rydén said. When left untreated, diabetic kidney disease “reduces life expectancy by an average of 16 years.”

The finerenone trials were sponsored by Bayer, which markets finerenone (Kerendia). Dr. Filippatos has received lecture fees from Bayer as well as from Amgen, Medtronic, Novartis, Servier, and Vifor. Dr. Green has financial ties to Bayer as well as to Anji, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim/Lilly, Hawthorne Effect/Omada, Merck, Novo Nordisk, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi/Lexicon, and Valo. Dr. Bauersachs has been a consultant to Bayer as well as to Amgen, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Cardior, Cervia, CVRx, Novartis, Pfizer, and Vifor, and he has received research funding from Abiomed. Dr. Rydén has financial ties to Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, and Novo Nordisk.

ANAHEIM – A wide range of factors can cause myocarditis; most often viral infections cause myocarditis in children and teens, according to Ryan Butts, MD, medical director of the pediatric advanced cardiac care program at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center and Children’s Health of Texas.

Dr. Butts provided an overview of what pediatricians and other clinicians caring for children and teens should know about myocarditis at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Pediatrics.

The important new things that attendees may want to take away from this for their practice are improved recognition and diagnostic workup for acute viral myocarditis, making sure cardiology follow-up occurs after an admission for the condition, enhanced evaluation of the child before they return to competitive sports, and the availability of written or verbal education for patients relating to COVID vaccine–associated myocarditis, Dr. Butts said.

He also provided a set of key takeaways:

• Myocarditis is rare.
• The most common viruses causing myocarditis are always changing.
• Myocarditis is most common in infants and teenagers but it has different clinical patterns in each population.
• MRI is becoming the diagnostic tool of choice.
• IVIG frequently is used but good evidence for the therapy is lacking.
• Patients may go home on cardiac medications but have good long-term outcomes.
• Patients must have a 6-month restriction on competitive sports after diagnosis.

Frank Han, MD, a pediatric cardiologist at OSF Medical Center and Children’s Hospital of Illinois in Peoria, said he found the most helpful parts of Dr. Butts’ presentation to be the diagnosis and triage of myocarditis in the major age groups.

“Myocarditis can have variable presentations, and its cause may influence how the myocarditis behaves,” Dr. Han said. Pediatric cardiologists, he said, are uniquely positioned to triage and diagnose myocarditis.
 

Epidemiology and presentation

Just 0.05% of admissions from 28.6 million U.S. pediatric ED visits every year are for myocarditis, Dr. Butts said. While viruses are the most common cause of myocarditis, bacterial infections and noninfectious causes, including hypersensitivity reactions, systemic disorders, and toxic substances, can also cause the condition. The dominant viruses causing myocarditis have shifted over the years as well. Coxsackie B was the most common cause in the 1980s, but adenovirus became more common in the 1990s and parvovirus B19 in the 2000s. Why some kids develop myocarditis while others don’t is unclear, but the host-immune response to the virus likely plays an important role.

Research has shown two substantial spikes in the incidence of myocarditis children: infants under 2 years old and teens aged 14-19. Although myocarditis refers to any inflammation of myocardium not caused by ischemia, the signs, symptoms, and lab results vary according to patient’s age group. The only constant is that diaphoresis is rare across all ages.

Infants are more likely to show respiratory distress (68%) and an enlarged liver (40%) but can also present with gastrointestinal symptoms (24%). Vomiting without fever or diarrhea should arouse clinical suspicion of myocarditis in infants, although fever and diarrhea can occur.

In young children, who have the lowest incidence, fatigue presents in about one-third, with 20% presenting with chest pain and 20% with hepatomegaly. The most common symptom in teens by far (80%) is chest pain. About one-third also have respiratory distress but gastrointestinal symptoms are less common (20%).

When should a clinician suspect myocarditis in a teen presenting with chest pain? “If the chest pain is reproducible and if you can localize it, they don’t need further evaluation,” Dr. Butts said. “After that, it’s a lot about the history.”

In terms of lab results, ventricular function measured by brain natriuretic peptide is significantly depressed in infants and young children but often near normal in teens. Inflammatory markers (C-reactive protein) tend to be low in infants but elevated in young children and teens. And troponin levels, denoting myocardial injury, are minimal in infants and young children but elevated in teens. Median ejection fraction on echocardiograms, about 55% in normal hearts, will often be low in infants and young children, around 30%-33%, but is near normal (54%) in teens.
 

Diagnosis and management

Cardiac MRI increasingly has been replacing endomyocardial biopsy for diagnosis, with MRI exceeding biopsy use between 2009 and 2010, Dr. Butts said. The advantage of endomyocardial biopsy is that it’s specific, if not very sensitive. The test is invasive, however, requiring sedation and carrying the risk of tricuspid injury. The most common finding on cardiac MRI is late gadolinium enhancement (80%) while early gadolinium enhancement is less common (55%).

Although Dr. Butts mentioned the Dallas diagnostic criteria from 1987, he advocated for the more recent Lake Louise Criteria, which require clinical suspicion of myocarditis and at least two of three findings on MRI: T2-weighted myocardial abnormalities, T1 early or late gadolinium enhancement, or regional wall motion abnormalities or evidence of pericarditis

Point-of-care ultrasound can be useful for detecting myocarditis, but its success depends on whether the user can pick up on the subtle changes in ventricular function. “Just because someone has a point-of-care ultrasound that’s normal or thought to be normal, it shouldn’t rule out the diagnosis,” he said.

Learning the etiology of viral myocarditis often is difficult, and etiology doesn’t affect management of the condition, Dr. Butts said. Even in cases of myocarditis confirmed by biopsy, the virus may be identified in only about 60%-70% of cases with myocardial polymerase chain reaction. In clinical cases, the virus can be determined only about 25%-30% of the time with serum PCR.

Prognosis is usually good, with 80%-90% of children and teens going home transplant free despite most arriving critically ill and 50%-80% initially being admitted to ICU. Two-thirds of those discharged go home with heart failure medications, but only one in six are readmitted within a year.

The strongest risk factors for poor prognosis are younger age and being critically ill at presentation but other risk factors include female sex, poor ventricular function, poor perfusion on exam, increased dilation on echocardiogram, and a need for ECMO or inotropes or mechanical ventilation.

That said, Dr. Butts cautioned attendees not to ignore normal function. In one study of 171 patients, among 75 who presented with normal function, 15% went home with inotropes, 12% required mechanical ventilation, 9% had arrhythmia, and 5% needed extracorporeal membrane oxygenation.

A big question in treatment is whether to give IVIG or not and the evidence is murky, Dr. Butts said. He reviewed a couple studies on IVIG, including one that suggested better ventricular functional recovery with the treatment but those who received IVIG were also more likely to be on an ACE inhibitor.

“Was it the ACE inhibitor or was it IVIG? We don’t know,” he said. Different cardiologists may give different opinions on IVIG. “It has nothing to do with the actual evidence behind it.”

IVIG has drawbacks: It’s very expensive and it involves risks that include serum sickness and interstitial nephritis.

“Pediatricians typically aren’t going to directly decide on giving or not giving IVIG,” Dr. Han said. “Typically, the ultimate choice comes from a group discussion between the hospital cardiologist – perhaps the hospitalist pediatrician if they are involved – and the family. We acknowledge the ambiguity of the evidence and decide based upon the severity of the initial disease process.”
 

Return to competitive sports; Follow-up critical

Experts are much more confident, however, about when teens admitted with viral myocarditis can return to competitive sports. But Dr. Butts said he suspects the guidelines for these children aren’t followed as closely as they should be. The American Heart Association recommends waiting 6 months after discharge and ensuring the athlete has a normal echocardiogram, Holter monitoring, and stress test.

“It’s incredibly important to have them come back and see the cardiologist 6 months after admission,” Dr. Butts said. “The only patient I’ve ever had who died 6-7 months post myocarditis is somebody who, during their stress test, had increasing ventricular ectopy. I told him not to do sports. He didn’t listen to me and unfortunately passed away – I’m assuming from arrhythmia.”
 

COVID and vaccine-associated myocarditis

Vaccine-associated myocarditis is substantially milder than viral myocarditis, Dr. Butts said. A small study from a single center in Atlanta found that ejection fraction at admission was normal, around 56%, in those with vaccine-associated myocarditis, compared with 45% with non-COVID viral myocarditis and 50% with multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children or myocarditis from COVID-19. All patients with vaccine-associated myocarditis had normal function at discharge, compared with 73% of those with viral myocarditis and 93% with COVID-associated myocarditis.

While 22% of those with vaccine-associated myocarditis were admitted to the ICU, twice as many (40%) with viral myocarditis were, and three times as many (68%) with COVID-associated myocarditis ended up in intensive care.

Dr. Butts also noted a Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report from the Centers of Disease Control and Prevention that found teen boys had two to six times greater risk of heart complications after COVID-19 infection than after COVID vaccination.

In terms of direct comparisons, vaccine-related myocarditis occurred about 12-18 times per 100,000 doses for boys ages 5-11 years, compared with cardiac involvement in 93-133 cases out of 100,000 COVID-19 infections. Boys aged 12-17 years experienced 12-21 cases of myocarditis per 100,000 doses of the vaccine, compared with cardiac involvement in 50-64 out of 100,000 infections.

The bottom line, Dr. Butts said, is that cardiac involvement in MIS-C is common, but typically improves by discharge. “Vaccine-associated myocarditis is a mild clinical syndrome that has a very short duration, and, in my opinion, should never lead us to ever advise anybody not to get the vaccine. I’ve had many patients, even patients in their first year post transplant, who have gotten the COVID-19 vaccine and were just fine.”

Dr. Butts acknowledged that talking with families about the risk of myocarditis with the vaccine is challenging. He often starts these conversations by sharing the statistics, but he said relatable stories are the key. He will also relate the statistics to something the parents and teen will understand, whether it’s sports or another comparison. He does recommend that teens who develop vaccine-associated myocarditis complete the series and get the booster. Their chances of developing myocarditis again are extremely low, whereas “the likelihood of them being really ill from COVID-19 is much, much higher.”

Dr. Butts and Dr. Han had no disclosures. The presentation involved no external funding.

ANAHEIM – A wide range of factors can cause myocarditis; most often viral infections cause myocarditis in children and teens, according to Ryan Butts, MD, medical director of the pediatric advanced cardiac care program at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center and Children’s Health of Texas.

Dr. Butts provided an overview of what pediatricians and other clinicians caring for children and teens should know about myocarditis at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Pediatrics.

The important new things that attendees may want to take away from this for their practice are improved recognition and diagnostic workup for acute viral myocarditis, making sure cardiology follow-up occurs after an admission for the condition, enhanced evaluation of the child before they return to competitive sports, and the availability of written or verbal education for patients relating to COVID vaccine–associated myocarditis, Dr. Butts said.

He also provided a set of key takeaways:

• Myocarditis is rare.
• The most common viruses causing myocarditis are always changing.
• Myocarditis is most common in infants and teenagers but it has different clinical patterns in each population.
• MRI is becoming the diagnostic tool of choice.
• IVIG frequently is used but good evidence for the therapy is lacking.
• Patients may go home on cardiac medications but have good long-term outcomes.
• Patients must have a 6-month restriction on competitive sports after diagnosis.

Frank Han, MD, a pediatric cardiologist at OSF Medical Center and Children’s Hospital of Illinois in Peoria, said he found the most helpful parts of Dr. Butts’ presentation to be the diagnosis and triage of myocarditis in the major age groups.

“Myocarditis can have variable presentations, and its cause may influence how the myocarditis behaves,” Dr. Han said. Pediatric cardiologists, he said, are uniquely positioned to triage and diagnose myocarditis.
 

Epidemiology and presentation

Just 0.05% of admissions from 28.6 million U.S. pediatric ED visits every year are for myocarditis, Dr. Butts said. While viruses are the most common cause of myocarditis, bacterial infections and noninfectious causes, including hypersensitivity reactions, systemic disorders, and toxic substances, can also cause the condition. The dominant viruses causing myocarditis have shifted over the years as well. Coxsackie B was the most common cause in the 1980s, but adenovirus became more common in the 1990s and parvovirus B19 in the 2000s. Why some kids develop myocarditis while others don’t is unclear, but the host-immune response to the virus likely plays an important role.

Research has shown two substantial spikes in the incidence of myocarditis children: infants under 2 years old and teens aged 14-19. Although myocarditis refers to any inflammation of myocardium not caused by ischemia, the signs, symptoms, and lab results vary according to patient’s age group. The only constant is that diaphoresis is rare across all ages.

Infants are more likely to show respiratory distress (68%) and an enlarged liver (40%) but can also present with gastrointestinal symptoms (24%). Vomiting without fever or diarrhea should arouse clinical suspicion of myocarditis in infants, although fever and diarrhea can occur.

In young children, who have the lowest incidence, fatigue presents in about one-third, with 20% presenting with chest pain and 20% with hepatomegaly. The most common symptom in teens by far (80%) is chest pain. About one-third also have respiratory distress but gastrointestinal symptoms are less common (20%).

When should a clinician suspect myocarditis in a teen presenting with chest pain? “If the chest pain is reproducible and if you can localize it, they don’t need further evaluation,” Dr. Butts said. “After that, it’s a lot about the history.”

In terms of lab results, ventricular function measured by brain natriuretic peptide is significantly depressed in infants and young children but often near normal in teens. Inflammatory markers (C-reactive protein) tend to be low in infants but elevated in young children and teens. And troponin levels, denoting myocardial injury, are minimal in infants and young children but elevated in teens. Median ejection fraction on echocardiograms, about 55% in normal hearts, will often be low in infants and young children, around 30%-33%, but is near normal (54%) in teens.
 

Diagnosis and management

Cardiac MRI increasingly has been replacing endomyocardial biopsy for diagnosis, with MRI exceeding biopsy use between 2009 and 2010, Dr. Butts said. The advantage of endomyocardial biopsy is that it’s specific, if not very sensitive. The test is invasive, however, requiring sedation and carrying the risk of tricuspid injury. The most common finding on cardiac MRI is late gadolinium enhancement (80%) while early gadolinium enhancement is less common (55%).

Although Dr. Butts mentioned the Dallas diagnostic criteria from 1987, he advocated for the more recent Lake Louise Criteria, which require clinical suspicion of myocarditis and at least two of three findings on MRI: T2-weighted myocardial abnormalities, T1 early or late gadolinium enhancement, or regional wall motion abnormalities or evidence of pericarditis

Point-of-care ultrasound can be useful for detecting myocarditis, but its success depends on whether the user can pick up on the subtle changes in ventricular function. “Just because someone has a point-of-care ultrasound that’s normal or thought to be normal, it shouldn’t rule out the diagnosis,” he said.

Learning the etiology of viral myocarditis often is difficult, and etiology doesn’t affect management of the condition, Dr. Butts said. Even in cases of myocarditis confirmed by biopsy, the virus may be identified in only about 60%-70% of cases with myocardial polymerase chain reaction. In clinical cases, the virus can be determined only about 25%-30% of the time with serum PCR.

Prognosis is usually good, with 80%-90% of children and teens going home transplant free despite most arriving critically ill and 50%-80% initially being admitted to ICU. Two-thirds of those discharged go home with heart failure medications, but only one in six are readmitted within a year.

The strongest risk factors for poor prognosis are younger age and being critically ill at presentation but other risk factors include female sex, poor ventricular function, poor perfusion on exam, increased dilation on echocardiogram, and a need for ECMO or inotropes or mechanical ventilation.

That said, Dr. Butts cautioned attendees not to ignore normal function. In one study of 171 patients, among 75 who presented with normal function, 15% went home with inotropes, 12% required mechanical ventilation, 9% had arrhythmia, and 5% needed extracorporeal membrane oxygenation.

A big question in treatment is whether to give IVIG or not and the evidence is murky, Dr. Butts said. He reviewed a couple studies on IVIG, including one that suggested better ventricular functional recovery with the treatment but those who received IVIG were also more likely to be on an ACE inhibitor.

“Was it the ACE inhibitor or was it IVIG? We don’t know,” he said. Different cardiologists may give different opinions on IVIG. “It has nothing to do with the actual evidence behind it.”

IVIG has drawbacks: It’s very expensive and it involves risks that include serum sickness and interstitial nephritis.

“Pediatricians typically aren’t going to directly decide on giving or not giving IVIG,” Dr. Han said. “Typically, the ultimate choice comes from a group discussion between the hospital cardiologist – perhaps the hospitalist pediatrician if they are involved – and the family. We acknowledge the ambiguity of the evidence and decide based upon the severity of the initial disease process.”
 

Return to competitive sports; Follow-up critical

Experts are much more confident, however, about when teens admitted with viral myocarditis can return to competitive sports. But Dr. Butts said he suspects the guidelines for these children aren’t followed as closely as they should be. The American Heart Association recommends waiting 6 months after discharge and ensuring the athlete has a normal echocardiogram, Holter monitoring, and stress test.

“It’s incredibly important to have them come back and see the cardiologist 6 months after admission,” Dr. Butts said. “The only patient I’ve ever had who died 6-7 months post myocarditis is somebody who, during their stress test, had increasing ventricular ectopy. I told him not to do sports. He didn’t listen to me and unfortunately passed away – I’m assuming from arrhythmia.”
 

COVID and vaccine-associated myocarditis

Vaccine-associated myocarditis is substantially milder than viral myocarditis, Dr. Butts said. A small study from a single center in Atlanta found that ejection fraction at admission was normal, around 56%, in those with vaccine-associated myocarditis, compared with 45% with non-COVID viral myocarditis and 50% with multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children or myocarditis from COVID-19. All patients with vaccine-associated myocarditis had normal function at discharge, compared with 73% of those with viral myocarditis and 93% with COVID-associated myocarditis.

While 22% of those with vaccine-associated myocarditis were admitted to the ICU, twice as many (40%) with viral myocarditis were, and three times as many (68%) with COVID-associated myocarditis ended up in intensive care.

Dr. Butts also noted a Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report from the Centers of Disease Control and Prevention that found teen boys had two to six times greater risk of heart complications after COVID-19 infection than after COVID vaccination.

In terms of direct comparisons, vaccine-related myocarditis occurred about 12-18 times per 100,000 doses for boys ages 5-11 years, compared with cardiac involvement in 93-133 cases out of 100,000 COVID-19 infections. Boys aged 12-17 years experienced 12-21 cases of myocarditis per 100,000 doses of the vaccine, compared with cardiac involvement in 50-64 out of 100,000 infections.

The bottom line, Dr. Butts said, is that cardiac involvement in MIS-C is common, but typically improves by discharge. “Vaccine-associated myocarditis is a mild clinical syndrome that has a very short duration, and, in my opinion, should never lead us to ever advise anybody not to get the vaccine. I’ve had many patients, even patients in their first year post transplant, who have gotten the COVID-19 vaccine and were just fine.”

Dr. Butts acknowledged that talking with families about the risk of myocarditis with the vaccine is challenging. He often starts these conversations by sharing the statistics, but he said relatable stories are the key. He will also relate the statistics to something the parents and teen will understand, whether it’s sports or another comparison. He does recommend that teens who develop vaccine-associated myocarditis complete the series and get the booster. Their chances of developing myocarditis again are extremely low, whereas “the likelihood of them being really ill from COVID-19 is much, much higher.”

Dr. Butts and Dr. Han had no disclosures. The presentation involved no external funding.

ANAHEIM – A wide range of factors can cause myocarditis; most often viral infections cause myocarditis in children and teens, according to Ryan Butts, MD, medical director of the pediatric advanced cardiac care program at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center and Children’s Health of Texas.

Dr. Butts provided an overview of what pediatricians and other clinicians caring for children and teens should know about myocarditis at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Pediatrics.

The important new things that attendees may want to take away from this for their practice are improved recognition and diagnostic workup for acute viral myocarditis, making sure cardiology follow-up occurs after an admission for the condition, enhanced evaluation of the child before they return to competitive sports, and the availability of written or verbal education for patients relating to COVID vaccine–associated myocarditis, Dr. Butts said.

He also provided a set of key takeaways:

• Myocarditis is rare.
• The most common viruses causing myocarditis are always changing.
• Myocarditis is most common in infants and teenagers but it has different clinical patterns in each population.
• MRI is becoming the diagnostic tool of choice.
• IVIG frequently is used but good evidence for the therapy is lacking.
• Patients may go home on cardiac medications but have good long-term outcomes.
• Patients must have a 6-month restriction on competitive sports after diagnosis.

Frank Han, MD, a pediatric cardiologist at OSF Medical Center and Children’s Hospital of Illinois in Peoria, said he found the most helpful parts of Dr. Butts’ presentation to be the diagnosis and triage of myocarditis in the major age groups.

“Myocarditis can have variable presentations, and its cause may influence how the myocarditis behaves,” Dr. Han said. Pediatric cardiologists, he said, are uniquely positioned to triage and diagnose myocarditis.
 

Epidemiology and presentation

Just 0.05% of admissions from 28.6 million U.S. pediatric ED visits every year are for myocarditis, Dr. Butts said. While viruses are the most common cause of myocarditis, bacterial infections and noninfectious causes, including hypersensitivity reactions, systemic disorders, and toxic substances, can also cause the condition. The dominant viruses causing myocarditis have shifted over the years as well. Coxsackie B was the most common cause in the 1980s, but adenovirus became more common in the 1990s and parvovirus B19 in the 2000s. Why some kids develop myocarditis while others don’t is unclear, but the host-immune response to the virus likely plays an important role.

Research has shown two substantial spikes in the incidence of myocarditis children: infants under 2 years old and teens aged 14-19. Although myocarditis refers to any inflammation of myocardium not caused by ischemia, the signs, symptoms, and lab results vary according to patient’s age group. The only constant is that diaphoresis is rare across all ages.

Infants are more likely to show respiratory distress (68%) and an enlarged liver (40%) but can also present with gastrointestinal symptoms (24%). Vomiting without fever or diarrhea should arouse clinical suspicion of myocarditis in infants, although fever and diarrhea can occur.

In young children, who have the lowest incidence, fatigue presents in about one-third, with 20% presenting with chest pain and 20% with hepatomegaly. The most common symptom in teens by far (80%) is chest pain. About one-third also have respiratory distress but gastrointestinal symptoms are less common (20%).

When should a clinician suspect myocarditis in a teen presenting with chest pain? “If the chest pain is reproducible and if you can localize it, they don’t need further evaluation,” Dr. Butts said. “After that, it’s a lot about the history.”

In terms of lab results, ventricular function measured by brain natriuretic peptide is significantly depressed in infants and young children but often near normal in teens. Inflammatory markers (C-reactive protein) tend to be low in infants but elevated in young children and teens. And troponin levels, denoting myocardial injury, are minimal in infants and young children but elevated in teens. Median ejection fraction on echocardiograms, about 55% in normal hearts, will often be low in infants and young children, around 30%-33%, but is near normal (54%) in teens.
 

Diagnosis and management

Cardiac MRI increasingly has been replacing endomyocardial biopsy for diagnosis, with MRI exceeding biopsy use between 2009 and 2010, Dr. Butts said. The advantage of endomyocardial biopsy is that it’s specific, if not very sensitive. The test is invasive, however, requiring sedation and carrying the risk of tricuspid injury. The most common finding on cardiac MRI is late gadolinium enhancement (80%) while early gadolinium enhancement is less common (55%).

Although Dr. Butts mentioned the Dallas diagnostic criteria from 1987, he advocated for the more recent Lake Louise Criteria, which require clinical suspicion of myocarditis and at least two of three findings on MRI: T2-weighted myocardial abnormalities, T1 early or late gadolinium enhancement, or regional wall motion abnormalities or evidence of pericarditis

Point-of-care ultrasound can be useful for detecting myocarditis, but its success depends on whether the user can pick up on the subtle changes in ventricular function. “Just because someone has a point-of-care ultrasound that’s normal or thought to be normal, it shouldn’t rule out the diagnosis,” he said.

Learning the etiology of viral myocarditis often is difficult, and etiology doesn’t affect management of the condition, Dr. Butts said. Even in cases of myocarditis confirmed by biopsy, the virus may be identified in only about 60%-70% of cases with myocardial polymerase chain reaction. In clinical cases, the virus can be determined only about 25%-30% of the time with serum PCR.

Prognosis is usually good, with 80%-90% of children and teens going home transplant free despite most arriving critically ill and 50%-80% initially being admitted to ICU. Two-thirds of those discharged go home with heart failure medications, but only one in six are readmitted within a year.

The strongest risk factors for poor prognosis are younger age and being critically ill at presentation but other risk factors include female sex, poor ventricular function, poor perfusion on exam, increased dilation on echocardiogram, and a need for ECMO or inotropes or mechanical ventilation.

That said, Dr. Butts cautioned attendees not to ignore normal function. In one study of 171 patients, among 75 who presented with normal function, 15% went home with inotropes, 12% required mechanical ventilation, 9% had arrhythmia, and 5% needed extracorporeal membrane oxygenation.

A big question in treatment is whether to give IVIG or not and the evidence is murky, Dr. Butts said. He reviewed a couple studies on IVIG, including one that suggested better ventricular functional recovery with the treatment but those who received IVIG were also more likely to be on an ACE inhibitor.

“Was it the ACE inhibitor or was it IVIG? We don’t know,” he said. Different cardiologists may give different opinions on IVIG. “It has nothing to do with the actual evidence behind it.”

IVIG has drawbacks: It’s very expensive and it involves risks that include serum sickness and interstitial nephritis.

“Pediatricians typically aren’t going to directly decide on giving or not giving IVIG,” Dr. Han said. “Typically, the ultimate choice comes from a group discussion between the hospital cardiologist – perhaps the hospitalist pediatrician if they are involved – and the family. We acknowledge the ambiguity of the evidence and decide based upon the severity of the initial disease process.”
 

Return to competitive sports; Follow-up critical

Experts are much more confident, however, about when teens admitted with viral myocarditis can return to competitive sports. But Dr. Butts said he suspects the guidelines for these children aren’t followed as closely as they should be. The American Heart Association recommends waiting 6 months after discharge and ensuring the athlete has a normal echocardiogram, Holter monitoring, and stress test.

“It’s incredibly important to have them come back and see the cardiologist 6 months after admission,” Dr. Butts said. “The only patient I’ve ever had who died 6-7 months post myocarditis is somebody who, during their stress test, had increasing ventricular ectopy. I told him not to do sports. He didn’t listen to me and unfortunately passed away – I’m assuming from arrhythmia.”
 

COVID and vaccine-associated myocarditis

Vaccine-associated myocarditis is substantially milder than viral myocarditis, Dr. Butts said. A small study from a single center in Atlanta found that ejection fraction at admission was normal, around 56%, in those with vaccine-associated myocarditis, compared with 45% with non-COVID viral myocarditis and 50% with multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children or myocarditis from COVID-19. All patients with vaccine-associated myocarditis had normal function at discharge, compared with 73% of those with viral myocarditis and 93% with COVID-associated myocarditis.

While 22% of those with vaccine-associated myocarditis were admitted to the ICU, twice as many (40%) with viral myocarditis were, and three times as many (68%) with COVID-associated myocarditis ended up in intensive care.

Dr. Butts also noted a Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report from the Centers of Disease Control and Prevention that found teen boys had two to six times greater risk of heart complications after COVID-19 infection than after COVID vaccination.

In terms of direct comparisons, vaccine-related myocarditis occurred about 12-18 times per 100,000 doses for boys ages 5-11 years, compared with cardiac involvement in 93-133 cases out of 100,000 COVID-19 infections. Boys aged 12-17 years experienced 12-21 cases of myocarditis per 100,000 doses of the vaccine, compared with cardiac involvement in 50-64 out of 100,000 infections.

The bottom line, Dr. Butts said, is that cardiac involvement in MIS-C is common, but typically improves by discharge. “Vaccine-associated myocarditis is a mild clinical syndrome that has a very short duration, and, in my opinion, should never lead us to ever advise anybody not to get the vaccine. I’ve had many patients, even patients in their first year post transplant, who have gotten the COVID-19 vaccine and were just fine.”

Dr. Butts acknowledged that talking with families about the risk of myocarditis with the vaccine is challenging. He often starts these conversations by sharing the statistics, but he said relatable stories are the key. He will also relate the statistics to something the parents and teen will understand, whether it’s sports or another comparison. He does recommend that teens who develop vaccine-associated myocarditis complete the series and get the booster. Their chances of developing myocarditis again are extremely low, whereas “the likelihood of them being really ill from COVID-19 is much, much higher.”

Dr. Butts and Dr. Han had no disclosures. The presentation involved no external funding.

The ability of an Apple Watch to detect atrial fibrillation (AFib) is significantly affected by underlying ECG abnormalities such as sinus node dysfunction, atrioventricular (AV) block, or intraventricular conduction delay (IVCD), a single-center study suggests.

LDProd/Getty Images

“We were surprised to find that in one in every five patients, the smartwatch ECG failed to produce an automatic diagnosis,” study author Marc Strik, MD, PhD, a clinician at Bordeaux University Hospital in Pessac, France, told this news organization. “This [failure] was mostly due to insufficient quality of the tracing [60%], but in a third of cases, [34%], it was due to bradycardia, and in some cases, tachycardia [6%].

“We were also surprised to find that the existence of ventricular conduction disease was associated with a higher likelihood of missing AFib,” he said.

The study was published in the Canadian Journal of Cardiology.
 

Abnormalities affected detection

The investigators tested the accuracy of the Apple Watch (Apple, Cupertino, California) in detecting AFib in patients with various ECG anomalies. All participants underwent 12-lead ECG, followed by a 30-second ECG tracing with an Apple Watch Series 5. The smartwatch’s automated AFib detection algorithm gave a result of “no signs of AFib,” “AFib,” or “not checked for AFib (unclassified).”

Unclassified recordings resulted from “low heart rate” (below 50 beats/min), “high heart rate” (above 150 beats/min), “poor recording,” or “inconclusive recording.”

The smartwatch recordings were reviewed by a blinded electrophysiologist who interpreted each tracing and assigned a diagnosis of “AFib,” “absence of AFib,” or “diagnosis unclear.” To assess interobserver agreement, a second blinded electrophysiologist interpreted 100 randomly selected tracings.

Among the 734 patients (mean age, 66; 58% men) enrolled, 539 (73%) were in normal sinus rhythm (SR), 154 (21%) in AFib, 33 in atrial flutter or atrial tachycardia, 3 in ventricular tachycardia, and 5 in junctional tachycardia.

Furthermore, 65 (8.9%) had sinus node dysfunction, 21 (2.9%) had second- or third-degree AV block, 39 (5.3%) had a ventricular paced rhythm, 54 (7.4%) had premature ventricular contractions (PVCs), and 132 (18%) had IVCD (right or left bundle branch block or nonspecific IVCD).

Of the 539 patients in normal SR, 437 recordings were correctly diagnosed by the smartwatch, 7 were diagnosed incorrectly as AFib, and 95 were not classified.

Of the 187 patients in AFib, 129 were correctly diagnosed, 17 were incorrectly diagnosed as SR, and 41 were not classified.

When unclassified ECGs were considered false results, the smartwatch had a sensitivity of 69% and specificity of 81% for AFib detection. When unclassified ECGs were excluded from the analysis, sensitivity was 88%, and specificity was 98%.

Compared with patients without the abnormality, the relative risk of having false positive tracings was higher for patients with premature atrial contractions (PACs) or PVCs (risk ratio, 2.9), sinus node dysfunction (RR, 3.71), and AV block (RR, 7.8).

Fifty-eight patients with AFib were classified as SR or inconclusive by the smartwatch. Among them, 21 (36%) had an IVCD, 7 (12%) had a ventricular paced rhythm, and 5 (9%) had PACs or PVCs.

The risk of having false negative tracings (missed AF) was higher for patients with IVCD (RR, 2.6) and pacing (RR, 2.47), compared with those without the abnormality.
 

‘A powerful tool’

Overall, cardiac electrophysiologists showed high agreement in differentiating between AFib and non-AFib, with high interobserver reproducibility. A manual diagnosis was not possible for 10% of tracings because of either poor ECG quality (3%) or unclear P-waves (7%).

Fifty-nine of the 580 patients in SR were misclassified as AFib by the experts, and 5 of the 154 patients in AFib were misclassified as SR.

“Our results show that the presence of sinus node dysfunction, second- or third-degree AV block, ventricular paced rhythm, PVCs, and IVCD were more frequently represented in smartwatch misdiagnoses,” wrote the authors. “Patients with PVCs were three times as likely to have false positive AFib diagnoses.”

Study limitations included the single-center nature of the study and the fact that patients were recruited in a cardiology office. The latter factor may have influenced the incidence of ECG abnormalities, which was much higher than for the average smartwatch user.

“Even with its limitations, the smartwatch remains a powerful tool that is able to detect AFib and multiple other abnormalities,” said Dr. Strik. “Missed diagnosis of AFib may be less important in real life because of repeated measurements, and algorithms will continue to improve.”
 

Technology improving

Richard C. Becker, MD, director and physician in chief of the University of Cincinnati Heart, Lung, and Vascular Institute, said, “This is exactly the kind of investigation required to improve upon existing detection algorithms that will someday facilitate routine use in patient care. An ability to detect AFib in a large proportion of those with the heart rhythm abnormality is encouraging.”

The findings should not detract from well-conducted studies in otherwise healthy individuals of varied age in whom AFib was accurately detected, he added. “Similarly, an automatic diagnosis algorithm for AF, pending optimization and validation in a large and diverse cohort, should be viewed as a communication tool between patients and health care providers.”

Patients at risk for developing AFib could benefit from continuous monitoring using a smartwatch, said Dr. Becker. “Pre-existing heart rhythm abnormalities must be taken into consideration. Optimal utilization of emerging technology to include wearables requires an understanding of performance and limitations. It is best undertaken in coordination with a health care provider.”

Andrés F. Miranda-Arboleda, MD, and Adrian Baranchuk, MD, of Kingston Health Sciences Center, Canada, conclude in an accompanying editorial, “In a certain manner, the smartwatch algorithms for the detection of AFib in patients with cardiovascular conditions are not yet smart enough ... but they may soon be.”

The study was supported by the French government. Dr. Strik, Dr. Miranda-Arboleda, Dr. Baranchuk, and Dr. Becker reported no conflicts of interest.

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

The ability of an Apple Watch to detect atrial fibrillation (AFib) is significantly affected by underlying ECG abnormalities such as sinus node dysfunction, atrioventricular (AV) block, or intraventricular conduction delay (IVCD), a single-center study suggests.

LDProd/Getty Images

“We were surprised to find that in one in every five patients, the smartwatch ECG failed to produce an automatic diagnosis,” study author Marc Strik, MD, PhD, a clinician at Bordeaux University Hospital in Pessac, France, told this news organization. “This [failure] was mostly due to insufficient quality of the tracing [60%], but in a third of cases, [34%], it was due to bradycardia, and in some cases, tachycardia [6%].

“We were also surprised to find that the existence of ventricular conduction disease was associated with a higher likelihood of missing AFib,” he said.

The study was published in the Canadian Journal of Cardiology.
 

Abnormalities affected detection

The investigators tested the accuracy of the Apple Watch (Apple, Cupertino, California) in detecting AFib in patients with various ECG anomalies. All participants underwent 12-lead ECG, followed by a 30-second ECG tracing with an Apple Watch Series 5. The smartwatch’s automated AFib detection algorithm gave a result of “no signs of AFib,” “AFib,” or “not checked for AFib (unclassified).”

Unclassified recordings resulted from “low heart rate” (below 50 beats/min), “high heart rate” (above 150 beats/min), “poor recording,” or “inconclusive recording.”

The smartwatch recordings were reviewed by a blinded electrophysiologist who interpreted each tracing and assigned a diagnosis of “AFib,” “absence of AFib,” or “diagnosis unclear.” To assess interobserver agreement, a second blinded electrophysiologist interpreted 100 randomly selected tracings.

Among the 734 patients (mean age, 66; 58% men) enrolled, 539 (73%) were in normal sinus rhythm (SR), 154 (21%) in AFib, 33 in atrial flutter or atrial tachycardia, 3 in ventricular tachycardia, and 5 in junctional tachycardia.

Furthermore, 65 (8.9%) had sinus node dysfunction, 21 (2.9%) had second- or third-degree AV block, 39 (5.3%) had a ventricular paced rhythm, 54 (7.4%) had premature ventricular contractions (PVCs), and 132 (18%) had IVCD (right or left bundle branch block or nonspecific IVCD).

Of the 539 patients in normal SR, 437 recordings were correctly diagnosed by the smartwatch, 7 were diagnosed incorrectly as AFib, and 95 were not classified.

Of the 187 patients in AFib, 129 were correctly diagnosed, 17 were incorrectly diagnosed as SR, and 41 were not classified.

When unclassified ECGs were considered false results, the smartwatch had a sensitivity of 69% and specificity of 81% for AFib detection. When unclassified ECGs were excluded from the analysis, sensitivity was 88%, and specificity was 98%.

Compared with patients without the abnormality, the relative risk of having false positive tracings was higher for patients with premature atrial contractions (PACs) or PVCs (risk ratio, 2.9), sinus node dysfunction (RR, 3.71), and AV block (RR, 7.8).

Fifty-eight patients with AFib were classified as SR or inconclusive by the smartwatch. Among them, 21 (36%) had an IVCD, 7 (12%) had a ventricular paced rhythm, and 5 (9%) had PACs or PVCs.

The risk of having false negative tracings (missed AF) was higher for patients with IVCD (RR, 2.6) and pacing (RR, 2.47), compared with those without the abnormality.
 

‘A powerful tool’

Overall, cardiac electrophysiologists showed high agreement in differentiating between AFib and non-AFib, with high interobserver reproducibility. A manual diagnosis was not possible for 10% of tracings because of either poor ECG quality (3%) or unclear P-waves (7%).

Fifty-nine of the 580 patients in SR were misclassified as AFib by the experts, and 5 of the 154 patients in AFib were misclassified as SR.

“Our results show that the presence of sinus node dysfunction, second- or third-degree AV block, ventricular paced rhythm, PVCs, and IVCD were more frequently represented in smartwatch misdiagnoses,” wrote the authors. “Patients with PVCs were three times as likely to have false positive AFib diagnoses.”

Study limitations included the single-center nature of the study and the fact that patients were recruited in a cardiology office. The latter factor may have influenced the incidence of ECG abnormalities, which was much higher than for the average smartwatch user.

“Even with its limitations, the smartwatch remains a powerful tool that is able to detect AFib and multiple other abnormalities,” said Dr. Strik. “Missed diagnosis of AFib may be less important in real life because of repeated measurements, and algorithms will continue to improve.”
 

Technology improving

Richard C. Becker, MD, director and physician in chief of the University of Cincinnati Heart, Lung, and Vascular Institute, said, “This is exactly the kind of investigation required to improve upon existing detection algorithms that will someday facilitate routine use in patient care. An ability to detect AFib in a large proportion of those with the heart rhythm abnormality is encouraging.”

The findings should not detract from well-conducted studies in otherwise healthy individuals of varied age in whom AFib was accurately detected, he added. “Similarly, an automatic diagnosis algorithm for AF, pending optimization and validation in a large and diverse cohort, should be viewed as a communication tool between patients and health care providers.”

Patients at risk for developing AFib could benefit from continuous monitoring using a smartwatch, said Dr. Becker. “Pre-existing heart rhythm abnormalities must be taken into consideration. Optimal utilization of emerging technology to include wearables requires an understanding of performance and limitations. It is best undertaken in coordination with a health care provider.”

Andrés F. Miranda-Arboleda, MD, and Adrian Baranchuk, MD, of Kingston Health Sciences Center, Canada, conclude in an accompanying editorial, “In a certain manner, the smartwatch algorithms for the detection of AFib in patients with cardiovascular conditions are not yet smart enough ... but they may soon be.”

The study was supported by the French government. Dr. Strik, Dr. Miranda-Arboleda, Dr. Baranchuk, and Dr. Becker reported no conflicts of interest.

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

The ability of an Apple Watch to detect atrial fibrillation (AFib) is significantly affected by underlying ECG abnormalities such as sinus node dysfunction, atrioventricular (AV) block, or intraventricular conduction delay (IVCD), a single-center study suggests.

LDProd/Getty Images

“We were surprised to find that in one in every five patients, the smartwatch ECG failed to produce an automatic diagnosis,” study author Marc Strik, MD, PhD, a clinician at Bordeaux University Hospital in Pessac, France, told this news organization. “This [failure] was mostly due to insufficient quality of the tracing [60%], but in a third of cases, [34%], it was due to bradycardia, and in some cases, tachycardia [6%].

“We were also surprised to find that the existence of ventricular conduction disease was associated with a higher likelihood of missing AFib,” he said.

The study was published in the Canadian Journal of Cardiology.
 

Abnormalities affected detection

The investigators tested the accuracy of the Apple Watch (Apple, Cupertino, California) in detecting AFib in patients with various ECG anomalies. All participants underwent 12-lead ECG, followed by a 30-second ECG tracing with an Apple Watch Series 5. The smartwatch’s automated AFib detection algorithm gave a result of “no signs of AFib,” “AFib,” or “not checked for AFib (unclassified).”

Unclassified recordings resulted from “low heart rate” (below 50 beats/min), “high heart rate” (above 150 beats/min), “poor recording,” or “inconclusive recording.”

The smartwatch recordings were reviewed by a blinded electrophysiologist who interpreted each tracing and assigned a diagnosis of “AFib,” “absence of AFib,” or “diagnosis unclear.” To assess interobserver agreement, a second blinded electrophysiologist interpreted 100 randomly selected tracings.

Among the 734 patients (mean age, 66; 58% men) enrolled, 539 (73%) were in normal sinus rhythm (SR), 154 (21%) in AFib, 33 in atrial flutter or atrial tachycardia, 3 in ventricular tachycardia, and 5 in junctional tachycardia.

Furthermore, 65 (8.9%) had sinus node dysfunction, 21 (2.9%) had second- or third-degree AV block, 39 (5.3%) had a ventricular paced rhythm, 54 (7.4%) had premature ventricular contractions (PVCs), and 132 (18%) had IVCD (right or left bundle branch block or nonspecific IVCD).

Of the 539 patients in normal SR, 437 recordings were correctly diagnosed by the smartwatch, 7 were diagnosed incorrectly as AFib, and 95 were not classified.

Of the 187 patients in AFib, 129 were correctly diagnosed, 17 were incorrectly diagnosed as SR, and 41 were not classified.

When unclassified ECGs were considered false results, the smartwatch had a sensitivity of 69% and specificity of 81% for AFib detection. When unclassified ECGs were excluded from the analysis, sensitivity was 88%, and specificity was 98%.

Compared with patients without the abnormality, the relative risk of having false positive tracings was higher for patients with premature atrial contractions (PACs) or PVCs (risk ratio, 2.9), sinus node dysfunction (RR, 3.71), and AV block (RR, 7.8).

Fifty-eight patients with AFib were classified as SR or inconclusive by the smartwatch. Among them, 21 (36%) had an IVCD, 7 (12%) had a ventricular paced rhythm, and 5 (9%) had PACs or PVCs.

The risk of having false negative tracings (missed AF) was higher for patients with IVCD (RR, 2.6) and pacing (RR, 2.47), compared with those without the abnormality.
 

‘A powerful tool’

Overall, cardiac electrophysiologists showed high agreement in differentiating between AFib and non-AFib, with high interobserver reproducibility. A manual diagnosis was not possible for 10% of tracings because of either poor ECG quality (3%) or unclear P-waves (7%).

Fifty-nine of the 580 patients in SR were misclassified as AFib by the experts, and 5 of the 154 patients in AFib were misclassified as SR.

“Our results show that the presence of sinus node dysfunction, second- or third-degree AV block, ventricular paced rhythm, PVCs, and IVCD were more frequently represented in smartwatch misdiagnoses,” wrote the authors. “Patients with PVCs were three times as likely to have false positive AFib diagnoses.”

Study limitations included the single-center nature of the study and the fact that patients were recruited in a cardiology office. The latter factor may have influenced the incidence of ECG abnormalities, which was much higher than for the average smartwatch user.

“Even with its limitations, the smartwatch remains a powerful tool that is able to detect AFib and multiple other abnormalities,” said Dr. Strik. “Missed diagnosis of AFib may be less important in real life because of repeated measurements, and algorithms will continue to improve.”
 

Technology improving

Richard C. Becker, MD, director and physician in chief of the University of Cincinnati Heart, Lung, and Vascular Institute, said, “This is exactly the kind of investigation required to improve upon existing detection algorithms that will someday facilitate routine use in patient care. An ability to detect AFib in a large proportion of those with the heart rhythm abnormality is encouraging.”

The findings should not detract from well-conducted studies in otherwise healthy individuals of varied age in whom AFib was accurately detected, he added. “Similarly, an automatic diagnosis algorithm for AF, pending optimization and validation in a large and diverse cohort, should be viewed as a communication tool between patients and health care providers.”

Patients at risk for developing AFib could benefit from continuous monitoring using a smartwatch, said Dr. Becker. “Pre-existing heart rhythm abnormalities must be taken into consideration. Optimal utilization of emerging technology to include wearables requires an understanding of performance and limitations. It is best undertaken in coordination with a health care provider.”

Andrés F. Miranda-Arboleda, MD, and Adrian Baranchuk, MD, of Kingston Health Sciences Center, Canada, conclude in an accompanying editorial, “In a certain manner, the smartwatch algorithms for the detection of AFib in patients with cardiovascular conditions are not yet smart enough ... but they may soon be.”

The study was supported by the French government. Dr. Strik, Dr. Miranda-Arboleda, Dr. Baranchuk, and Dr. Becker reported no conflicts of interest.

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

Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir (Paxlovid) has been a game changer for high-risk patients with early COVID-19 symptoms but has significant interactions with commonly used cardiovascular medications, a new paper cautions.

COVID-19 patients with cardiovascular disease (CVD) or risk factors such as diabetes, hypertension, and chronic kidney disease are at high risk of severe disease and account for the lion’s share of those receiving Paxlovid. Data from the initial EPIC-HR trial and recent real-world data also suggest they’re among the most likely to benefit from the oral antiviral, regardless of their COVID-19 vaccination status.

ClaudioVentrella/Thinkstock

“But at the same time, it unfortunately interacts with many very commonly prescribed cardiovascular medications and with many of them in a very clinically meaningful way, which may lead to serious adverse consequences,” senior author Sarju Ganatra, MD, said in an interview. “So, while it’s being prescribed with a good intention to help these people, we may actually end up doing more harm than good.

“We don’t want to deter people from getting their necessary COVID-19 treatment, which is excellent for the most part these days as an outpatient,” he added. “So, we felt the need to make a comprehensive list of cardiac medications and level of interactions with Paxlovid and also to help the clinicians and prescribers at the point of care to make the clinical decision of what modifications they may need to do.”

The paper, published online in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology, details drug-drug interactions with some 80 CV medications including statins, antihypertensive agents, heart failure therapies, and antiplatelet/anticoagulants.

It also includes a color-coded figure denoting whether a drug is safe to coadminister with Paxlovid, may potentially interact and require a dose adjustment or temporary discontinuation, or is contraindicated.

Among the commonly used blood thinners, for example, the paper notes that Paxlovid significantly increases drug levels of the direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) apixaban, rivaroxaban, edoxaban, and dabigatran and, thus, increases the risk of bleeding.

“It can still be administered, if it’s necessary, but the dose of the DOAC either needs to be reduced or held depending on what they are getting it for, whether they’re getting it for pulmonary embolism or atrial fibrillation, and we adjust for all those things in the table in the paper,” said Dr. Ganatra, from Lahey Hospital and Medical Center, Burlington, Mass.

When the DOAC can’t be interrupted or dose adjusted, however, Paxlovid should not be given, the experts said. The antiviral is safe to use with enoxaparin, a low-molecular-weight heparin, but can increase or decrease levels of warfarin and should be used with close international normalized ratio monitoring.

For patients on antiplatelet agents, clinicians are advised to avoid prescribing nirmatrelvir/ritonavir to those on ticagrelor or clopidogrel unless the agents can be replaced by prasugrel.

Ritonavir – an inhibitor of cytochrome P 450 enzymes, particularly CYP3A4 – poses an increased risk of bleeding when given with ticagrelor, a CYP3A4 substrate, and decreases the active metabolite of clopidogrel, cutting its platelet inhibition by 20%. Although there’s a twofold decrease in the maximum concentration of prasugrel in patients on ritonavir, this does not affect its antiplatelet activity, the paper explains.

Among the lipid-lowering agents, experts suggested temporarily withholding atorvastatin, rosuvastatin, simvastatin, and lovastatin because of an increased risk for myopathy and liver toxicity but say that other statins, fibrates, ezetimibe, and the proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 inhibitors evolocumab and alirocumab are safe to coadminister with Paxlovid.

While statins typically leave the body within hours, most of the antiarrhythmic drugs, except for sotalol, are not safe to give with Paxlovid, Dr. Ganatra said. It’s technically not feasible to hold these drugs because most have long half-lives, reaching about 100 days, for example, for amiodarone.

“It’s going to hang around in your system for a long time, so you don’t want to be falsely reassured that you’re holding the drug and it’s going to be fine to go back slowly,” he said. “You need to look for alternative therapies in those scenarios for COVID-19 treatment, which could be other antivirals, or a monoclonal antibody individualized to the patient’s risk.”

Although there’s limited clinical information regarding interaction-related adverse events with Paxlovid, the team used pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics data to provide the guidance. Serious adverse events are also well documented for ritonavir, which has been prescribed for years to treat HIV, Dr. Ganatra noted.

The Infectious Disease Society of America also published guidance on the management of potential drug interactions with Paxlovid in May and, earlier in October, the Food and Drug Administration updated its Paxlovid patient eligibility screening checklist.

Still, most prescribers are actually primary care physicians and even pharmacists, who may not be completely attuned, said Dr. Ganatra, who noted that some centers have started programs to help connect primary care physicians with their cardiology colleagues to check on CV drugs in their COVID-19 patients.

“We need to be thinking more broadly and at a system level where the hospital or health care system leverages the electronic health record systems,” he said. “Most of them are sophisticated enough to incorporate simple drug-drug interaction information, so if you try to prescribe someone Paxlovid and it’s a heart transplant patient who is on immunosuppressive therapy or a patient on a blood thinner, then it should give you a warning ... or at least give them a link to our paper or other valuable resources.

“If someone is on a blood thinner and the blood thinner level goes up by ninefold, we can only imagine what we would be dealing with,” Dr. Ganatra said. “So, these interactions should be taken very seriously and I think it’s worth the time and investment.”

The authors reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir (Paxlovid) has been a game changer for high-risk patients with early COVID-19 symptoms but has significant interactions with commonly used cardiovascular medications, a new paper cautions.

COVID-19 patients with cardiovascular disease (CVD) or risk factors such as diabetes, hypertension, and chronic kidney disease are at high risk of severe disease and account for the lion’s share of those receiving Paxlovid. Data from the initial EPIC-HR trial and recent real-world data also suggest they’re among the most likely to benefit from the oral antiviral, regardless of their COVID-19 vaccination status.

ClaudioVentrella/Thinkstock

“But at the same time, it unfortunately interacts with many very commonly prescribed cardiovascular medications and with many of them in a very clinically meaningful way, which may lead to serious adverse consequences,” senior author Sarju Ganatra, MD, said in an interview. “So, while it’s being prescribed with a good intention to help these people, we may actually end up doing more harm than good.

“We don’t want to deter people from getting their necessary COVID-19 treatment, which is excellent for the most part these days as an outpatient,” he added. “So, we felt the need to make a comprehensive list of cardiac medications and level of interactions with Paxlovid and also to help the clinicians and prescribers at the point of care to make the clinical decision of what modifications they may need to do.”

The paper, published online in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology, details drug-drug interactions with some 80 CV medications including statins, antihypertensive agents, heart failure therapies, and antiplatelet/anticoagulants.

It also includes a color-coded figure denoting whether a drug is safe to coadminister with Paxlovid, may potentially interact and require a dose adjustment or temporary discontinuation, or is contraindicated.

Among the commonly used blood thinners, for example, the paper notes that Paxlovid significantly increases drug levels of the direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) apixaban, rivaroxaban, edoxaban, and dabigatran and, thus, increases the risk of bleeding.

“It can still be administered, if it’s necessary, but the dose of the DOAC either needs to be reduced or held depending on what they are getting it for, whether they’re getting it for pulmonary embolism or atrial fibrillation, and we adjust for all those things in the table in the paper,” said Dr. Ganatra, from Lahey Hospital and Medical Center, Burlington, Mass.

When the DOAC can’t be interrupted or dose adjusted, however, Paxlovid should not be given, the experts said. The antiviral is safe to use with enoxaparin, a low-molecular-weight heparin, but can increase or decrease levels of warfarin and should be used with close international normalized ratio monitoring.

For patients on antiplatelet agents, clinicians are advised to avoid prescribing nirmatrelvir/ritonavir to those on ticagrelor or clopidogrel unless the agents can be replaced by prasugrel.

Ritonavir – an inhibitor of cytochrome P 450 enzymes, particularly CYP3A4 – poses an increased risk of bleeding when given with ticagrelor, a CYP3A4 substrate, and decreases the active metabolite of clopidogrel, cutting its platelet inhibition by 20%. Although there’s a twofold decrease in the maximum concentration of prasugrel in patients on ritonavir, this does not affect its antiplatelet activity, the paper explains.

Among the lipid-lowering agents, experts suggested temporarily withholding atorvastatin, rosuvastatin, simvastatin, and lovastatin because of an increased risk for myopathy and liver toxicity but say that other statins, fibrates, ezetimibe, and the proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 inhibitors evolocumab and alirocumab are safe to coadminister with Paxlovid.

While statins typically leave the body within hours, most of the antiarrhythmic drugs, except for sotalol, are not safe to give with Paxlovid, Dr. Ganatra said. It’s technically not feasible to hold these drugs because most have long half-lives, reaching about 100 days, for example, for amiodarone.

“It’s going to hang around in your system for a long time, so you don’t want to be falsely reassured that you’re holding the drug and it’s going to be fine to go back slowly,” he said. “You need to look for alternative therapies in those scenarios for COVID-19 treatment, which could be other antivirals, or a monoclonal antibody individualized to the patient’s risk.”

Although there’s limited clinical information regarding interaction-related adverse events with Paxlovid, the team used pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics data to provide the guidance. Serious adverse events are also well documented for ritonavir, which has been prescribed for years to treat HIV, Dr. Ganatra noted.

The Infectious Disease Society of America also published guidance on the management of potential drug interactions with Paxlovid in May and, earlier in October, the Food and Drug Administration updated its Paxlovid patient eligibility screening checklist.

Still, most prescribers are actually primary care physicians and even pharmacists, who may not be completely attuned, said Dr. Ganatra, who noted that some centers have started programs to help connect primary care physicians with their cardiology colleagues to check on CV drugs in their COVID-19 patients.

“We need to be thinking more broadly and at a system level where the hospital or health care system leverages the electronic health record systems,” he said. “Most of them are sophisticated enough to incorporate simple drug-drug interaction information, so if you try to prescribe someone Paxlovid and it’s a heart transplant patient who is on immunosuppressive therapy or a patient on a blood thinner, then it should give you a warning ... or at least give them a link to our paper or other valuable resources.

“If someone is on a blood thinner and the blood thinner level goes up by ninefold, we can only imagine what we would be dealing with,” Dr. Ganatra said. “So, these interactions should be taken very seriously and I think it’s worth the time and investment.”

The authors reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir (Paxlovid) has been a game changer for high-risk patients with early COVID-19 symptoms but has significant interactions with commonly used cardiovascular medications, a new paper cautions.

COVID-19 patients with cardiovascular disease (CVD) or risk factors such as diabetes, hypertension, and chronic kidney disease are at high risk of severe disease and account for the lion’s share of those receiving Paxlovid. Data from the initial EPIC-HR trial and recent real-world data also suggest they’re among the most likely to benefit from the oral antiviral, regardless of their COVID-19 vaccination status.

ClaudioVentrella/Thinkstock

“But at the same time, it unfortunately interacts with many very commonly prescribed cardiovascular medications and with many of them in a very clinically meaningful way, which may lead to serious adverse consequences,” senior author Sarju Ganatra, MD, said in an interview. “So, while it’s being prescribed with a good intention to help these people, we may actually end up doing more harm than good.

“We don’t want to deter people from getting their necessary COVID-19 treatment, which is excellent for the most part these days as an outpatient,” he added. “So, we felt the need to make a comprehensive list of cardiac medications and level of interactions with Paxlovid and also to help the clinicians and prescribers at the point of care to make the clinical decision of what modifications they may need to do.”

The paper, published online in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology, details drug-drug interactions with some 80 CV medications including statins, antihypertensive agents, heart failure therapies, and antiplatelet/anticoagulants.

It also includes a color-coded figure denoting whether a drug is safe to coadminister with Paxlovid, may potentially interact and require a dose adjustment or temporary discontinuation, or is contraindicated.

Among the commonly used blood thinners, for example, the paper notes that Paxlovid significantly increases drug levels of the direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) apixaban, rivaroxaban, edoxaban, and dabigatran and, thus, increases the risk of bleeding.

“It can still be administered, if it’s necessary, but the dose of the DOAC either needs to be reduced or held depending on what they are getting it for, whether they’re getting it for pulmonary embolism or atrial fibrillation, and we adjust for all those things in the table in the paper,” said Dr. Ganatra, from Lahey Hospital and Medical Center, Burlington, Mass.

When the DOAC can’t be interrupted or dose adjusted, however, Paxlovid should not be given, the experts said. The antiviral is safe to use with enoxaparin, a low-molecular-weight heparin, but can increase or decrease levels of warfarin and should be used with close international normalized ratio monitoring.

For patients on antiplatelet agents, clinicians are advised to avoid prescribing nirmatrelvir/ritonavir to those on ticagrelor or clopidogrel unless the agents can be replaced by prasugrel.

Ritonavir – an inhibitor of cytochrome P 450 enzymes, particularly CYP3A4 – poses an increased risk of bleeding when given with ticagrelor, a CYP3A4 substrate, and decreases the active metabolite of clopidogrel, cutting its platelet inhibition by 20%. Although there’s a twofold decrease in the maximum concentration of prasugrel in patients on ritonavir, this does not affect its antiplatelet activity, the paper explains.

Among the lipid-lowering agents, experts suggested temporarily withholding atorvastatin, rosuvastatin, simvastatin, and lovastatin because of an increased risk for myopathy and liver toxicity but say that other statins, fibrates, ezetimibe, and the proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 inhibitors evolocumab and alirocumab are safe to coadminister with Paxlovid.

While statins typically leave the body within hours, most of the antiarrhythmic drugs, except for sotalol, are not safe to give with Paxlovid, Dr. Ganatra said. It’s technically not feasible to hold these drugs because most have long half-lives, reaching about 100 days, for example, for amiodarone.

“It’s going to hang around in your system for a long time, so you don’t want to be falsely reassured that you’re holding the drug and it’s going to be fine to go back slowly,” he said. “You need to look for alternative therapies in those scenarios for COVID-19 treatment, which could be other antivirals, or a monoclonal antibody individualized to the patient’s risk.”

Although there’s limited clinical information regarding interaction-related adverse events with Paxlovid, the team used pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics data to provide the guidance. Serious adverse events are also well documented for ritonavir, which has been prescribed for years to treat HIV, Dr. Ganatra noted.

The Infectious Disease Society of America also published guidance on the management of potential drug interactions with Paxlovid in May and, earlier in October, the Food and Drug Administration updated its Paxlovid patient eligibility screening checklist.

Still, most prescribers are actually primary care physicians and even pharmacists, who may not be completely attuned, said Dr. Ganatra, who noted that some centers have started programs to help connect primary care physicians with their cardiology colleagues to check on CV drugs in their COVID-19 patients.

“We need to be thinking more broadly and at a system level where the hospital or health care system leverages the electronic health record systems,” he said. “Most of them are sophisticated enough to incorporate simple drug-drug interaction information, so if you try to prescribe someone Paxlovid and it’s a heart transplant patient who is on immunosuppressive therapy or a patient on a blood thinner, then it should give you a warning ... or at least give them a link to our paper or other valuable resources.

“If someone is on a blood thinner and the blood thinner level goes up by ninefold, we can only imagine what we would be dealing with,” Dr. Ganatra said. “So, these interactions should be taken very seriously and I think it’s worth the time and investment.”

The authors reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Cardiac biomarkers vary according to sex hormones in healthy transgender adults, just as in cisgender individuals, a new cross-sectional study suggests.

Previous research in the general population has shown that females have a lower 99th percentile upper reference limit for high-sensitivity cardiac troponin (hs-cTn) than males, whereas N-terminal prohormone brain natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) concentrations are higher in females than males across all ages after puberty.

“That trend is similar for people that have been on gender-affirming hormones, saying that sex hormones are playing a role in how cardiac turnover happens in a healthy state,” study author Dina M. Greene, PhD, University of Washington, Seattle, said in an interview.

Although the number of transgender people seeking gender-affirming care is increasing, studies are limited and largely retrospective cohorts, she noted. The scientific literature evaluating and defining cardiac biomarker concentrations is “currently absent.”

The American Heart Association’s recent scientific statement on the cardiovascular health of transgender and gender diverse (TGD) people says mounting evidence points to worse CV health in TGD people and that part of this excess risk is driven by significant psychosocial stressors across the lifespan. “In addition, the use of gender-affirming hormone therapy may be associated with cardiometabolic changes, but health research in this area remains limited and, at times, contradictory.”

For the present study, Dr. Greene and colleagues reached out to LGBTQ-oriented primary care and internal medicine clinics in Seattle and Iowa City to recruit 79 transgender men prescribed testosterone (mean age, 28.8 years) and 93 transgender women (mean age, 35.1 years) prescribed estradiol for at least 12 months. The mean duration of hormone therapy was 4.8 and 3.5 years, respectively.

The median estradiol concentration was 51 pg/mL in transgender men and 207 pg/mL in transgender women. Median testosterone concentrations were 4.6 ng/mL and 0.4 ng/mL, respectively.

The cardiac biomarkers were measured with the ARCHITECT STAT (Abbott Diagnostics) and ACCESS (Beckman Coulter) high-sensitivity troponin I assays, the Elecsys Troponin T Gen 5 STAT assay (Roche Diagnostics), and the Elecsys ProBNP II immunoassay (Roche Diagnostics).

As reported in JAMA Cardiology, the median hs-cTnI level on the ARCHITECT STAT assay was 0.9 ng/L (range, 0.6-1.7) in transgender men and 0.6 ng/L (range, 0.3-1.0) in transgender women. The pattern was consistent across the two other assays.

In contrast, the median NT-proBNP level was 17 ng/L (range, 13-27) in transgender men and 49 ng/L (range, 32-86) in transgender women.

“It seems that sex hormone concentration is a stronger driver of baseline cardiac troponin and NT-proBNP concentrations relative to sex assigned at birth,” Dr. Greene said.

The observed differences in hs-cTn concentrations “are likely physiological and not pathological,” given that concentrations between healthy cisgender people are also apparent and not thought to portend adverse events, the authors noted.

Teasing out the clinical implications of sex-specific hs-cTn upper reference limits for ruling in acute myocardial infarction (MI), however, is complicated by biological and social factors that contribute to poorer outcomes in women, despite lower baseline levels, they added. “Ultimately, the psychosocial benefits of gender-affirming hormones are substantial, and informed consent is likely the ideal method to balance the undetermined risks.”

Dr. Greene pointed out that the study wasn’t powered to accurately calculate gender-specific hs-cTn 99th percentiles or reference intervals for NT-proBNP and assessed the biomarkers at a single time point.

For the transgender person presenting with chest pain, she said, the clinical implications are not yet known, but the data suggest that when sex-specific 99th percentiles for hs-cTn are used, the numeric value associated with the affirmed gender, rather than the sex assigned at birth, may be the appropriate URL.

“It really depends on what the triage pathway is and if that pathway has differences for people of different sexes and how often people get serial measurements,” Dr. Greene said. “Within this population, it’s very important to look at those serial measurements because for people that are not cismen, those 99th percentiles when they’re non–sex specific, are going to favor in detection of a heart attack. So, you need to look at the second value to make sure there hasn’t been a change over time.”

The observed differences in the distribution of NT-proBNP concentrations is similar to that in the cisgender population, Dr. Greene noted. But these differences do not lead to sex-specific diagnostic thresholds because of the significant elevations present in overt heart failure and cardiovascular disease. “For NT-proBNP, it’s not as important. People don’t usually have a little bit of heart failure, they have heart failure, where people have small MIs.”

Dr. Greene said she would like to see larger trials looking at biomarker measurements and cardiac imaging before hormone therapy but that the biggest issue is the need for inclusion of transgender people in all cardiovascular trials.

“The sample sizes are never going to be as big as we get for cisgender people for a number of reasons but ensuring that it’s something that’s being asked on intake and monitored over time so we can understand how transgender people fit into the general population for cardiac disease,” Dr. Greene said. “And so, we can normalize that they exist. I keep driving this point home, but this is the biggest thing right now when it’s such a political issue.”

The study was supported in part by the department of laboratory medicine at the University of Washington, the department of pathology at the University of Iowa, and a grant from Abbott Diagnostics for in-kind high-sensitivity cardiac troponin I reagent. One coauthor reported financial relationships with Siemens Healthineers, Roche Diagnostics, Beckman Coulter, Becton, Dickinson, Abbott Diagnostics, Quidel Diagnostics, Sphingotech, and PixCell Medical. No other disclosures were reported.

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

Cardiac biomarkers vary according to sex hormones in healthy transgender adults, just as in cisgender individuals, a new cross-sectional study suggests.

Previous research in the general population has shown that females have a lower 99th percentile upper reference limit for high-sensitivity cardiac troponin (hs-cTn) than males, whereas N-terminal prohormone brain natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) concentrations are higher in females than males across all ages after puberty.

“That trend is similar for people that have been on gender-affirming hormones, saying that sex hormones are playing a role in how cardiac turnover happens in a healthy state,” study author Dina M. Greene, PhD, University of Washington, Seattle, said in an interview.

Although the number of transgender people seeking gender-affirming care is increasing, studies are limited and largely retrospective cohorts, she noted. The scientific literature evaluating and defining cardiac biomarker concentrations is “currently absent.”

The American Heart Association’s recent scientific statement on the cardiovascular health of transgender and gender diverse (TGD) people says mounting evidence points to worse CV health in TGD people and that part of this excess risk is driven by significant psychosocial stressors across the lifespan. “In addition, the use of gender-affirming hormone therapy may be associated with cardiometabolic changes, but health research in this area remains limited and, at times, contradictory.”

For the present study, Dr. Greene and colleagues reached out to LGBTQ-oriented primary care and internal medicine clinics in Seattle and Iowa City to recruit 79 transgender men prescribed testosterone (mean age, 28.8 years) and 93 transgender women (mean age, 35.1 years) prescribed estradiol for at least 12 months. The mean duration of hormone therapy was 4.8 and 3.5 years, respectively.

The median estradiol concentration was 51 pg/mL in transgender men and 207 pg/mL in transgender women. Median testosterone concentrations were 4.6 ng/mL and 0.4 ng/mL, respectively.

The cardiac biomarkers were measured with the ARCHITECT STAT (Abbott Diagnostics) and ACCESS (Beckman Coulter) high-sensitivity troponin I assays, the Elecsys Troponin T Gen 5 STAT assay (Roche Diagnostics), and the Elecsys ProBNP II immunoassay (Roche Diagnostics).

As reported in JAMA Cardiology, the median hs-cTnI level on the ARCHITECT STAT assay was 0.9 ng/L (range, 0.6-1.7) in transgender men and 0.6 ng/L (range, 0.3-1.0) in transgender women. The pattern was consistent across the two other assays.

In contrast, the median NT-proBNP level was 17 ng/L (range, 13-27) in transgender men and 49 ng/L (range, 32-86) in transgender women.

“It seems that sex hormone concentration is a stronger driver of baseline cardiac troponin and NT-proBNP concentrations relative to sex assigned at birth,” Dr. Greene said.

The observed differences in hs-cTn concentrations “are likely physiological and not pathological,” given that concentrations between healthy cisgender people are also apparent and not thought to portend adverse events, the authors noted.

Teasing out the clinical implications of sex-specific hs-cTn upper reference limits for ruling in acute myocardial infarction (MI), however, is complicated by biological and social factors that contribute to poorer outcomes in women, despite lower baseline levels, they added. “Ultimately, the psychosocial benefits of gender-affirming hormones are substantial, and informed consent is likely the ideal method to balance the undetermined risks.”

Dr. Greene pointed out that the study wasn’t powered to accurately calculate gender-specific hs-cTn 99th percentiles or reference intervals for NT-proBNP and assessed the biomarkers at a single time point.

For the transgender person presenting with chest pain, she said, the clinical implications are not yet known, but the data suggest that when sex-specific 99th percentiles for hs-cTn are used, the numeric value associated with the affirmed gender, rather than the sex assigned at birth, may be the appropriate URL.

“It really depends on what the triage pathway is and if that pathway has differences for people of different sexes and how often people get serial measurements,” Dr. Greene said. “Within this population, it’s very important to look at those serial measurements because for people that are not cismen, those 99th percentiles when they’re non–sex specific, are going to favor in detection of a heart attack. So, you need to look at the second value to make sure there hasn’t been a change over time.”

The observed differences in the distribution of NT-proBNP concentrations is similar to that in the cisgender population, Dr. Greene noted. But these differences do not lead to sex-specific diagnostic thresholds because of the significant elevations present in overt heart failure and cardiovascular disease. “For NT-proBNP, it’s not as important. People don’t usually have a little bit of heart failure, they have heart failure, where people have small MIs.”

Dr. Greene said she would like to see larger trials looking at biomarker measurements and cardiac imaging before hormone therapy but that the biggest issue is the need for inclusion of transgender people in all cardiovascular trials.

“The sample sizes are never going to be as big as we get for cisgender people for a number of reasons but ensuring that it’s something that’s being asked on intake and monitored over time so we can understand how transgender people fit into the general population for cardiac disease,” Dr. Greene said. “And so, we can normalize that they exist. I keep driving this point home, but this is the biggest thing right now when it’s such a political issue.”

The study was supported in part by the department of laboratory medicine at the University of Washington, the department of pathology at the University of Iowa, and a grant from Abbott Diagnostics for in-kind high-sensitivity cardiac troponin I reagent. One coauthor reported financial relationships with Siemens Healthineers, Roche Diagnostics, Beckman Coulter, Becton, Dickinson, Abbott Diagnostics, Quidel Diagnostics, Sphingotech, and PixCell Medical. No other disclosures were reported.

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

Cardiac biomarkers vary according to sex hormones in healthy transgender adults, just as in cisgender individuals, a new cross-sectional study suggests.

Previous research in the general population has shown that females have a lower 99th percentile upper reference limit for high-sensitivity cardiac troponin (hs-cTn) than males, whereas N-terminal prohormone brain natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) concentrations are higher in females than males across all ages after puberty.

“That trend is similar for people that have been on gender-affirming hormones, saying that sex hormones are playing a role in how cardiac turnover happens in a healthy state,” study author Dina M. Greene, PhD, University of Washington, Seattle, said in an interview.

Although the number of transgender people seeking gender-affirming care is increasing, studies are limited and largely retrospective cohorts, she noted. The scientific literature evaluating and defining cardiac biomarker concentrations is “currently absent.”

The American Heart Association’s recent scientific statement on the cardiovascular health of transgender and gender diverse (TGD) people says mounting evidence points to worse CV health in TGD people and that part of this excess risk is driven by significant psychosocial stressors across the lifespan. “In addition, the use of gender-affirming hormone therapy may be associated with cardiometabolic changes, but health research in this area remains limited and, at times, contradictory.”

For the present study, Dr. Greene and colleagues reached out to LGBTQ-oriented primary care and internal medicine clinics in Seattle and Iowa City to recruit 79 transgender men prescribed testosterone (mean age, 28.8 years) and 93 transgender women (mean age, 35.1 years) prescribed estradiol for at least 12 months. The mean duration of hormone therapy was 4.8 and 3.5 years, respectively.

The median estradiol concentration was 51 pg/mL in transgender men and 207 pg/mL in transgender women. Median testosterone concentrations were 4.6 ng/mL and 0.4 ng/mL, respectively.

The cardiac biomarkers were measured with the ARCHITECT STAT (Abbott Diagnostics) and ACCESS (Beckman Coulter) high-sensitivity troponin I assays, the Elecsys Troponin T Gen 5 STAT assay (Roche Diagnostics), and the Elecsys ProBNP II immunoassay (Roche Diagnostics).

As reported in JAMA Cardiology, the median hs-cTnI level on the ARCHITECT STAT assay was 0.9 ng/L (range, 0.6-1.7) in transgender men and 0.6 ng/L (range, 0.3-1.0) in transgender women. The pattern was consistent across the two other assays.

In contrast, the median NT-proBNP level was 17 ng/L (range, 13-27) in transgender men and 49 ng/L (range, 32-86) in transgender women.

“It seems that sex hormone concentration is a stronger driver of baseline cardiac troponin and NT-proBNP concentrations relative to sex assigned at birth,” Dr. Greene said.

The observed differences in hs-cTn concentrations “are likely physiological and not pathological,” given that concentrations between healthy cisgender people are also apparent and not thought to portend adverse events, the authors noted.

Teasing out the clinical implications of sex-specific hs-cTn upper reference limits for ruling in acute myocardial infarction (MI), however, is complicated by biological and social factors that contribute to poorer outcomes in women, despite lower baseline levels, they added. “Ultimately, the psychosocial benefits of gender-affirming hormones are substantial, and informed consent is likely the ideal method to balance the undetermined risks.”

Dr. Greene pointed out that the study wasn’t powered to accurately calculate gender-specific hs-cTn 99th percentiles or reference intervals for NT-proBNP and assessed the biomarkers at a single time point.

For the transgender person presenting with chest pain, she said, the clinical implications are not yet known, but the data suggest that when sex-specific 99th percentiles for hs-cTn are used, the numeric value associated with the affirmed gender, rather than the sex assigned at birth, may be the appropriate URL.

“It really depends on what the triage pathway is and if that pathway has differences for people of different sexes and how often people get serial measurements,” Dr. Greene said. “Within this population, it’s very important to look at those serial measurements because for people that are not cismen, those 99th percentiles when they’re non–sex specific, are going to favor in detection of a heart attack. So, you need to look at the second value to make sure there hasn’t been a change over time.”

The observed differences in the distribution of NT-proBNP concentrations is similar to that in the cisgender population, Dr. Greene noted. But these differences do not lead to sex-specific diagnostic thresholds because of the significant elevations present in overt heart failure and cardiovascular disease. “For NT-proBNP, it’s not as important. People don’t usually have a little bit of heart failure, they have heart failure, where people have small MIs.”

Dr. Greene said she would like to see larger trials looking at biomarker measurements and cardiac imaging before hormone therapy but that the biggest issue is the need for inclusion of transgender people in all cardiovascular trials.

“The sample sizes are never going to be as big as we get for cisgender people for a number of reasons but ensuring that it’s something that’s being asked on intake and monitored over time so we can understand how transgender people fit into the general population for cardiac disease,” Dr. Greene said. “And so, we can normalize that they exist. I keep driving this point home, but this is the biggest thing right now when it’s such a political issue.”

The study was supported in part by the department of laboratory medicine at the University of Washington, the department of pathology at the University of Iowa, and a grant from Abbott Diagnostics for in-kind high-sensitivity cardiac troponin I reagent. One coauthor reported financial relationships with Siemens Healthineers, Roche Diagnostics, Beckman Coulter, Becton, Dickinson, Abbott Diagnostics, Quidel Diagnostics, Sphingotech, and PixCell Medical. No other disclosures were reported.

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

The substantial reductions in cardiovascular disease (CVD) and all-cause mortality achieved with intensive blood pressure lowering in the landmark SPRINT trial were not sustained in a newly released long-term follow-up.

The loss of the mortality benefits corresponded with a steady climb in the average systolic blood pressures (SBP) in the intensive treatment group after the trial ended. The long-term benefit serves as a call to develop better strategies for sustained SBP control.

“We were disappointed but not surprised that the blood pressure levels in the intensive goal group were not sustained,” acknowledged William C. Cushman, MD, Medical Director, department of preventive medicine, University of Tennessee Health Science Center, Memphis. “There are many trials showing no residual or legacy effect once the intervention is stopped.”
 

Long-term results do not weaken SPRINT

One of the coinvestigators of this most recent analysis published in JAMA Cardiology and a member of the SPRINT writing committee at the time of its 2015 publication in the New England Journal of Medicine, Dr. Cushman pointed out that the long-term results do not weaken the main trial result. Long-term adherence was not part of the trial design.

“After the trial, we were no longer treating these participants, so it was up to them and their primary care providers to decide on blood pressure goals,” he noted in an interview. Based on the trajectory of benefit when the study was stopped, “it is possible longer intensive treatment may lead to more benefit and some long-term residual benefits.”

The senior author of this most recent analysis, Nicholas M. Pajewski, PhD, associate professor of biostatistics and data science, Wake Forest University, Winston-Salem, N.C., generally agreed. However, he pointed out that the most recent data do not rule out meaningful benefit after the study ended.

For one reason, the loss of the SBP advantage was gradual so that median SBP levels of the two groups did not meet for nearly 3 years. This likely explains why there was still an attenuation of CVD mortality for several years after the all-cause mortality benefit was lost, according to Dr. Pajewski.

“It is important to mention that we were not able to assess nonfatal cardiovascular events, so while the two groups do eventually come together, if one thinks about the distinction of healthspan versus lifespan, there was probably residual benefit in terms of delaying CVD morbidity and mortality,” Dr. Pajewski said.
 

In SPRINT, CVD mortality reduced 43%

In the 9,631-patient SPRINT trial, the intensive treatment group achieved a mean SBP of 121.4 mm Hg versus 136.2 mm Hg in the standard treatment group at the end of 1 year. The trial was stopped early after 3.26 years because of strength of the benefit in the intensive treatment arm. At that time, the reductions by hazard ratio were 25% (HR, 0.75; P < .001) for a composite major adverse cardiovascular event (MACE) endpoint, 43% for CVD mortality (P = .005), and 27% for all-cause mortality (P = .003).

In the new observational follow-up, mortality data were drawn from the National Death Index, and change in SBP from electronic health records in a subset of 2,944 SPRINT trial participants. Data were available and analyzed through 2020.

The newly published long-term observational analysis showed that the median SBP in the intensive treatment arm was already climbing by the end of the end of the trial. It reached 132.8 mm Hg at 5 years after randomization and then 140.4 mm Hg by 10 years.

This latter figure was essentially equivalent to the SBP among those who were initially randomized to the standard treatment arm.
 

Factors driving rising BP are unclear

There is limited information on what medications were taken by either group following the end of the trial, so the reason for the regression in the intensive treatment arm after leaving the trial is unknown. The authors speculated that this might have been due to therapeutic inertia among treating physicians, poor adherence among patients, the difficulty of keeping blood pressures low in patients with advancing pathology, or some combination of these.

“Perhaps the most important reason was that providers and patients were not aiming for the lower goals since guidelines did not recommend these targets until 2017,” Dr. Cushman pointed out. He noted that Healthcare Effectiveness Data and Information Set (HEDIS) “has still not adopted a performance measure goal of less than 140 mm Hg.”

In an accompanying editorial, the authors focused on what these data mean for population-based strategies to achieve sustained control of one of the most important risk factors for cardiovascular events. Led by Daniel W. Jones, MD, director of clinical and population science, University of Mississippi, Jackson, the authors of the editorial wrote that these data emphasized “the challenge of achieving sustained intensive BP reductions in the real-world setting.”

Basically, the editorial concluded that current approaches to achieving meaningful and sustained blood pressure control are not working.

This study “should be a wakeup call, but other previously published good data have also been ignored,” said Dr. Jones in an interview. Despite the compelling benefit from intensive blood pressure control the SPRINT trial, the observational follow-up emphasizes the difficulty of maintaining the rigorous reductions in blood pressure needed for sustained protection.

“Systemic change is necessary,” said Dr. Jones, reprising the major thrust of the editorial he wrote with Donald Clark III, MD, and Michael E. Hall, MD, who are both colleagues at the University of Mississippi.

“My view is that health care providers should be held responsible for motivating better compliance of their patients, just as a teacher is accountable for the outcomes of their students,” he said.

The solutions are not likely to be simple. Dr. Jones called for multiple strategies, such as employing telehealth and community health workers to monitor and reinforce blood pressure control, but he said that these and other data have convinced him that “simply trying harder at what we currently do” is not enough.

Dr. Pajewski and Dr. Jones report no potential conflicts of interest. Dr. Cushman reports a financial relationship with ReCor.

The substantial reductions in cardiovascular disease (CVD) and all-cause mortality achieved with intensive blood pressure lowering in the landmark SPRINT trial were not sustained in a newly released long-term follow-up.

The loss of the mortality benefits corresponded with a steady climb in the average systolic blood pressures (SBP) in the intensive treatment group after the trial ended. The long-term benefit serves as a call to develop better strategies for sustained SBP control.

“We were disappointed but not surprised that the blood pressure levels in the intensive goal group were not sustained,” acknowledged William C. Cushman, MD, Medical Director, department of preventive medicine, University of Tennessee Health Science Center, Memphis. “There are many trials showing no residual or legacy effect once the intervention is stopped.”
 

Long-term results do not weaken SPRINT

One of the coinvestigators of this most recent analysis published in JAMA Cardiology and a member of the SPRINT writing committee at the time of its 2015 publication in the New England Journal of Medicine, Dr. Cushman pointed out that the long-term results do not weaken the main trial result. Long-term adherence was not part of the trial design.

“After the trial, we were no longer treating these participants, so it was up to them and their primary care providers to decide on blood pressure goals,” he noted in an interview. Based on the trajectory of benefit when the study was stopped, “it is possible longer intensive treatment may lead to more benefit and some long-term residual benefits.”

The senior author of this most recent analysis, Nicholas M. Pajewski, PhD, associate professor of biostatistics and data science, Wake Forest University, Winston-Salem, N.C., generally agreed. However, he pointed out that the most recent data do not rule out meaningful benefit after the study ended.

For one reason, the loss of the SBP advantage was gradual so that median SBP levels of the two groups did not meet for nearly 3 years. This likely explains why there was still an attenuation of CVD mortality for several years after the all-cause mortality benefit was lost, according to Dr. Pajewski.

“It is important to mention that we were not able to assess nonfatal cardiovascular events, so while the two groups do eventually come together, if one thinks about the distinction of healthspan versus lifespan, there was probably residual benefit in terms of delaying CVD morbidity and mortality,” Dr. Pajewski said.
 

In SPRINT, CVD mortality reduced 43%

In the 9,631-patient SPRINT trial, the intensive treatment group achieved a mean SBP of 121.4 mm Hg versus 136.2 mm Hg in the standard treatment group at the end of 1 year. The trial was stopped early after 3.26 years because of strength of the benefit in the intensive treatment arm. At that time, the reductions by hazard ratio were 25% (HR, 0.75; P < .001) for a composite major adverse cardiovascular event (MACE) endpoint, 43% for CVD mortality (P = .005), and 27% for all-cause mortality (P = .003).

In the new observational follow-up, mortality data were drawn from the National Death Index, and change in SBP from electronic health records in a subset of 2,944 SPRINT trial participants. Data were available and analyzed through 2020.

The newly published long-term observational analysis showed that the median SBP in the intensive treatment arm was already climbing by the end of the end of the trial. It reached 132.8 mm Hg at 5 years after randomization and then 140.4 mm Hg by 10 years.

This latter figure was essentially equivalent to the SBP among those who were initially randomized to the standard treatment arm.
 

Factors driving rising BP are unclear

There is limited information on what medications were taken by either group following the end of the trial, so the reason for the regression in the intensive treatment arm after leaving the trial is unknown. The authors speculated that this might have been due to therapeutic inertia among treating physicians, poor adherence among patients, the difficulty of keeping blood pressures low in patients with advancing pathology, or some combination of these.

“Perhaps the most important reason was that providers and patients were not aiming for the lower goals since guidelines did not recommend these targets until 2017,” Dr. Cushman pointed out. He noted that Healthcare Effectiveness Data and Information Set (HEDIS) “has still not adopted a performance measure goal of less than 140 mm Hg.”

In an accompanying editorial, the authors focused on what these data mean for population-based strategies to achieve sustained control of one of the most important risk factors for cardiovascular events. Led by Daniel W. Jones, MD, director of clinical and population science, University of Mississippi, Jackson, the authors of the editorial wrote that these data emphasized “the challenge of achieving sustained intensive BP reductions in the real-world setting.”

Basically, the editorial concluded that current approaches to achieving meaningful and sustained blood pressure control are not working.

This study “should be a wakeup call, but other previously published good data have also been ignored,” said Dr. Jones in an interview. Despite the compelling benefit from intensive blood pressure control the SPRINT trial, the observational follow-up emphasizes the difficulty of maintaining the rigorous reductions in blood pressure needed for sustained protection.

“Systemic change is necessary,” said Dr. Jones, reprising the major thrust of the editorial he wrote with Donald Clark III, MD, and Michael E. Hall, MD, who are both colleagues at the University of Mississippi.

“My view is that health care providers should be held responsible for motivating better compliance of their patients, just as a teacher is accountable for the outcomes of their students,” he said.

The solutions are not likely to be simple. Dr. Jones called for multiple strategies, such as employing telehealth and community health workers to monitor and reinforce blood pressure control, but he said that these and other data have convinced him that “simply trying harder at what we currently do” is not enough.

Dr. Pajewski and Dr. Jones report no potential conflicts of interest. Dr. Cushman reports a financial relationship with ReCor.

The substantial reductions in cardiovascular disease (CVD) and all-cause mortality achieved with intensive blood pressure lowering in the landmark SPRINT trial were not sustained in a newly released long-term follow-up.

The loss of the mortality benefits corresponded with a steady climb in the average systolic blood pressures (SBP) in the intensive treatment group after the trial ended. The long-term benefit serves as a call to develop better strategies for sustained SBP control.

“We were disappointed but not surprised that the blood pressure levels in the intensive goal group were not sustained,” acknowledged William C. Cushman, MD, Medical Director, department of preventive medicine, University of Tennessee Health Science Center, Memphis. “There are many trials showing no residual or legacy effect once the intervention is stopped.”
 

Long-term results do not weaken SPRINT

One of the coinvestigators of this most recent analysis published in JAMA Cardiology and a member of the SPRINT writing committee at the time of its 2015 publication in the New England Journal of Medicine, Dr. Cushman pointed out that the long-term results do not weaken the main trial result. Long-term adherence was not part of the trial design.

“After the trial, we were no longer treating these participants, so it was up to them and their primary care providers to decide on blood pressure goals,” he noted in an interview. Based on the trajectory of benefit when the study was stopped, “it is possible longer intensive treatment may lead to more benefit and some long-term residual benefits.”

The senior author of this most recent analysis, Nicholas M. Pajewski, PhD, associate professor of biostatistics and data science, Wake Forest University, Winston-Salem, N.C., generally agreed. However, he pointed out that the most recent data do not rule out meaningful benefit after the study ended.

For one reason, the loss of the SBP advantage was gradual so that median SBP levels of the two groups did not meet for nearly 3 years. This likely explains why there was still an attenuation of CVD mortality for several years after the all-cause mortality benefit was lost, according to Dr. Pajewski.

“It is important to mention that we were not able to assess nonfatal cardiovascular events, so while the two groups do eventually come together, if one thinks about the distinction of healthspan versus lifespan, there was probably residual benefit in terms of delaying CVD morbidity and mortality,” Dr. Pajewski said.
 

In SPRINT, CVD mortality reduced 43%

In the 9,631-patient SPRINT trial, the intensive treatment group achieved a mean SBP of 121.4 mm Hg versus 136.2 mm Hg in the standard treatment group at the end of 1 year. The trial was stopped early after 3.26 years because of strength of the benefit in the intensive treatment arm. At that time, the reductions by hazard ratio were 25% (HR, 0.75; P < .001) for a composite major adverse cardiovascular event (MACE) endpoint, 43% for CVD mortality (P = .005), and 27% for all-cause mortality (P = .003).

In the new observational follow-up, mortality data were drawn from the National Death Index, and change in SBP from electronic health records in a subset of 2,944 SPRINT trial participants. Data were available and analyzed through 2020.

The newly published long-term observational analysis showed that the median SBP in the intensive treatment arm was already climbing by the end of the end of the trial. It reached 132.8 mm Hg at 5 years after randomization and then 140.4 mm Hg by 10 years.

This latter figure was essentially equivalent to the SBP among those who were initially randomized to the standard treatment arm.
 

Factors driving rising BP are unclear

There is limited information on what medications were taken by either group following the end of the trial, so the reason for the regression in the intensive treatment arm after leaving the trial is unknown. The authors speculated that this might have been due to therapeutic inertia among treating physicians, poor adherence among patients, the difficulty of keeping blood pressures low in patients with advancing pathology, or some combination of these.

“Perhaps the most important reason was that providers and patients were not aiming for the lower goals since guidelines did not recommend these targets until 2017,” Dr. Cushman pointed out. He noted that Healthcare Effectiveness Data and Information Set (HEDIS) “has still not adopted a performance measure goal of less than 140 mm Hg.”

In an accompanying editorial, the authors focused on what these data mean for population-based strategies to achieve sustained control of one of the most important risk factors for cardiovascular events. Led by Daniel W. Jones, MD, director of clinical and population science, University of Mississippi, Jackson, the authors of the editorial wrote that these data emphasized “the challenge of achieving sustained intensive BP reductions in the real-world setting.”

Basically, the editorial concluded that current approaches to achieving meaningful and sustained blood pressure control are not working.

This study “should be a wakeup call, but other previously published good data have also been ignored,” said Dr. Jones in an interview. Despite the compelling benefit from intensive blood pressure control the SPRINT trial, the observational follow-up emphasizes the difficulty of maintaining the rigorous reductions in blood pressure needed for sustained protection.

“Systemic change is necessary,” said Dr. Jones, reprising the major thrust of the editorial he wrote with Donald Clark III, MD, and Michael E. Hall, MD, who are both colleagues at the University of Mississippi.

“My view is that health care providers should be held responsible for motivating better compliance of their patients, just as a teacher is accountable for the outcomes of their students,” he said.

The solutions are not likely to be simple. Dr. Jones called for multiple strategies, such as employing telehealth and community health workers to monitor and reinforce blood pressure control, but he said that these and other data have convinced him that “simply trying harder at what we currently do” is not enough.

Dr. Pajewski and Dr. Jones report no potential conflicts of interest. Dr. Cushman reports a financial relationship with ReCor.

A “high-intensity-care” strategy based on early and rapid uptitration of guideline-directed meds improves postdischarge clinical outcomes for patients hospitalized with decompensated heart failure (HF), suggest topline results from a randomized trial.

The STRONG-HF study was halted early on recommendation from its data safety monitoring board after an interim analysis suggested the high-intensity-care strategy significantly cut risk of death or HF readmission, compared with a standard-of-care approach.

The trial termination was announced  in a press release from one of its sponsors, The Heart Initiative, a nonprofit organization. STRONG-HF was also supported by Roche Diagnostics.

The early termination was based on interim data from the approximately 1,000 patients, out of an estimated planned enrollment of 1,800, who had been followed for at least 90 days. The study’s actual primary endpoint had been defined by death or HF readmission at 6 months.

The announcement did not include outcomes data or P values, or any other indication of the magnitude of benefit from the high-intensity-care approach.

Patients in STRONG-HF who had been assigned to a high-intensity-care strategy had been started in-hospital on a beta blocker, a renin-angiotensin system inhibitor (RASi), and a mineralocorticoid receptor blocker (MRA) with dosages uptitrated at least halfway by the time of discharge.

The meds were uptitrated fully within 2 weeks of discharge guided by clinical and biomarker assessments, especially natriuretic peptides, at frequent postdischarge visits, the press release states.

Patients conducted “safety visits 1 week after any uptitration and follow-up visits at 6 weeks and 3 months,” the announcement notes. “At each visit, patients were assessed by physical examination for congestion and blood tests, including NT-proBNP measurements.”

The “full STRONG-HF trial results” are scheduled for presentation at the American Heart Association annual scientific sessions, the announcement states.

STRONG-HF is sponsored by The Heart Initiative and Roche Diagnostics.

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

A “high-intensity-care” strategy based on early and rapid uptitration of guideline-directed meds improves postdischarge clinical outcomes for patients hospitalized with decompensated heart failure (HF), suggest topline results from a randomized trial.

The STRONG-HF study was halted early on recommendation from its data safety monitoring board after an interim analysis suggested the high-intensity-care strategy significantly cut risk of death or HF readmission, compared with a standard-of-care approach.

The trial termination was announced  in a press release from one of its sponsors, The Heart Initiative, a nonprofit organization. STRONG-HF was also supported by Roche Diagnostics.

The early termination was based on interim data from the approximately 1,000 patients, out of an estimated planned enrollment of 1,800, who had been followed for at least 90 days. The study’s actual primary endpoint had been defined by death or HF readmission at 6 months.

The announcement did not include outcomes data or P values, or any other indication of the magnitude of benefit from the high-intensity-care approach.

Patients in STRONG-HF who had been assigned to a high-intensity-care strategy had been started in-hospital on a beta blocker, a renin-angiotensin system inhibitor (RASi), and a mineralocorticoid receptor blocker (MRA) with dosages uptitrated at least halfway by the time of discharge.

The meds were uptitrated fully within 2 weeks of discharge guided by clinical and biomarker assessments, especially natriuretic peptides, at frequent postdischarge visits, the press release states.

Patients conducted “safety visits 1 week after any uptitration and follow-up visits at 6 weeks and 3 months,” the announcement notes. “At each visit, patients were assessed by physical examination for congestion and blood tests, including NT-proBNP measurements.”

The “full STRONG-HF trial results” are scheduled for presentation at the American Heart Association annual scientific sessions, the announcement states.

STRONG-HF is sponsored by The Heart Initiative and Roche Diagnostics.

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

A “high-intensity-care” strategy based on early and rapid uptitration of guideline-directed meds improves postdischarge clinical outcomes for patients hospitalized with decompensated heart failure (HF), suggest topline results from a randomized trial.

The STRONG-HF study was halted early on recommendation from its data safety monitoring board after an interim analysis suggested the high-intensity-care strategy significantly cut risk of death or HF readmission, compared with a standard-of-care approach.

The trial termination was announced  in a press release from one of its sponsors, The Heart Initiative, a nonprofit organization. STRONG-HF was also supported by Roche Diagnostics.

The early termination was based on interim data from the approximately 1,000 patients, out of an estimated planned enrollment of 1,800, who had been followed for at least 90 days. The study’s actual primary endpoint had been defined by death or HF readmission at 6 months.

The announcement did not include outcomes data or P values, or any other indication of the magnitude of benefit from the high-intensity-care approach.

Patients in STRONG-HF who had been assigned to a high-intensity-care strategy had been started in-hospital on a beta blocker, a renin-angiotensin system inhibitor (RASi), and a mineralocorticoid receptor blocker (MRA) with dosages uptitrated at least halfway by the time of discharge.

The meds were uptitrated fully within 2 weeks of discharge guided by clinical and biomarker assessments, especially natriuretic peptides, at frequent postdischarge visits, the press release states.

Patients conducted “safety visits 1 week after any uptitration and follow-up visits at 6 weeks and 3 months,” the announcement notes. “At each visit, patients were assessed by physical examination for congestion and blood tests, including NT-proBNP measurements.”

The “full STRONG-HF trial results” are scheduled for presentation at the American Heart Association annual scientific sessions, the announcement states.

STRONG-HF is sponsored by The Heart Initiative and Roche Diagnostics.

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