STOCKHOLM – Higher consumption of whole grains, fish, fiber, and omega-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids reduces deaths from all causes in people with type 2 diabetes, show new data.
Results from the systematic review and meta-analysis were presented at the annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes by lead author Janett Barbaresko, PhD, a researcher from the German Diabetes Center in Düsseldorf.
Lisovskaya/iStock/Getty Images Plus
Adding just one serving (around 20 g/day) of whole grains from foods such as brown bread, brown rice, or breakfast cereals was associated with about a 16% reduction in all-cause mortality, and each portion of fish consumed per week was associated with a 5% lower risk of all-cause mortality. In addition, eating 5 g/day of fiber was associated with a 14% reduction in all-cause mortality, and 0.1 g/day of omega-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids with a 13% reduction.
Diet also has role in improving survival in those with type 2 diabetes
Dr. Barbaresko explained that most dietary recommendations for people with type 2 diabetes are not evidence based or are derived from studies of the general population, and that the degree to which different components of diet are associated with all-cause mortality, or indeed the prevention of morbidity and mortality, remains unknown.
By way of example, she noted the American Diabetes Association 2022 guidelines for the prevention and management of diabetes complications advises limited intake of saturated and trans fatty acids, higher intake of polyunsaturated fatty acids, and following the Mediterranean or DASH (Dietary Approaches to Stop Hypertension) diets.
“Our findings show that dietary factors not only play a role in the prevention of type 2 diabetes, but also seem to be relevant for improving survival in people with diagnosed diabetes,” she said, adding that, “in particular, we found some key aspects of a healthy diet such as higher intakes of whole grains, fiber, fish, and omega-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids may improve survival of individuals with type 2 diabetes.”
She noted that individuals with type 2 diabetes are known to be more prone to circulatory diseases, dementia, cancer, and bone fractures, and that lifestyle modifications, including diet – with or without medications – underpin most management strategies.
“For the first time, we have provided a summary of all published studies on any dietary factor in association to all-cause mortality in individuals with type 2 diabetes,” said Dr. Barbaresko. “Moreover, the certainty of evidence has been evaluated for the first time.”
Matthias Schulze, MD, head of the German Institute of Human Nutrition, Berlin, moderated the session.
The new work “summarizes the available evidence, providing important dietary advice for patients with diabetes, for example, recommending whole grains,” he remarked. “However, the study also points to gaps in knowledge, so for many diet factors, we have either no or few studies, or study quality considered to be low, which calls for more research to fill the gap.”
High versus low intake of various dietary factors
The researchers performed meta-analyses based on published studies of all-cause mortality in individuals with type 2 diabetes aged 18 years and over, as associated with dietary patterns, macronutrients (carbohydrates, protein, fat), micronutrients (vitamins and minerals), secondary plant compounds (for example, polyphenols), and supplements.
Studies were conducted mainly in the United States and Europe with a mean follow-up of 10 years. Low and high intake were compared, and a dose-response relationship between different dietary factors and all-cause mortality was explored to generate summary risk ratios. The researchers also explored how the certainty of evidence was determined.
Decreased mortality from any cause was found for a higher intake of fish (SRR per serving/week, 0.95; over six studies); whole grain (SRR per 20 g/day, 0.84; two studies); fiber (SRR per 5 g/day, 0.86; three studies), and omega-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids (SRR per 0.1 g/day, 0.87; two studies).
A low certainty of evidence was found for an inverse association between all-cause mortality and vegetable consumption (SRR per 100 g/day, 0.88; two studies) and plant protein intake (SRR per 10 g/day, 0.91; three studies).
Eggs were associated with an increased risk of all-cause mortality (SRR per 10 g/day, 1.05; seven studies), as was dietary cholesterol (SRR per 300 mg/day, 1.19; two studies).
Regarding other dietary patterns, including the Mediterranean diet and low-carbohydrate diet, either no association was found and/or the evidence was very uncertain. Likewise, evidence was uncertain for foods including nuts, dairy, meat, sugar and sweets; macronutrients, including carbohydrates; and micronutrients, such as caffeine and vitamin D.
“With the Mediterranean diet, we saw an inverse association [with all-cause mortality] comparing high adherence with low adherence to the Mediterranean diet, but the certainty of evidence was very low, indicating a really uncertain meta-evidence,” remarked Dr. Barbaresko.
She concluded that a greater number of studies is needed to investigate the association of dietary factors with all-cause mortality in type 2 diabetes to strengthen the evidence for several other dietary factors. She also cautioned that meta-analyses are affected by unmeasured and residual confounding.
Dr. Barbaresko and Dr. Schulze reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
STOCKHOLM – Higher consumption of whole grains, fish, fiber, and omega-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids reduces deaths from all causes in people with type 2 diabetes, show new data.
Results from the systematic review and meta-analysis were presented at the annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes by lead author Janett Barbaresko, PhD, a researcher from the German Diabetes Center in Düsseldorf.
Lisovskaya/iStock/Getty Images Plus
Adding just one serving (around 20 g/day) of whole grains from foods such as brown bread, brown rice, or breakfast cereals was associated with about a 16% reduction in all-cause mortality, and each portion of fish consumed per week was associated with a 5% lower risk of all-cause mortality. In addition, eating 5 g/day of fiber was associated with a 14% reduction in all-cause mortality, and 0.1 g/day of omega-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids with a 13% reduction.
Diet also has role in improving survival in those with type 2 diabetes
Dr. Barbaresko explained that most dietary recommendations for people with type 2 diabetes are not evidence based or are derived from studies of the general population, and that the degree to which different components of diet are associated with all-cause mortality, or indeed the prevention of morbidity and mortality, remains unknown.
By way of example, she noted the American Diabetes Association 2022 guidelines for the prevention and management of diabetes complications advises limited intake of saturated and trans fatty acids, higher intake of polyunsaturated fatty acids, and following the Mediterranean or DASH (Dietary Approaches to Stop Hypertension) diets.
“Our findings show that dietary factors not only play a role in the prevention of type 2 diabetes, but also seem to be relevant for improving survival in people with diagnosed diabetes,” she said, adding that, “in particular, we found some key aspects of a healthy diet such as higher intakes of whole grains, fiber, fish, and omega-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids may improve survival of individuals with type 2 diabetes.”
She noted that individuals with type 2 diabetes are known to be more prone to circulatory diseases, dementia, cancer, and bone fractures, and that lifestyle modifications, including diet – with or without medications – underpin most management strategies.
“For the first time, we have provided a summary of all published studies on any dietary factor in association to all-cause mortality in individuals with type 2 diabetes,” said Dr. Barbaresko. “Moreover, the certainty of evidence has been evaluated for the first time.”
Matthias Schulze, MD, head of the German Institute of Human Nutrition, Berlin, moderated the session.
The new work “summarizes the available evidence, providing important dietary advice for patients with diabetes, for example, recommending whole grains,” he remarked. “However, the study also points to gaps in knowledge, so for many diet factors, we have either no or few studies, or study quality considered to be low, which calls for more research to fill the gap.”
High versus low intake of various dietary factors
The researchers performed meta-analyses based on published studies of all-cause mortality in individuals with type 2 diabetes aged 18 years and over, as associated with dietary patterns, macronutrients (carbohydrates, protein, fat), micronutrients (vitamins and minerals), secondary plant compounds (for example, polyphenols), and supplements.
Studies were conducted mainly in the United States and Europe with a mean follow-up of 10 years. Low and high intake were compared, and a dose-response relationship between different dietary factors and all-cause mortality was explored to generate summary risk ratios. The researchers also explored how the certainty of evidence was determined.
Decreased mortality from any cause was found for a higher intake of fish (SRR per serving/week, 0.95; over six studies); whole grain (SRR per 20 g/day, 0.84; two studies); fiber (SRR per 5 g/day, 0.86; three studies), and omega-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids (SRR per 0.1 g/day, 0.87; two studies).
A low certainty of evidence was found for an inverse association between all-cause mortality and vegetable consumption (SRR per 100 g/day, 0.88; two studies) and plant protein intake (SRR per 10 g/day, 0.91; three studies).
Eggs were associated with an increased risk of all-cause mortality (SRR per 10 g/day, 1.05; seven studies), as was dietary cholesterol (SRR per 300 mg/day, 1.19; two studies).
Regarding other dietary patterns, including the Mediterranean diet and low-carbohydrate diet, either no association was found and/or the evidence was very uncertain. Likewise, evidence was uncertain for foods including nuts, dairy, meat, sugar and sweets; macronutrients, including carbohydrates; and micronutrients, such as caffeine and vitamin D.
“With the Mediterranean diet, we saw an inverse association [with all-cause mortality] comparing high adherence with low adherence to the Mediterranean diet, but the certainty of evidence was very low, indicating a really uncertain meta-evidence,” remarked Dr. Barbaresko.
She concluded that a greater number of studies is needed to investigate the association of dietary factors with all-cause mortality in type 2 diabetes to strengthen the evidence for several other dietary factors. She also cautioned that meta-analyses are affected by unmeasured and residual confounding.
Dr. Barbaresko and Dr. Schulze reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
STOCKHOLM – Higher consumption of whole grains, fish, fiber, and omega-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids reduces deaths from all causes in people with type 2 diabetes, show new data.
Results from the systematic review and meta-analysis were presented at the annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes by lead author Janett Barbaresko, PhD, a researcher from the German Diabetes Center in Düsseldorf.
Lisovskaya/iStock/Getty Images Plus
Adding just one serving (around 20 g/day) of whole grains from foods such as brown bread, brown rice, or breakfast cereals was associated with about a 16% reduction in all-cause mortality, and each portion of fish consumed per week was associated with a 5% lower risk of all-cause mortality. In addition, eating 5 g/day of fiber was associated with a 14% reduction in all-cause mortality, and 0.1 g/day of omega-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids with a 13% reduction.
Diet also has role in improving survival in those with type 2 diabetes
Dr. Barbaresko explained that most dietary recommendations for people with type 2 diabetes are not evidence based or are derived from studies of the general population, and that the degree to which different components of diet are associated with all-cause mortality, or indeed the prevention of morbidity and mortality, remains unknown.
By way of example, she noted the American Diabetes Association 2022 guidelines for the prevention and management of diabetes complications advises limited intake of saturated and trans fatty acids, higher intake of polyunsaturated fatty acids, and following the Mediterranean or DASH (Dietary Approaches to Stop Hypertension) diets.
“Our findings show that dietary factors not only play a role in the prevention of type 2 diabetes, but also seem to be relevant for improving survival in people with diagnosed diabetes,” she said, adding that, “in particular, we found some key aspects of a healthy diet such as higher intakes of whole grains, fiber, fish, and omega-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids may improve survival of individuals with type 2 diabetes.”
She noted that individuals with type 2 diabetes are known to be more prone to circulatory diseases, dementia, cancer, and bone fractures, and that lifestyle modifications, including diet – with or without medications – underpin most management strategies.
“For the first time, we have provided a summary of all published studies on any dietary factor in association to all-cause mortality in individuals with type 2 diabetes,” said Dr. Barbaresko. “Moreover, the certainty of evidence has been evaluated for the first time.”
Matthias Schulze, MD, head of the German Institute of Human Nutrition, Berlin, moderated the session.
The new work “summarizes the available evidence, providing important dietary advice for patients with diabetes, for example, recommending whole grains,” he remarked. “However, the study also points to gaps in knowledge, so for many diet factors, we have either no or few studies, or study quality considered to be low, which calls for more research to fill the gap.”
High versus low intake of various dietary factors
The researchers performed meta-analyses based on published studies of all-cause mortality in individuals with type 2 diabetes aged 18 years and over, as associated with dietary patterns, macronutrients (carbohydrates, protein, fat), micronutrients (vitamins and minerals), secondary plant compounds (for example, polyphenols), and supplements.
Studies were conducted mainly in the United States and Europe with a mean follow-up of 10 years. Low and high intake were compared, and a dose-response relationship between different dietary factors and all-cause mortality was explored to generate summary risk ratios. The researchers also explored how the certainty of evidence was determined.
Decreased mortality from any cause was found for a higher intake of fish (SRR per serving/week, 0.95; over six studies); whole grain (SRR per 20 g/day, 0.84; two studies); fiber (SRR per 5 g/day, 0.86; three studies), and omega-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids (SRR per 0.1 g/day, 0.87; two studies).
A low certainty of evidence was found for an inverse association between all-cause mortality and vegetable consumption (SRR per 100 g/day, 0.88; two studies) and plant protein intake (SRR per 10 g/day, 0.91; three studies).
Eggs were associated with an increased risk of all-cause mortality (SRR per 10 g/day, 1.05; seven studies), as was dietary cholesterol (SRR per 300 mg/day, 1.19; two studies).
Regarding other dietary patterns, including the Mediterranean diet and low-carbohydrate diet, either no association was found and/or the evidence was very uncertain. Likewise, evidence was uncertain for foods including nuts, dairy, meat, sugar and sweets; macronutrients, including carbohydrates; and micronutrients, such as caffeine and vitamin D.
“With the Mediterranean diet, we saw an inverse association [with all-cause mortality] comparing high adherence with low adherence to the Mediterranean diet, but the certainty of evidence was very low, indicating a really uncertain meta-evidence,” remarked Dr. Barbaresko.
She concluded that a greater number of studies is needed to investigate the association of dietary factors with all-cause mortality in type 2 diabetes to strengthen the evidence for several other dietary factors. She also cautioned that meta-analyses are affected by unmeasured and residual confounding.
Dr. Barbaresko and Dr. Schulze reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
BARCELONA – Increased frailty of patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) should have no bearing on whether those patients receive sacubitril/valsartan (Entresto), according to results of a post hoc analysis of data from a pivotal trial.
Plus, a recently reported prespecified analysis of data from a different pivotal trial shows that the same rule applies to patients with HFpEF who receive treatment with dapagliflozin (Farxiga). A pair of earlier reports showed similar findings for dapagliflozin and sacubitril/valsartan in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF).
Dr. Jawad H. Butt
“There appears to be a greater reduction in the primary outcome and in hospitalizations for heart failure with sacubitril/valsartan compared with valsartan with increasing frailty, and sacubitril/valsartan was safe and well tolerated regardless of frailty status” in post hoc analysis of data from the PARAGON-HF trial, Jawad H. Butt, MD, reported at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology.
Analysis of the treatment effect by sacubitril/valsartan compared with valsartan in patients with HFpEF in PARAGON-HF showed that sacubitril/valsartan actually benefited patients more as their frailty increased when researchers applied frailty severity as a continuous variable. When they analyzed frailty’s effect by dividing the study cohort into three subgroups based on frailty severity – not frail, more frail, and most frail – the statistical analysis showed no significant heterogeneity of effect, although the point estimates for each subgroup showed by far the biggest benefit among the most frail patients. A safety analysis showed consistent safety of sacubitril/valsartan compared with valsartan across all three frailty subgroups, Dr. Butt reported.
Simultaneously with his report at the congress the results appeared online in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.
Don’t withhold sacubitril/valsartan because of frailty
“We should not withhold [sacubitril/valsartan] treatment in patients perceived to be frail,” Dr. Butt declared in an interview. “There are no safety concerns, and no efficacy concerns,” although he cautioned that sacubitril/valsartan is not indicated for all patients with HFpEF. “If you believe that sacubitril/valsartan is indicated for a patient with HFpEF, do not withhold it just because of frailty,” said Dr. Butt, a cardiologist at Copenhagen University Hospital.
Dr. Butt went a step further and stressed, “I don’t think we should measure frailty” when considering patients with heart failure for treatment with sacubitril/valsartan, or with dapagliflozin, which had shown safety and maintained efficacy in a prespecified analysis he recently reported for patients with HFpEF, and in a separate recent report on a post hoc analysis of dapagliflozin use in patients with HFrEF in the DAPA-HF trial.
A published report also showed no evidence for an interaction between frailty and efficacy for sacubitril/valsartan compared with valsartan in the PARADIGM-HF pivotal trial, which enrolled people with HFrEF.
The issue of treatment safety and efficacy for patients considered frail is especially notable because “clinicians may be more reluctant to initiate new therapies due to doubt about the benefit of treatments in frail patients and apprehensions about predisposing them to potential new adverse effects,” said Dr. Butt.
“We should not defer these treatments on account of patient frailty,” said Maja Cikes, MD, a cardiologist at the University Hospital Center Zagreb, Croatia. The report by Dr. Butt “shows the safety” of using sacubitril/valsartan in most patients with HFpEF regardless of their frailty status, Dr. Cikes added in an interview.
Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News
Dr. Maja Cikes
‘Benefits without increasing the risk of frailty’
The data reported by Dr. Butt “suggest that although frail older persons with HFpEF are at greater risk for adverse outcomes overall, the prescription of sacubitril/valsartan seems to confer benefits without increasing the risk of frailty-related adverse events,” George A. Heckman, MD, a geriatrician at the University of Waterloo (Canada), and Kenneth Rockwood, MD, professor of geriatric medicine at Dalhousie University in Halifax, N.S., wrote in an editorial that accompanied the published version of Dr. Butt’s report.
The PARADIGM-HF trial enrolled 4,822 patients with heart failure and a left ventricular ejection fraction of at least 45% at 848 centers in 43 countries during 2014-2016, and followed them for a median of 35 months, with a primary endpoint of the combined rate of hospitalization for heart failure or cardiovascular death. Treatment with sacubitril/valsartan reduced the incidence of the primary endpoint by 13% compared with the control patients who received valsartan, a difference that missed narrowly missed significance (P = .06).
Despite this statistically neutral result, the Food and Drug Administration subsequently, based on these results, modified the indicationfor using sacubitril/valsartan from exclusively patients with HFrEF to patients with higher left ventricular ejection fractions, including at least some patients diagnosed with HFpEF.
To run the frailty analysis, Dr. Butt and his associates devised a 41-item frailty index, which identified 45% of the study cohort as not frail, 44% as more frail, and 11% as most frail. Their analyses also showed that frailty severity had no significant relationship to the effect of treatment with sacubitril valsartan on improving quality of life, or on improving functional status. Frailty also played no apparent role in the impact of sacubitril/valsartan compared with valsartan on treatment discontinuations or adverse effects.
PARAGON-HF and PARADIGM-HF were sponsored by Novartis, the company that markets sacubitril/valsartan (Entresto). Dr. Butt has been an adviser to Bayer. Dr. Cikes has received travel support or honoraria from Novartis as well as from Amicus, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, GE Healthcare, Krka, LivaNova, Pfizer, Sanofi, and Teva, and research support or contracts from Novartis as well as from Abbott, Corvia, and Pfizer. Dr. Heckman had no disclosures. Dr. Rockwood is a cofounder of Ardea Outcomes, an adviser to Nutricia, and he holds a copyright through Dalhousie University on the Clinical Frailty Scale (which allows free use for educational, research, and not-for-profit health care purposes).
BARCELONA – Increased frailty of patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) should have no bearing on whether those patients receive sacubitril/valsartan (Entresto), according to results of a post hoc analysis of data from a pivotal trial.
Plus, a recently reported prespecified analysis of data from a different pivotal trial shows that the same rule applies to patients with HFpEF who receive treatment with dapagliflozin (Farxiga). A pair of earlier reports showed similar findings for dapagliflozin and sacubitril/valsartan in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF).
Dr. Jawad H. Butt
“There appears to be a greater reduction in the primary outcome and in hospitalizations for heart failure with sacubitril/valsartan compared with valsartan with increasing frailty, and sacubitril/valsartan was safe and well tolerated regardless of frailty status” in post hoc analysis of data from the PARAGON-HF trial, Jawad H. Butt, MD, reported at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology.
Analysis of the treatment effect by sacubitril/valsartan compared with valsartan in patients with HFpEF in PARAGON-HF showed that sacubitril/valsartan actually benefited patients more as their frailty increased when researchers applied frailty severity as a continuous variable. When they analyzed frailty’s effect by dividing the study cohort into three subgroups based on frailty severity – not frail, more frail, and most frail – the statistical analysis showed no significant heterogeneity of effect, although the point estimates for each subgroup showed by far the biggest benefit among the most frail patients. A safety analysis showed consistent safety of sacubitril/valsartan compared with valsartan across all three frailty subgroups, Dr. Butt reported.
Simultaneously with his report at the congress the results appeared online in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.
Don’t withhold sacubitril/valsartan because of frailty
“We should not withhold [sacubitril/valsartan] treatment in patients perceived to be frail,” Dr. Butt declared in an interview. “There are no safety concerns, and no efficacy concerns,” although he cautioned that sacubitril/valsartan is not indicated for all patients with HFpEF. “If you believe that sacubitril/valsartan is indicated for a patient with HFpEF, do not withhold it just because of frailty,” said Dr. Butt, a cardiologist at Copenhagen University Hospital.
Dr. Butt went a step further and stressed, “I don’t think we should measure frailty” when considering patients with heart failure for treatment with sacubitril/valsartan, or with dapagliflozin, which had shown safety and maintained efficacy in a prespecified analysis he recently reported for patients with HFpEF, and in a separate recent report on a post hoc analysis of dapagliflozin use in patients with HFrEF in the DAPA-HF trial.
A published report also showed no evidence for an interaction between frailty and efficacy for sacubitril/valsartan compared with valsartan in the PARADIGM-HF pivotal trial, which enrolled people with HFrEF.
The issue of treatment safety and efficacy for patients considered frail is especially notable because “clinicians may be more reluctant to initiate new therapies due to doubt about the benefit of treatments in frail patients and apprehensions about predisposing them to potential new adverse effects,” said Dr. Butt.
“We should not defer these treatments on account of patient frailty,” said Maja Cikes, MD, a cardiologist at the University Hospital Center Zagreb, Croatia. The report by Dr. Butt “shows the safety” of using sacubitril/valsartan in most patients with HFpEF regardless of their frailty status, Dr. Cikes added in an interview.
Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News
Dr. Maja Cikes
‘Benefits without increasing the risk of frailty’
The data reported by Dr. Butt “suggest that although frail older persons with HFpEF are at greater risk for adverse outcomes overall, the prescription of sacubitril/valsartan seems to confer benefits without increasing the risk of frailty-related adverse events,” George A. Heckman, MD, a geriatrician at the University of Waterloo (Canada), and Kenneth Rockwood, MD, professor of geriatric medicine at Dalhousie University in Halifax, N.S., wrote in an editorial that accompanied the published version of Dr. Butt’s report.
The PARADIGM-HF trial enrolled 4,822 patients with heart failure and a left ventricular ejection fraction of at least 45% at 848 centers in 43 countries during 2014-2016, and followed them for a median of 35 months, with a primary endpoint of the combined rate of hospitalization for heart failure or cardiovascular death. Treatment with sacubitril/valsartan reduced the incidence of the primary endpoint by 13% compared with the control patients who received valsartan, a difference that missed narrowly missed significance (P = .06).
Despite this statistically neutral result, the Food and Drug Administration subsequently, based on these results, modified the indicationfor using sacubitril/valsartan from exclusively patients with HFrEF to patients with higher left ventricular ejection fractions, including at least some patients diagnosed with HFpEF.
To run the frailty analysis, Dr. Butt and his associates devised a 41-item frailty index, which identified 45% of the study cohort as not frail, 44% as more frail, and 11% as most frail. Their analyses also showed that frailty severity had no significant relationship to the effect of treatment with sacubitril valsartan on improving quality of life, or on improving functional status. Frailty also played no apparent role in the impact of sacubitril/valsartan compared with valsartan on treatment discontinuations or adverse effects.
PARAGON-HF and PARADIGM-HF were sponsored by Novartis, the company that markets sacubitril/valsartan (Entresto). Dr. Butt has been an adviser to Bayer. Dr. Cikes has received travel support or honoraria from Novartis as well as from Amicus, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, GE Healthcare, Krka, LivaNova, Pfizer, Sanofi, and Teva, and research support or contracts from Novartis as well as from Abbott, Corvia, and Pfizer. Dr. Heckman had no disclosures. Dr. Rockwood is a cofounder of Ardea Outcomes, an adviser to Nutricia, and he holds a copyright through Dalhousie University on the Clinical Frailty Scale (which allows free use for educational, research, and not-for-profit health care purposes).
BARCELONA – Increased frailty of patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) should have no bearing on whether those patients receive sacubitril/valsartan (Entresto), according to results of a post hoc analysis of data from a pivotal trial.
Plus, a recently reported prespecified analysis of data from a different pivotal trial shows that the same rule applies to patients with HFpEF who receive treatment with dapagliflozin (Farxiga). A pair of earlier reports showed similar findings for dapagliflozin and sacubitril/valsartan in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF).
Dr. Jawad H. Butt
“There appears to be a greater reduction in the primary outcome and in hospitalizations for heart failure with sacubitril/valsartan compared with valsartan with increasing frailty, and sacubitril/valsartan was safe and well tolerated regardless of frailty status” in post hoc analysis of data from the PARAGON-HF trial, Jawad H. Butt, MD, reported at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology.
Analysis of the treatment effect by sacubitril/valsartan compared with valsartan in patients with HFpEF in PARAGON-HF showed that sacubitril/valsartan actually benefited patients more as their frailty increased when researchers applied frailty severity as a continuous variable. When they analyzed frailty’s effect by dividing the study cohort into three subgroups based on frailty severity – not frail, more frail, and most frail – the statistical analysis showed no significant heterogeneity of effect, although the point estimates for each subgroup showed by far the biggest benefit among the most frail patients. A safety analysis showed consistent safety of sacubitril/valsartan compared with valsartan across all three frailty subgroups, Dr. Butt reported.
Simultaneously with his report at the congress the results appeared online in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.
Don’t withhold sacubitril/valsartan because of frailty
“We should not withhold [sacubitril/valsartan] treatment in patients perceived to be frail,” Dr. Butt declared in an interview. “There are no safety concerns, and no efficacy concerns,” although he cautioned that sacubitril/valsartan is not indicated for all patients with HFpEF. “If you believe that sacubitril/valsartan is indicated for a patient with HFpEF, do not withhold it just because of frailty,” said Dr. Butt, a cardiologist at Copenhagen University Hospital.
Dr. Butt went a step further and stressed, “I don’t think we should measure frailty” when considering patients with heart failure for treatment with sacubitril/valsartan, or with dapagliflozin, which had shown safety and maintained efficacy in a prespecified analysis he recently reported for patients with HFpEF, and in a separate recent report on a post hoc analysis of dapagliflozin use in patients with HFrEF in the DAPA-HF trial.
A published report also showed no evidence for an interaction between frailty and efficacy for sacubitril/valsartan compared with valsartan in the PARADIGM-HF pivotal trial, which enrolled people with HFrEF.
The issue of treatment safety and efficacy for patients considered frail is especially notable because “clinicians may be more reluctant to initiate new therapies due to doubt about the benefit of treatments in frail patients and apprehensions about predisposing them to potential new adverse effects,” said Dr. Butt.
“We should not defer these treatments on account of patient frailty,” said Maja Cikes, MD, a cardiologist at the University Hospital Center Zagreb, Croatia. The report by Dr. Butt “shows the safety” of using sacubitril/valsartan in most patients with HFpEF regardless of their frailty status, Dr. Cikes added in an interview.
Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News
Dr. Maja Cikes
‘Benefits without increasing the risk of frailty’
The data reported by Dr. Butt “suggest that although frail older persons with HFpEF are at greater risk for adverse outcomes overall, the prescription of sacubitril/valsartan seems to confer benefits without increasing the risk of frailty-related adverse events,” George A. Heckman, MD, a geriatrician at the University of Waterloo (Canada), and Kenneth Rockwood, MD, professor of geriatric medicine at Dalhousie University in Halifax, N.S., wrote in an editorial that accompanied the published version of Dr. Butt’s report.
The PARADIGM-HF trial enrolled 4,822 patients with heart failure and a left ventricular ejection fraction of at least 45% at 848 centers in 43 countries during 2014-2016, and followed them for a median of 35 months, with a primary endpoint of the combined rate of hospitalization for heart failure or cardiovascular death. Treatment with sacubitril/valsartan reduced the incidence of the primary endpoint by 13% compared with the control patients who received valsartan, a difference that missed narrowly missed significance (P = .06).
Despite this statistically neutral result, the Food and Drug Administration subsequently, based on these results, modified the indicationfor using sacubitril/valsartan from exclusively patients with HFrEF to patients with higher left ventricular ejection fractions, including at least some patients diagnosed with HFpEF.
To run the frailty analysis, Dr. Butt and his associates devised a 41-item frailty index, which identified 45% of the study cohort as not frail, 44% as more frail, and 11% as most frail. Their analyses also showed that frailty severity had no significant relationship to the effect of treatment with sacubitril valsartan on improving quality of life, or on improving functional status. Frailty also played no apparent role in the impact of sacubitril/valsartan compared with valsartan on treatment discontinuations or adverse effects.
PARAGON-HF and PARADIGM-HF were sponsored by Novartis, the company that markets sacubitril/valsartan (Entresto). Dr. Butt has been an adviser to Bayer. Dr. Cikes has received travel support or honoraria from Novartis as well as from Amicus, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, GE Healthcare, Krka, LivaNova, Pfizer, Sanofi, and Teva, and research support or contracts from Novartis as well as from Abbott, Corvia, and Pfizer. Dr. Heckman had no disclosures. Dr. Rockwood is a cofounder of Ardea Outcomes, an adviser to Nutricia, and he holds a copyright through Dalhousie University on the Clinical Frailty Scale (which allows free use for educational, research, and not-for-profit health care purposes).
When I worked as a scribe prior to starting medical school, it was commonplace for patients to have fasting labs. I always felt terrible for the patients we saw late in the afternoon that had somehow fasted all day. For many other patients, there was the challenge of finding a time when they could return to have fasting labs drawn.
While in medical school, I have seen the transition of my preceptors’ recommendations, where it seems patients can now have nonfasting labs. However, I have still observed instances when patients need to have fasting labs. We can look at an example case to better understand when and why patients do and do not need to fast prior to having their lipids checked.
Kendall Ervin
Case
A 57-year-old woman presents for an annual wellness visit. She has been healthy this past year with no new concerns. Her blood pressure has been well controlled, and she continues on a statin for hyperlipidemia. She is due for annual labs. She ate breakfast this morning. Which of the following do you recommend?
A. Obtain lipids with her other blood work now.
B. Have her return tomorrow to obtain fasting labs.
In this situation, A is the correct answer. The patient is due for routine screening labs and there are no current indications that fasting labs are necessary.
Studies of fasting vs. nonfasting lipids
Sidhu and Naugler performed a cross-sectional analysis comparing lipid values at fasting intervals of 1 hour to 16 hours.1 They found the mean total cholesterol and HDL cholesterol values differed by greater than 2%. For LDL cholesterol, the values differed by less than 10% and triglycerides values differed by less than 20%. With this information, the researchers concluded fasting for routine lipids is generally unnecessary.
Mora and colleagues performed a post hoc prospective follow-up of a randomized control
Dr. Douglas S. Paauw
trial to assess if nonfasting lipid measurements could cause misclassification of cardiovascular risk assessment.2 Based on 8,270 participants, coronary events associated with fasting vs. nonfasting lipid values were similar when adjusted hazard ratios were compared. They also found an agreement of 94.8% when classifying participants into ASCVD risk categories for fasting and nonfasting lipid values. These outcomes led them to support the use of nonfasting lipid labs for routine cardiovascular risk assessment.
Rahman and colleagues performed a systematic review and found the use of nonfasting lipid values can reliably determine statin management in most situations.3 Circumstances where fasting labs should be used are if patients have a genetic dyslipidemia, if patients have severe hypertriglyceridemia (greater than 500 mg/dL), and if patients have pancreatitis. Triglyceride values fluctuate the most between the fasting and nonfasting state as seen above from Sidhu and Naugler. This could impact triglyceride disorder management and the accuracy of LDL cholesterol estimation (calculated by the Friedewald equation: LDL cholesterol = total cholesterol – HDL cholesterol – triglycerides/5 in mg/dL).3
Benefits of nonfasting lipid labs
There are many benefits of nonfasting labs. For the patients, they do not have to come to their appointments hungry, we can reduce the risk of hypoglycemia for those with diabetes, and they do not have to come back at a later date if they ate something earlier in the day.
For the lab, we can improve efficiency and decrease early morning congestion when patients typically come in for fasting labs.
Lastly, for the provider, nonfasting labs can improve workflow and help decrease the number of patients lost to follow-up who were unable to complete fasting labs the same day as their appointment.
Summary
Patients do not need to fast prior to having lipid levels drawn for routine screening. Fasting labs should be considered for patients who have a genetic dyslipidemia or if there is concern for hypertriglyceridemia.
Per the ACC/AHA guidelines, nonfasting lipids can be used to assess ASCVD risk and to establish a baseline LDL cholesterol in adults 20 years and older. If a patient has nonfasting triglycerides greater than 400 mg/dL, repeat fasting lipids should be drawn to assess fasting triglycerides and to establish a baseline LDL cholesterol.4
Ms. Ervin is a fourth-year medical student at the University of Washington, Seattle. She has no conflicts to disclose. Dr. Paauw is professor of medicine in the division of general internal medicine at the University of Washington, and he serves as third-year medical student clerkship director at the university. He is a member of the editorial advisory board of Internal Medicine News. Dr. Paauw has no conflicts to disclose. Contact him at imnews@mdedge.com.
When I worked as a scribe prior to starting medical school, it was commonplace for patients to have fasting labs. I always felt terrible for the patients we saw late in the afternoon that had somehow fasted all day. For many other patients, there was the challenge of finding a time when they could return to have fasting labs drawn.
While in medical school, I have seen the transition of my preceptors’ recommendations, where it seems patients can now have nonfasting labs. However, I have still observed instances when patients need to have fasting labs. We can look at an example case to better understand when and why patients do and do not need to fast prior to having their lipids checked.
Kendall Ervin
Case
A 57-year-old woman presents for an annual wellness visit. She has been healthy this past year with no new concerns. Her blood pressure has been well controlled, and she continues on a statin for hyperlipidemia. She is due for annual labs. She ate breakfast this morning. Which of the following do you recommend?
A. Obtain lipids with her other blood work now.
B. Have her return tomorrow to obtain fasting labs.
In this situation, A is the correct answer. The patient is due for routine screening labs and there are no current indications that fasting labs are necessary.
Studies of fasting vs. nonfasting lipids
Sidhu and Naugler performed a cross-sectional analysis comparing lipid values at fasting intervals of 1 hour to 16 hours.1 They found the mean total cholesterol and HDL cholesterol values differed by greater than 2%. For LDL cholesterol, the values differed by less than 10% and triglycerides values differed by less than 20%. With this information, the researchers concluded fasting for routine lipids is generally unnecessary.
Mora and colleagues performed a post hoc prospective follow-up of a randomized control
Dr. Douglas S. Paauw
trial to assess if nonfasting lipid measurements could cause misclassification of cardiovascular risk assessment.2 Based on 8,270 participants, coronary events associated with fasting vs. nonfasting lipid values were similar when adjusted hazard ratios were compared. They also found an agreement of 94.8% when classifying participants into ASCVD risk categories for fasting and nonfasting lipid values. These outcomes led them to support the use of nonfasting lipid labs for routine cardiovascular risk assessment.
Rahman and colleagues performed a systematic review and found the use of nonfasting lipid values can reliably determine statin management in most situations.3 Circumstances where fasting labs should be used are if patients have a genetic dyslipidemia, if patients have severe hypertriglyceridemia (greater than 500 mg/dL), and if patients have pancreatitis. Triglyceride values fluctuate the most between the fasting and nonfasting state as seen above from Sidhu and Naugler. This could impact triglyceride disorder management and the accuracy of LDL cholesterol estimation (calculated by the Friedewald equation: LDL cholesterol = total cholesterol – HDL cholesterol – triglycerides/5 in mg/dL).3
Benefits of nonfasting lipid labs
There are many benefits of nonfasting labs. For the patients, they do not have to come to their appointments hungry, we can reduce the risk of hypoglycemia for those with diabetes, and they do not have to come back at a later date if they ate something earlier in the day.
For the lab, we can improve efficiency and decrease early morning congestion when patients typically come in for fasting labs.
Lastly, for the provider, nonfasting labs can improve workflow and help decrease the number of patients lost to follow-up who were unable to complete fasting labs the same day as their appointment.
Summary
Patients do not need to fast prior to having lipid levels drawn for routine screening. Fasting labs should be considered for patients who have a genetic dyslipidemia or if there is concern for hypertriglyceridemia.
Per the ACC/AHA guidelines, nonfasting lipids can be used to assess ASCVD risk and to establish a baseline LDL cholesterol in adults 20 years and older. If a patient has nonfasting triglycerides greater than 400 mg/dL, repeat fasting lipids should be drawn to assess fasting triglycerides and to establish a baseline LDL cholesterol.4
Ms. Ervin is a fourth-year medical student at the University of Washington, Seattle. She has no conflicts to disclose. Dr. Paauw is professor of medicine in the division of general internal medicine at the University of Washington, and he serves as third-year medical student clerkship director at the university. He is a member of the editorial advisory board of Internal Medicine News. Dr. Paauw has no conflicts to disclose. Contact him at imnews@mdedge.com.
When I worked as a scribe prior to starting medical school, it was commonplace for patients to have fasting labs. I always felt terrible for the patients we saw late in the afternoon that had somehow fasted all day. For many other patients, there was the challenge of finding a time when they could return to have fasting labs drawn.
While in medical school, I have seen the transition of my preceptors’ recommendations, where it seems patients can now have nonfasting labs. However, I have still observed instances when patients need to have fasting labs. We can look at an example case to better understand when and why patients do and do not need to fast prior to having their lipids checked.
Kendall Ervin
Case
A 57-year-old woman presents for an annual wellness visit. She has been healthy this past year with no new concerns. Her blood pressure has been well controlled, and she continues on a statin for hyperlipidemia. She is due for annual labs. She ate breakfast this morning. Which of the following do you recommend?
A. Obtain lipids with her other blood work now.
B. Have her return tomorrow to obtain fasting labs.
In this situation, A is the correct answer. The patient is due for routine screening labs and there are no current indications that fasting labs are necessary.
Studies of fasting vs. nonfasting lipids
Sidhu and Naugler performed a cross-sectional analysis comparing lipid values at fasting intervals of 1 hour to 16 hours.1 They found the mean total cholesterol and HDL cholesterol values differed by greater than 2%. For LDL cholesterol, the values differed by less than 10% and triglycerides values differed by less than 20%. With this information, the researchers concluded fasting for routine lipids is generally unnecessary.
Mora and colleagues performed a post hoc prospective follow-up of a randomized control
Dr. Douglas S. Paauw
trial to assess if nonfasting lipid measurements could cause misclassification of cardiovascular risk assessment.2 Based on 8,270 participants, coronary events associated with fasting vs. nonfasting lipid values were similar when adjusted hazard ratios were compared. They also found an agreement of 94.8% when classifying participants into ASCVD risk categories for fasting and nonfasting lipid values. These outcomes led them to support the use of nonfasting lipid labs for routine cardiovascular risk assessment.
Rahman and colleagues performed a systematic review and found the use of nonfasting lipid values can reliably determine statin management in most situations.3 Circumstances where fasting labs should be used are if patients have a genetic dyslipidemia, if patients have severe hypertriglyceridemia (greater than 500 mg/dL), and if patients have pancreatitis. Triglyceride values fluctuate the most between the fasting and nonfasting state as seen above from Sidhu and Naugler. This could impact triglyceride disorder management and the accuracy of LDL cholesterol estimation (calculated by the Friedewald equation: LDL cholesterol = total cholesterol – HDL cholesterol – triglycerides/5 in mg/dL).3
Benefits of nonfasting lipid labs
There are many benefits of nonfasting labs. For the patients, they do not have to come to their appointments hungry, we can reduce the risk of hypoglycemia for those with diabetes, and they do not have to come back at a later date if they ate something earlier in the day.
For the lab, we can improve efficiency and decrease early morning congestion when patients typically come in for fasting labs.
Lastly, for the provider, nonfasting labs can improve workflow and help decrease the number of patients lost to follow-up who were unable to complete fasting labs the same day as their appointment.
Summary
Patients do not need to fast prior to having lipid levels drawn for routine screening. Fasting labs should be considered for patients who have a genetic dyslipidemia or if there is concern for hypertriglyceridemia.
Per the ACC/AHA guidelines, nonfasting lipids can be used to assess ASCVD risk and to establish a baseline LDL cholesterol in adults 20 years and older. If a patient has nonfasting triglycerides greater than 400 mg/dL, repeat fasting lipids should be drawn to assess fasting triglycerides and to establish a baseline LDL cholesterol.4
Ms. Ervin is a fourth-year medical student at the University of Washington, Seattle. She has no conflicts to disclose. Dr. Paauw is professor of medicine in the division of general internal medicine at the University of Washington, and he serves as third-year medical student clerkship director at the university. He is a member of the editorial advisory board of Internal Medicine News. Dr. Paauw has no conflicts to disclose. Contact him at imnews@mdedge.com.
Early or delayed menopause and a history of irregular menstrual cycles were significantly associated with a greater risk of new-onset atrial fibrillation (AF) in women.
Women with nulliparity and multiparity had a greater risk of new-onset AF compared with those with one to two live births.
Why this matters
Findings highlight the significance of considering the reproductive history of women while developing tailored screening and prevention strategies for AF.
Study design
A population-based cohort study of 235,191 women (age, 40-69 years) without AF and a history of hysterectomy and/or bilateral oophorectomy, identified from the UK Biobank (2006-2010).
Funding: Gender and Prevention Grant from ZonMw and other.
Key results
During a median follow-up of 11.6 years, 4,629 (2.0%) women were diagnosed with new-onset AF.
A history of irregular menstrual cycle was associated with higher risk of new-onset AF (adjusted HR, 1.34; 95% confidence interval, 1.01-1.79; P = .04).
Compared with women who experienced menarche at the age of 12 years, the risk of new-onset AF was significantly higher in those who experienced menarche:
–Earlier between the ages of 7 and 11 years (aHR, 1.10; 95% CI, 1.00-1.21; P = .04) and
–Later between the ages of 13 and 18 years (aHR, 1.08; 95% CI, 1.00-1.17; P = .05).
The risk of new-onset AF was significantly higher in women who experienced menopause:
–At the age of < 35 years (aHR, 2.25; 95% CI, 1.48-3.43; P < .001);
–Between the ages of 35 and 44 years (aHR, 1.24; 95% CI, 1.10-1.39; P < .001); and
–At the age of ≥ 60 years (aHR, 1.34; 95% CI, 1.10-1.78; P = .04).
Women with no live births (aHR, 1.13; 95% CI, 1.04-1.24; P < .01), four to six live births (aHR, 1.12; 95% CI, 1.01-1.24; P = .04), and ≥ seven live births (aHR, 1.67; 95% CI, 1.03-2.70; P = .03) vs. those with one to two live births had a significantly higher risk of new-onset AF.
Limitations
Observational design.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape UK.
Reference
Lu Z, Aribas E, Geurts S, Roeters van Lennep JE, Ikram MA, Bos MM, de Groot NMS, Kavousi M. Association Between Sex-Specific Risk Factors and Risk of New-Onset Atrial Fibrillation Among Women. JAMA Netw Open. 2022;5(9):e2229716. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2022.29716. PMID: 36048441.
Early or delayed menopause and a history of irregular menstrual cycles were significantly associated with a greater risk of new-onset atrial fibrillation (AF) in women.
Women with nulliparity and multiparity had a greater risk of new-onset AF compared with those with one to two live births.
Why this matters
Findings highlight the significance of considering the reproductive history of women while developing tailored screening and prevention strategies for AF.
Study design
A population-based cohort study of 235,191 women (age, 40-69 years) without AF and a history of hysterectomy and/or bilateral oophorectomy, identified from the UK Biobank (2006-2010).
Funding: Gender and Prevention Grant from ZonMw and other.
Key results
During a median follow-up of 11.6 years, 4,629 (2.0%) women were diagnosed with new-onset AF.
A history of irregular menstrual cycle was associated with higher risk of new-onset AF (adjusted HR, 1.34; 95% confidence interval, 1.01-1.79; P = .04).
Compared with women who experienced menarche at the age of 12 years, the risk of new-onset AF was significantly higher in those who experienced menarche:
–Earlier between the ages of 7 and 11 years (aHR, 1.10; 95% CI, 1.00-1.21; P = .04) and
–Later between the ages of 13 and 18 years (aHR, 1.08; 95% CI, 1.00-1.17; P = .05).
The risk of new-onset AF was significantly higher in women who experienced menopause:
–At the age of < 35 years (aHR, 2.25; 95% CI, 1.48-3.43; P < .001);
–Between the ages of 35 and 44 years (aHR, 1.24; 95% CI, 1.10-1.39; P < .001); and
–At the age of ≥ 60 years (aHR, 1.34; 95% CI, 1.10-1.78; P = .04).
Women with no live births (aHR, 1.13; 95% CI, 1.04-1.24; P < .01), four to six live births (aHR, 1.12; 95% CI, 1.01-1.24; P = .04), and ≥ seven live births (aHR, 1.67; 95% CI, 1.03-2.70; P = .03) vs. those with one to two live births had a significantly higher risk of new-onset AF.
Limitations
Observational design.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape UK.
Reference
Lu Z, Aribas E, Geurts S, Roeters van Lennep JE, Ikram MA, Bos MM, de Groot NMS, Kavousi M. Association Between Sex-Specific Risk Factors and Risk of New-Onset Atrial Fibrillation Among Women. JAMA Netw Open. 2022;5(9):e2229716. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2022.29716. PMID: 36048441.
Takeaway
Early or delayed menopause and a history of irregular menstrual cycles were significantly associated with a greater risk of new-onset atrial fibrillation (AF) in women.
Women with nulliparity and multiparity had a greater risk of new-onset AF compared with those with one to two live births.
Why this matters
Findings highlight the significance of considering the reproductive history of women while developing tailored screening and prevention strategies for AF.
Study design
A population-based cohort study of 235,191 women (age, 40-69 years) without AF and a history of hysterectomy and/or bilateral oophorectomy, identified from the UK Biobank (2006-2010).
Funding: Gender and Prevention Grant from ZonMw and other.
Key results
During a median follow-up of 11.6 years, 4,629 (2.0%) women were diagnosed with new-onset AF.
A history of irregular menstrual cycle was associated with higher risk of new-onset AF (adjusted HR, 1.34; 95% confidence interval, 1.01-1.79; P = .04).
Compared with women who experienced menarche at the age of 12 years, the risk of new-onset AF was significantly higher in those who experienced menarche:
–Earlier between the ages of 7 and 11 years (aHR, 1.10; 95% CI, 1.00-1.21; P = .04) and
–Later between the ages of 13 and 18 years (aHR, 1.08; 95% CI, 1.00-1.17; P = .05).
The risk of new-onset AF was significantly higher in women who experienced menopause:
–At the age of < 35 years (aHR, 2.25; 95% CI, 1.48-3.43; P < .001);
–Between the ages of 35 and 44 years (aHR, 1.24; 95% CI, 1.10-1.39; P < .001); and
–At the age of ≥ 60 years (aHR, 1.34; 95% CI, 1.10-1.78; P = .04).
Women with no live births (aHR, 1.13; 95% CI, 1.04-1.24; P < .01), four to six live births (aHR, 1.12; 95% CI, 1.01-1.24; P = .04), and ≥ seven live births (aHR, 1.67; 95% CI, 1.03-2.70; P = .03) vs. those with one to two live births had a significantly higher risk of new-onset AF.
Limitations
Observational design.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape UK.
Reference
Lu Z, Aribas E, Geurts S, Roeters van Lennep JE, Ikram MA, Bos MM, de Groot NMS, Kavousi M. Association Between Sex-Specific Risk Factors and Risk of New-Onset Atrial Fibrillation Among Women. JAMA Netw Open. 2022;5(9):e2229716. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2022.29716. PMID: 36048441.
STOCKHOLM – New evidence continues to show that alternative measures of adiposity than body mass index, such as waist-to-hip ratio, work better for predicting the risk a person with overweight or obesity faces from their excess weight.
A direct comparison of waist-to-hip ratio (WHR), body mass index (BMI), and fat mass index (FMI) in a total of more than 380,000 United Kingdom residents included in the UK Biobank showed that WHR had the strongest and most consistent relationship to all-cause death, compared with the other two measures, indicating that clinicians should pay more attention to adiposity distribution than they do to BMI when prioritizing obesity interventions, Irfan Khan said at the annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes.
MDedge News/Mitchel L. Zoler
Irfan Khan
Although it’s likely “way too early” to fully replace BMI as a measure of adiposity, because it is so established in guidelines and in practice, it is now time to “use WHR as an adjunct to BMI” suggested Mr. Khan in an interview.
“A lot of work still needs to be done to translate WHR into practice, but I think it’s getting closer,” said Mr. Khan, a medical student at McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont., who performed his analyses in collaboration with a research team based primarily at McMaster.
Moving away from BMI-centric obesity
“This is a timely topic, because guidelines for treating people with obesity have depended so much on BMI. We want to go from a BMI-centric view to a view of obesity that depends more on disease burden,” commented Matthias Blüher, MD, professor of molecular endocrinology and head of the Obesity Outpatient Clinic for Adults at the University of Leipzig (Germany).
MDedge News/Mitchel L. Zoler
Dr. Matthias Blüher
For example, the 2016 obesity management guidelines from the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists and the American College of Endocrinology called for a “complications-centric” approach to assessing and intervening in people with obesity rather than a “BMI-centric” approach.
But Dr. Blüher went a step further in an interview, adding that “waist-to-hip ratio is now outdated,” with adjusted measures of WHR such as waist-to-height ratio “considered a better proxy for all-cause death.” He also gave high marks to the Edmonton Obesity Staging System, which independently added to BMI as well as to a diagnosis of metabolic syndrome for predicting mortality in a sample from the U.S. National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES). The Edmonton System also surpassed BMI for disease-severity staging using data from more than 23,000 Canadians with a BMI that denoted obesity.
1 standard deviation increase in WHR linked with a 41% increased mortality
The study reported by Mr. Khan used both epidemiologic and Mendelian randomization analyses on data collected from more than 380,000 U.K. residents included in the UK Biobank database to examine the statistical associations between BMI, FMI, and WHR and all-cause death. This showed that while BMI and FMI both had significant, independent associations with all-cause mortality, with hazard ratios of 1.14 for each 1 standard deviation increase in BMI and of 1.17 for each standard deviation increase in FMI, the link was a stronger 1.41 per standard deviation increase in WHR, he said.
Another analysis that divided the entire UK Biobank study cohort into 20 roughly similar subgroups by their BMI showed that WHR had the most consistent association across the BMI spectrum.
Further analyses showed that WHR also strongly and significantly linked with cardiovascular disease death and with other causes of death that were not cardiovascular, cancer-related, or associated with respiratory diseases. And the WHR link to all-cause mortality was strongest in men, and much less robust in women, likely because visceral adiposity is much more common among men, even compared with the postmenopausal women who predominate in the UK Biobank cohort.
One more feature of WHR that makes it an attractive metric is its relative ease of measurement, about as easy as BMI, Mr. Khan said.
The study received no commercial funding, and Mr. Khan had no disclosures. Dr. Blüher has been a consultant to or speaker on behalf of Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Lilly, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, and Sanofi.
STOCKHOLM – New evidence continues to show that alternative measures of adiposity than body mass index, such as waist-to-hip ratio, work better for predicting the risk a person with overweight or obesity faces from their excess weight.
A direct comparison of waist-to-hip ratio (WHR), body mass index (BMI), and fat mass index (FMI) in a total of more than 380,000 United Kingdom residents included in the UK Biobank showed that WHR had the strongest and most consistent relationship to all-cause death, compared with the other two measures, indicating that clinicians should pay more attention to adiposity distribution than they do to BMI when prioritizing obesity interventions, Irfan Khan said at the annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes.
MDedge News/Mitchel L. Zoler
Irfan Khan
Although it’s likely “way too early” to fully replace BMI as a measure of adiposity, because it is so established in guidelines and in practice, it is now time to “use WHR as an adjunct to BMI” suggested Mr. Khan in an interview.
“A lot of work still needs to be done to translate WHR into practice, but I think it’s getting closer,” said Mr. Khan, a medical student at McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont., who performed his analyses in collaboration with a research team based primarily at McMaster.
Moving away from BMI-centric obesity
“This is a timely topic, because guidelines for treating people with obesity have depended so much on BMI. We want to go from a BMI-centric view to a view of obesity that depends more on disease burden,” commented Matthias Blüher, MD, professor of molecular endocrinology and head of the Obesity Outpatient Clinic for Adults at the University of Leipzig (Germany).
MDedge News/Mitchel L. Zoler
Dr. Matthias Blüher
For example, the 2016 obesity management guidelines from the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists and the American College of Endocrinology called for a “complications-centric” approach to assessing and intervening in people with obesity rather than a “BMI-centric” approach.
But Dr. Blüher went a step further in an interview, adding that “waist-to-hip ratio is now outdated,” with adjusted measures of WHR such as waist-to-height ratio “considered a better proxy for all-cause death.” He also gave high marks to the Edmonton Obesity Staging System, which independently added to BMI as well as to a diagnosis of metabolic syndrome for predicting mortality in a sample from the U.S. National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES). The Edmonton System also surpassed BMI for disease-severity staging using data from more than 23,000 Canadians with a BMI that denoted obesity.
1 standard deviation increase in WHR linked with a 41% increased mortality
The study reported by Mr. Khan used both epidemiologic and Mendelian randomization analyses on data collected from more than 380,000 U.K. residents included in the UK Biobank database to examine the statistical associations between BMI, FMI, and WHR and all-cause death. This showed that while BMI and FMI both had significant, independent associations with all-cause mortality, with hazard ratios of 1.14 for each 1 standard deviation increase in BMI and of 1.17 for each standard deviation increase in FMI, the link was a stronger 1.41 per standard deviation increase in WHR, he said.
Another analysis that divided the entire UK Biobank study cohort into 20 roughly similar subgroups by their BMI showed that WHR had the most consistent association across the BMI spectrum.
Further analyses showed that WHR also strongly and significantly linked with cardiovascular disease death and with other causes of death that were not cardiovascular, cancer-related, or associated with respiratory diseases. And the WHR link to all-cause mortality was strongest in men, and much less robust in women, likely because visceral adiposity is much more common among men, even compared with the postmenopausal women who predominate in the UK Biobank cohort.
One more feature of WHR that makes it an attractive metric is its relative ease of measurement, about as easy as BMI, Mr. Khan said.
The study received no commercial funding, and Mr. Khan had no disclosures. Dr. Blüher has been a consultant to or speaker on behalf of Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Lilly, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, and Sanofi.
STOCKHOLM – New evidence continues to show that alternative measures of adiposity than body mass index, such as waist-to-hip ratio, work better for predicting the risk a person with overweight or obesity faces from their excess weight.
A direct comparison of waist-to-hip ratio (WHR), body mass index (BMI), and fat mass index (FMI) in a total of more than 380,000 United Kingdom residents included in the UK Biobank showed that WHR had the strongest and most consistent relationship to all-cause death, compared with the other two measures, indicating that clinicians should pay more attention to adiposity distribution than they do to BMI when prioritizing obesity interventions, Irfan Khan said at the annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes.
MDedge News/Mitchel L. Zoler
Irfan Khan
Although it’s likely “way too early” to fully replace BMI as a measure of adiposity, because it is so established in guidelines and in practice, it is now time to “use WHR as an adjunct to BMI” suggested Mr. Khan in an interview.
“A lot of work still needs to be done to translate WHR into practice, but I think it’s getting closer,” said Mr. Khan, a medical student at McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont., who performed his analyses in collaboration with a research team based primarily at McMaster.
Moving away from BMI-centric obesity
“This is a timely topic, because guidelines for treating people with obesity have depended so much on BMI. We want to go from a BMI-centric view to a view of obesity that depends more on disease burden,” commented Matthias Blüher, MD, professor of molecular endocrinology and head of the Obesity Outpatient Clinic for Adults at the University of Leipzig (Germany).
MDedge News/Mitchel L. Zoler
Dr. Matthias Blüher
For example, the 2016 obesity management guidelines from the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists and the American College of Endocrinology called for a “complications-centric” approach to assessing and intervening in people with obesity rather than a “BMI-centric” approach.
But Dr. Blüher went a step further in an interview, adding that “waist-to-hip ratio is now outdated,” with adjusted measures of WHR such as waist-to-height ratio “considered a better proxy for all-cause death.” He also gave high marks to the Edmonton Obesity Staging System, which independently added to BMI as well as to a diagnosis of metabolic syndrome for predicting mortality in a sample from the U.S. National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES). The Edmonton System also surpassed BMI for disease-severity staging using data from more than 23,000 Canadians with a BMI that denoted obesity.
1 standard deviation increase in WHR linked with a 41% increased mortality
The study reported by Mr. Khan used both epidemiologic and Mendelian randomization analyses on data collected from more than 380,000 U.K. residents included in the UK Biobank database to examine the statistical associations between BMI, FMI, and WHR and all-cause death. This showed that while BMI and FMI both had significant, independent associations with all-cause mortality, with hazard ratios of 1.14 for each 1 standard deviation increase in BMI and of 1.17 for each standard deviation increase in FMI, the link was a stronger 1.41 per standard deviation increase in WHR, he said.
Another analysis that divided the entire UK Biobank study cohort into 20 roughly similar subgroups by their BMI showed that WHR had the most consistent association across the BMI spectrum.
Further analyses showed that WHR also strongly and significantly linked with cardiovascular disease death and with other causes of death that were not cardiovascular, cancer-related, or associated with respiratory diseases. And the WHR link to all-cause mortality was strongest in men, and much less robust in women, likely because visceral adiposity is much more common among men, even compared with the postmenopausal women who predominate in the UK Biobank cohort.
One more feature of WHR that makes it an attractive metric is its relative ease of measurement, about as easy as BMI, Mr. Khan said.
The study received no commercial funding, and Mr. Khan had no disclosures. Dr. Blüher has been a consultant to or speaker on behalf of Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Lilly, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, and Sanofi.
New research calls into question the assumption that acetaminophen is safer than NSAIDs for patients with known cardiovascular disease (CVD) or CVD risk factors.
The analysis found a significant correlation between the use of acetaminophen and elevated systolic blood pressure.
While acetaminophen may still be safer than NSAIDs from a bleeding risk standpoint, or in patients with known kidney disease, “the gap may not be as large as once thought,” Rahul Gupta, MD, cardiologist with Lehigh Valley Health Network, Allentown, Pa., said in an interview.
ironstealth/Thinkstock
“Cautious use is recommended over the long term, especially in patients with pre-existing hypertension or cardiovascular risk factors,” Dr. Gupta said.
The study was presented at the Hypertension Scientific Sessions, San Diego, sponsored by the American Heart Association.
Acetaminophen is one of the most widely used over-the-counter medications, as it is considered a safer medication for long-term use since it lacks the anti-inflammatory effects of NSAIDs, Dr. Gupta explained.
NSAIDs have been known to raise blood pressure, but the effect of acetaminophen in this regard has not been well studied. Observational studies have shown contradictory results in terms of its effect on blood pressure, he noted.
To investigate further, Dr. Gupta and colleagues did a meta-analysis of three studies that compared the effect of acetaminophen (3-4 g/day) versus placebo on systolic and diastolic ambulatory blood pressure in patients with heart disease or hypertension. Together, the studies included 172 adults (mean age, 60 years; 73% male).
They found that patients receiving acetaminophen had significantly higher systolic blood pressure, compared with those receiving placebo (standard mean difference [SMD] = 0.35; 95% confidence interval, 0.08-0.63; P = .01).
Subgroup analysis of the effect on hypertensive patients showed significant change in systolic blood pressure as well (SMD = 0.38; 95% CI, 0.05-0.71; P = .02).
“Interestingly, there was no significant difference in the effect on diastolic blood pressure,” Dr. Gupta commented.
Reached for comment, Timothy S. Anderson, MD, clinical investigator in the Division of General Medicine at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center and assistant professor of medicine at the Harvard Medical School, both in Boston, said this is “an interesting and not particularly well-known issue.”
“However, most of the trials look at very high doses of acetaminophen use (for example, six to eight of the 500 mg pills each day) so we don’t really know whether the more common patterns of using one to two acetaminophen pills every once in a while is problematic,” Dr. Anderson told this news organization.
“We also don’t have data showing a direct harm from these medications with regards to strokes or heart attacks or other downstream consequences of high blood pressure. Ideally we would need a head-to-head trial comparing ibuprofen-type medications to acetaminophen-type medications,” Dr. Anderson said.
The study had no specific funding. Dr. Gupta and Dr. Anderson reported no relevant disclosures.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
New research calls into question the assumption that acetaminophen is safer than NSAIDs for patients with known cardiovascular disease (CVD) or CVD risk factors.
The analysis found a significant correlation between the use of acetaminophen and elevated systolic blood pressure.
While acetaminophen may still be safer than NSAIDs from a bleeding risk standpoint, or in patients with known kidney disease, “the gap may not be as large as once thought,” Rahul Gupta, MD, cardiologist with Lehigh Valley Health Network, Allentown, Pa., said in an interview.
ironstealth/Thinkstock
“Cautious use is recommended over the long term, especially in patients with pre-existing hypertension or cardiovascular risk factors,” Dr. Gupta said.
The study was presented at the Hypertension Scientific Sessions, San Diego, sponsored by the American Heart Association.
Acetaminophen is one of the most widely used over-the-counter medications, as it is considered a safer medication for long-term use since it lacks the anti-inflammatory effects of NSAIDs, Dr. Gupta explained.
NSAIDs have been known to raise blood pressure, but the effect of acetaminophen in this regard has not been well studied. Observational studies have shown contradictory results in terms of its effect on blood pressure, he noted.
To investigate further, Dr. Gupta and colleagues did a meta-analysis of three studies that compared the effect of acetaminophen (3-4 g/day) versus placebo on systolic and diastolic ambulatory blood pressure in patients with heart disease or hypertension. Together, the studies included 172 adults (mean age, 60 years; 73% male).
They found that patients receiving acetaminophen had significantly higher systolic blood pressure, compared with those receiving placebo (standard mean difference [SMD] = 0.35; 95% confidence interval, 0.08-0.63; P = .01).
Subgroup analysis of the effect on hypertensive patients showed significant change in systolic blood pressure as well (SMD = 0.38; 95% CI, 0.05-0.71; P = .02).
“Interestingly, there was no significant difference in the effect on diastolic blood pressure,” Dr. Gupta commented.
Reached for comment, Timothy S. Anderson, MD, clinical investigator in the Division of General Medicine at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center and assistant professor of medicine at the Harvard Medical School, both in Boston, said this is “an interesting and not particularly well-known issue.”
“However, most of the trials look at very high doses of acetaminophen use (for example, six to eight of the 500 mg pills each day) so we don’t really know whether the more common patterns of using one to two acetaminophen pills every once in a while is problematic,” Dr. Anderson told this news organization.
“We also don’t have data showing a direct harm from these medications with regards to strokes or heart attacks or other downstream consequences of high blood pressure. Ideally we would need a head-to-head trial comparing ibuprofen-type medications to acetaminophen-type medications,” Dr. Anderson said.
The study had no specific funding. Dr. Gupta and Dr. Anderson reported no relevant disclosures.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
New research calls into question the assumption that acetaminophen is safer than NSAIDs for patients with known cardiovascular disease (CVD) or CVD risk factors.
The analysis found a significant correlation between the use of acetaminophen and elevated systolic blood pressure.
While acetaminophen may still be safer than NSAIDs from a bleeding risk standpoint, or in patients with known kidney disease, “the gap may not be as large as once thought,” Rahul Gupta, MD, cardiologist with Lehigh Valley Health Network, Allentown, Pa., said in an interview.
ironstealth/Thinkstock
“Cautious use is recommended over the long term, especially in patients with pre-existing hypertension or cardiovascular risk factors,” Dr. Gupta said.
The study was presented at the Hypertension Scientific Sessions, San Diego, sponsored by the American Heart Association.
Acetaminophen is one of the most widely used over-the-counter medications, as it is considered a safer medication for long-term use since it lacks the anti-inflammatory effects of NSAIDs, Dr. Gupta explained.
NSAIDs have been known to raise blood pressure, but the effect of acetaminophen in this regard has not been well studied. Observational studies have shown contradictory results in terms of its effect on blood pressure, he noted.
To investigate further, Dr. Gupta and colleagues did a meta-analysis of three studies that compared the effect of acetaminophen (3-4 g/day) versus placebo on systolic and diastolic ambulatory blood pressure in patients with heart disease or hypertension. Together, the studies included 172 adults (mean age, 60 years; 73% male).
They found that patients receiving acetaminophen had significantly higher systolic blood pressure, compared with those receiving placebo (standard mean difference [SMD] = 0.35; 95% confidence interval, 0.08-0.63; P = .01).
Subgroup analysis of the effect on hypertensive patients showed significant change in systolic blood pressure as well (SMD = 0.38; 95% CI, 0.05-0.71; P = .02).
“Interestingly, there was no significant difference in the effect on diastolic blood pressure,” Dr. Gupta commented.
Reached for comment, Timothy S. Anderson, MD, clinical investigator in the Division of General Medicine at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center and assistant professor of medicine at the Harvard Medical School, both in Boston, said this is “an interesting and not particularly well-known issue.”
“However, most of the trials look at very high doses of acetaminophen use (for example, six to eight of the 500 mg pills each day) so we don’t really know whether the more common patterns of using one to two acetaminophen pills every once in a while is problematic,” Dr. Anderson told this news organization.
“We also don’t have data showing a direct harm from these medications with regards to strokes or heart attacks or other downstream consequences of high blood pressure. Ideally we would need a head-to-head trial comparing ibuprofen-type medications to acetaminophen-type medications,” Dr. Anderson said.
The study had no specific funding. Dr. Gupta and Dr. Anderson reported no relevant disclosures.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Treatment of people with obesity but without diabetes with the glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) agonist semaglutide (Wegovy) – hailed at its approval in 2021 as a “game changer” for the treatment of obesity – led to beneficial changes in body mass index (BMI), glycemic control, and other clinical measures.
This collectively cut the calculated risk for possible future development of type 2 diabetes in study participants by more than half, based on post-hoc analysis of data from two pivotal trials that compared semaglutide with placebo.
The findings “suggest that semaglutide could help prevent type 2 diabetes in people with overweight or obesity,” said W. Timothy Garvey, MD, in a presentation at the annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes.
Asked to comment, Rodolfo J. Galindo, MD, said: “We devote a significant amount of effort to treating people with diabetes but very little effort for diabetes prevention. We hope that further scientific findings showing the benefits of weight loss, as illustrated by [Dr.] Garvey [and colleagues], for diabetes prevention will change the pandemic of adiposity-based chronic disease.”
GLP-1 agonists as complication-reducing agents
Finding a link between treatment with semaglutide and a reduced future risk of developing type 2 diabetes is important because it shows that this regimen is not just a BMI-centric approach to treating people with obesity but is also a way to potentially reduce complications of obesity such as diabetes onset, explained Dr. Garvey, a professor and director of the Diabetes Research Center at the University of Alabama at Birmingham.
Dr. W. Timothy Garvey
Recent obesity-management recommendations have focused on interventions aimed at avoiding complications, as in 2016 guidelines from the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists and the American College of Endocrinology, he noted.
Having evidence that treatment with a GLP-1 agonist such as semaglutide can reduce the incidence of diabetes in people with obesity might also help convince payers to more uniformly reimburse for this type of obesity intervention, which up to now has commonly faced coverage limitations, especially in the United States, he said in an interview.
Dr. Garvey added that evidence for a reduction in the incidence of cardiovascular disease complications such as myocardial infarction and stroke may need to join diabetes prevention as proven effects from obesity intervention before coverage decisions change.
He cited the SELECT trial, which is testing the hypothesis that semaglutide treatment of people with overweight or obesity can reduce the incidence of cardiovascular events in about 17,500 participants and with expected completion toward the end of 2023.
“A complication-centric approach to management of people with obesity needs prediction tools that allow a focus on prevention strategies for people with obesity who are at increased risk of developing diabetes,” commented Dr. Galindo, an endocrinologist at Emory University, Atlanta, in an interview.
Combined analysis of STEP 1 and STEP 4 data
The analysis conducted by Dr. Garvey and colleagues used data from the STEP 1 trial, which compared semaglutide 2.4 mg subcutaneous once weekly with placebo for weight loss in more than 1,500 people predominantly with obesity (about 6% were overweight) and showed that after 68 weeks semaglutide cut the calculated risk of developing type 2 diabetes over the subsequent 10 years from 18% at baseline to 7%, compared with a drop from 18% at baseline to 16% among those who received placebo.
A second, similar analysis of data from people predominantly with obesity in the STEP 4 trial – which treated around 800 people with semaglutide 2.4 mg for 20 weeks and then randomized them to placebo or continued semaglutide treatment – showed that semaglutide treatment cut their calculated 10-year risk for incident type 2 diabetes from 20% at baseline to about 11% after 20 weeks. The risk rebounded in the study participants who then switched from semaglutide to placebo. Among those randomized to remain on semaglutide for a total of 68 weeks, the 10-year risk fell further to 8%.
Dr. Garvey and associates used a validated prognostic formula, the cardiometabolic disease staging (CMDS) tool, they had previously developed and reported to calculate 10-year risk for development of type 2 diabetes based on three unmodifiable factors (age, sex, and race) and five modifiable factors (BMI, blood pressure, glucose level, HDL cholesterol, and triglycerides). They applied the analysis to data from 1,561 of the STEP 1 participants and 766 participants in the STEP 4 study.
“There is no better tool I know of to predict diabetes incidence,” commented Michael A. Nauck, MD, professor and chief of clinical research, diabetes division, St. Josef Hospital, Bochum, Germany.
In his opinion, the CMDS tool is appropriate for estimating the risk of developing incident type 2 diabetes in populations but not in specific individuals.
The new analyses also showed that, in STEP 1, the impact of semaglutide on reducing future risk of developing type 2 diabetes was roughly the same regardless of whether participants entered the study with prediabetes or were normoglycemic at entry.
Blood glucose changes confer the biggest effect
The biggest contributor among the five modifiable components of the CMDS tool for altering the predicted risk for incident diabetes was the reduction in blood glucose produced by semaglutide treatment, which influenced just under half of the change in predicted risk, Dr. Garvey said. The four other modifiable components had roughly similar individual effects on predicted risk, with change in BMI influencing about 15% of the observed effect.
“Our analysis shows that semaglutide treatment is preventing diabetes via several mechanisms. It’s not just a reduction in glucose,” Dr. Garvey said.
Dr. Nauck cautioned, however, that it is hard to judge the efficacy of an intervention like semaglutide for preventing incident diabetes when one of its effects is to dampen down hyperglycemia, the signal indicator of diabetes onset.
Indeed, semaglutide was first approved as a treatment for type 2 diabetes (known as Ozempic, Novo Nordisk) at slightly lower doses than it is approved for obesity. It is also available as an oral agent to treat diabetes (Rybelsus).
Dr. Nauck also noted that the results from at least one previously reported study had already shown the same relationship between treatment with the GLP-1 agonist liraglutide as an anti-obesity agent (3.0 mg dose daily, known as Saxenda) and a reduced subsequent incidence of type 2 diabetes but using actual clinical outcomes during 3 years of follow-up rather than a calculated projection of diabetes likelihood.
The SCALE Obesity and Prediabetes trial randomized 2,254 people with prediabetes and overweight or obesity to weekly treatment with 3.0 mg of liraglutide or placebo. After 160 weeks on treatment, the cumulative incidence of type 2 diabetes was 2% in those who received liraglutide and 6% among those on placebo, with a significant hazard ratio reduction of 79% in the incidence of diabetes on liraglutide treatment.
The STEP 1 and STEP 4 trials were sponsored by Novo Nordisk, the company that markets semaglutide (Wegovy). Dr. Garvey has reported serving as an advisor without compensation to Novo Nordisk as well as Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, Jazz, and Pfizer. He is also a site principal investigator for multicentered clinical trials sponsored by the University of Alabama at Birmingham and funded by Novo Nordisk, Eli Lilly, Epitomee, and Pfizer. Dr .Galindo has reported being a consultant or advisor for Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, Pfizer, Sanofi, and Weight Watchers and receiving research funding from Dexcom, Eli Lilly, and Novo Nordisk. Dr. Nauck has reported being an advisor or consultant to Novo Nordisk as well as to Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, Menarini/Berlin Chemie, MSD, Regor, and ShouTi/Gasherbrum, receiving research funding from MSD, being a member of a data monitoring and safety board for Inventiva, and being a speaker on behalf of Novo Nordisk as well as for Eli Lilly, Menarini/Berlin Chemie, MSD, and Sun Pharmaceuticals.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Treatment of people with obesity but without diabetes with the glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) agonist semaglutide (Wegovy) – hailed at its approval in 2021 as a “game changer” for the treatment of obesity – led to beneficial changes in body mass index (BMI), glycemic control, and other clinical measures.
This collectively cut the calculated risk for possible future development of type 2 diabetes in study participants by more than half, based on post-hoc analysis of data from two pivotal trials that compared semaglutide with placebo.
The findings “suggest that semaglutide could help prevent type 2 diabetes in people with overweight or obesity,” said W. Timothy Garvey, MD, in a presentation at the annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes.
Asked to comment, Rodolfo J. Galindo, MD, said: “We devote a significant amount of effort to treating people with diabetes but very little effort for diabetes prevention. We hope that further scientific findings showing the benefits of weight loss, as illustrated by [Dr.] Garvey [and colleagues], for diabetes prevention will change the pandemic of adiposity-based chronic disease.”
GLP-1 agonists as complication-reducing agents
Finding a link between treatment with semaglutide and a reduced future risk of developing type 2 diabetes is important because it shows that this regimen is not just a BMI-centric approach to treating people with obesity but is also a way to potentially reduce complications of obesity such as diabetes onset, explained Dr. Garvey, a professor and director of the Diabetes Research Center at the University of Alabama at Birmingham.
Dr. W. Timothy Garvey
Recent obesity-management recommendations have focused on interventions aimed at avoiding complications, as in 2016 guidelines from the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists and the American College of Endocrinology, he noted.
Having evidence that treatment with a GLP-1 agonist such as semaglutide can reduce the incidence of diabetes in people with obesity might also help convince payers to more uniformly reimburse for this type of obesity intervention, which up to now has commonly faced coverage limitations, especially in the United States, he said in an interview.
Dr. Garvey added that evidence for a reduction in the incidence of cardiovascular disease complications such as myocardial infarction and stroke may need to join diabetes prevention as proven effects from obesity intervention before coverage decisions change.
He cited the SELECT trial, which is testing the hypothesis that semaglutide treatment of people with overweight or obesity can reduce the incidence of cardiovascular events in about 17,500 participants and with expected completion toward the end of 2023.
“A complication-centric approach to management of people with obesity needs prediction tools that allow a focus on prevention strategies for people with obesity who are at increased risk of developing diabetes,” commented Dr. Galindo, an endocrinologist at Emory University, Atlanta, in an interview.
Combined analysis of STEP 1 and STEP 4 data
The analysis conducted by Dr. Garvey and colleagues used data from the STEP 1 trial, which compared semaglutide 2.4 mg subcutaneous once weekly with placebo for weight loss in more than 1,500 people predominantly with obesity (about 6% were overweight) and showed that after 68 weeks semaglutide cut the calculated risk of developing type 2 diabetes over the subsequent 10 years from 18% at baseline to 7%, compared with a drop from 18% at baseline to 16% among those who received placebo.
A second, similar analysis of data from people predominantly with obesity in the STEP 4 trial – which treated around 800 people with semaglutide 2.4 mg for 20 weeks and then randomized them to placebo or continued semaglutide treatment – showed that semaglutide treatment cut their calculated 10-year risk for incident type 2 diabetes from 20% at baseline to about 11% after 20 weeks. The risk rebounded in the study participants who then switched from semaglutide to placebo. Among those randomized to remain on semaglutide for a total of 68 weeks, the 10-year risk fell further to 8%.
Dr. Garvey and associates used a validated prognostic formula, the cardiometabolic disease staging (CMDS) tool, they had previously developed and reported to calculate 10-year risk for development of type 2 diabetes based on three unmodifiable factors (age, sex, and race) and five modifiable factors (BMI, blood pressure, glucose level, HDL cholesterol, and triglycerides). They applied the analysis to data from 1,561 of the STEP 1 participants and 766 participants in the STEP 4 study.
“There is no better tool I know of to predict diabetes incidence,” commented Michael A. Nauck, MD, professor and chief of clinical research, diabetes division, St. Josef Hospital, Bochum, Germany.
In his opinion, the CMDS tool is appropriate for estimating the risk of developing incident type 2 diabetes in populations but not in specific individuals.
The new analyses also showed that, in STEP 1, the impact of semaglutide on reducing future risk of developing type 2 diabetes was roughly the same regardless of whether participants entered the study with prediabetes or were normoglycemic at entry.
Blood glucose changes confer the biggest effect
The biggest contributor among the five modifiable components of the CMDS tool for altering the predicted risk for incident diabetes was the reduction in blood glucose produced by semaglutide treatment, which influenced just under half of the change in predicted risk, Dr. Garvey said. The four other modifiable components had roughly similar individual effects on predicted risk, with change in BMI influencing about 15% of the observed effect.
“Our analysis shows that semaglutide treatment is preventing diabetes via several mechanisms. It’s not just a reduction in glucose,” Dr. Garvey said.
Dr. Nauck cautioned, however, that it is hard to judge the efficacy of an intervention like semaglutide for preventing incident diabetes when one of its effects is to dampen down hyperglycemia, the signal indicator of diabetes onset.
Indeed, semaglutide was first approved as a treatment for type 2 diabetes (known as Ozempic, Novo Nordisk) at slightly lower doses than it is approved for obesity. It is also available as an oral agent to treat diabetes (Rybelsus).
Dr. Nauck also noted that the results from at least one previously reported study had already shown the same relationship between treatment with the GLP-1 agonist liraglutide as an anti-obesity agent (3.0 mg dose daily, known as Saxenda) and a reduced subsequent incidence of type 2 diabetes but using actual clinical outcomes during 3 years of follow-up rather than a calculated projection of diabetes likelihood.
The SCALE Obesity and Prediabetes trial randomized 2,254 people with prediabetes and overweight or obesity to weekly treatment with 3.0 mg of liraglutide or placebo. After 160 weeks on treatment, the cumulative incidence of type 2 diabetes was 2% in those who received liraglutide and 6% among those on placebo, with a significant hazard ratio reduction of 79% in the incidence of diabetes on liraglutide treatment.
The STEP 1 and STEP 4 trials were sponsored by Novo Nordisk, the company that markets semaglutide (Wegovy). Dr. Garvey has reported serving as an advisor without compensation to Novo Nordisk as well as Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, Jazz, and Pfizer. He is also a site principal investigator for multicentered clinical trials sponsored by the University of Alabama at Birmingham and funded by Novo Nordisk, Eli Lilly, Epitomee, and Pfizer. Dr .Galindo has reported being a consultant or advisor for Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, Pfizer, Sanofi, and Weight Watchers and receiving research funding from Dexcom, Eli Lilly, and Novo Nordisk. Dr. Nauck has reported being an advisor or consultant to Novo Nordisk as well as to Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, Menarini/Berlin Chemie, MSD, Regor, and ShouTi/Gasherbrum, receiving research funding from MSD, being a member of a data monitoring and safety board for Inventiva, and being a speaker on behalf of Novo Nordisk as well as for Eli Lilly, Menarini/Berlin Chemie, MSD, and Sun Pharmaceuticals.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Treatment of people with obesity but without diabetes with the glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) agonist semaglutide (Wegovy) – hailed at its approval in 2021 as a “game changer” for the treatment of obesity – led to beneficial changes in body mass index (BMI), glycemic control, and other clinical measures.
This collectively cut the calculated risk for possible future development of type 2 diabetes in study participants by more than half, based on post-hoc analysis of data from two pivotal trials that compared semaglutide with placebo.
The findings “suggest that semaglutide could help prevent type 2 diabetes in people with overweight or obesity,” said W. Timothy Garvey, MD, in a presentation at the annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes.
Asked to comment, Rodolfo J. Galindo, MD, said: “We devote a significant amount of effort to treating people with diabetes but very little effort for diabetes prevention. We hope that further scientific findings showing the benefits of weight loss, as illustrated by [Dr.] Garvey [and colleagues], for diabetes prevention will change the pandemic of adiposity-based chronic disease.”
GLP-1 agonists as complication-reducing agents
Finding a link between treatment with semaglutide and a reduced future risk of developing type 2 diabetes is important because it shows that this regimen is not just a BMI-centric approach to treating people with obesity but is also a way to potentially reduce complications of obesity such as diabetes onset, explained Dr. Garvey, a professor and director of the Diabetes Research Center at the University of Alabama at Birmingham.
Dr. W. Timothy Garvey
Recent obesity-management recommendations have focused on interventions aimed at avoiding complications, as in 2016 guidelines from the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists and the American College of Endocrinology, he noted.
Having evidence that treatment with a GLP-1 agonist such as semaglutide can reduce the incidence of diabetes in people with obesity might also help convince payers to more uniformly reimburse for this type of obesity intervention, which up to now has commonly faced coverage limitations, especially in the United States, he said in an interview.
Dr. Garvey added that evidence for a reduction in the incidence of cardiovascular disease complications such as myocardial infarction and stroke may need to join diabetes prevention as proven effects from obesity intervention before coverage decisions change.
He cited the SELECT trial, which is testing the hypothesis that semaglutide treatment of people with overweight or obesity can reduce the incidence of cardiovascular events in about 17,500 participants and with expected completion toward the end of 2023.
“A complication-centric approach to management of people with obesity needs prediction tools that allow a focus on prevention strategies for people with obesity who are at increased risk of developing diabetes,” commented Dr. Galindo, an endocrinologist at Emory University, Atlanta, in an interview.
Combined analysis of STEP 1 and STEP 4 data
The analysis conducted by Dr. Garvey and colleagues used data from the STEP 1 trial, which compared semaglutide 2.4 mg subcutaneous once weekly with placebo for weight loss in more than 1,500 people predominantly with obesity (about 6% were overweight) and showed that after 68 weeks semaglutide cut the calculated risk of developing type 2 diabetes over the subsequent 10 years from 18% at baseline to 7%, compared with a drop from 18% at baseline to 16% among those who received placebo.
A second, similar analysis of data from people predominantly with obesity in the STEP 4 trial – which treated around 800 people with semaglutide 2.4 mg for 20 weeks and then randomized them to placebo or continued semaglutide treatment – showed that semaglutide treatment cut their calculated 10-year risk for incident type 2 diabetes from 20% at baseline to about 11% after 20 weeks. The risk rebounded in the study participants who then switched from semaglutide to placebo. Among those randomized to remain on semaglutide for a total of 68 weeks, the 10-year risk fell further to 8%.
Dr. Garvey and associates used a validated prognostic formula, the cardiometabolic disease staging (CMDS) tool, they had previously developed and reported to calculate 10-year risk for development of type 2 diabetes based on three unmodifiable factors (age, sex, and race) and five modifiable factors (BMI, blood pressure, glucose level, HDL cholesterol, and triglycerides). They applied the analysis to data from 1,561 of the STEP 1 participants and 766 participants in the STEP 4 study.
“There is no better tool I know of to predict diabetes incidence,” commented Michael A. Nauck, MD, professor and chief of clinical research, diabetes division, St. Josef Hospital, Bochum, Germany.
In his opinion, the CMDS tool is appropriate for estimating the risk of developing incident type 2 diabetes in populations but not in specific individuals.
The new analyses also showed that, in STEP 1, the impact of semaglutide on reducing future risk of developing type 2 diabetes was roughly the same regardless of whether participants entered the study with prediabetes or were normoglycemic at entry.
Blood glucose changes confer the biggest effect
The biggest contributor among the five modifiable components of the CMDS tool for altering the predicted risk for incident diabetes was the reduction in blood glucose produced by semaglutide treatment, which influenced just under half of the change in predicted risk, Dr. Garvey said. The four other modifiable components had roughly similar individual effects on predicted risk, with change in BMI influencing about 15% of the observed effect.
“Our analysis shows that semaglutide treatment is preventing diabetes via several mechanisms. It’s not just a reduction in glucose,” Dr. Garvey said.
Dr. Nauck cautioned, however, that it is hard to judge the efficacy of an intervention like semaglutide for preventing incident diabetes when one of its effects is to dampen down hyperglycemia, the signal indicator of diabetes onset.
Indeed, semaglutide was first approved as a treatment for type 2 diabetes (known as Ozempic, Novo Nordisk) at slightly lower doses than it is approved for obesity. It is also available as an oral agent to treat diabetes (Rybelsus).
Dr. Nauck also noted that the results from at least one previously reported study had already shown the same relationship between treatment with the GLP-1 agonist liraglutide as an anti-obesity agent (3.0 mg dose daily, known as Saxenda) and a reduced subsequent incidence of type 2 diabetes but using actual clinical outcomes during 3 years of follow-up rather than a calculated projection of diabetes likelihood.
The SCALE Obesity and Prediabetes trial randomized 2,254 people with prediabetes and overweight or obesity to weekly treatment with 3.0 mg of liraglutide or placebo. After 160 weeks on treatment, the cumulative incidence of type 2 diabetes was 2% in those who received liraglutide and 6% among those on placebo, with a significant hazard ratio reduction of 79% in the incidence of diabetes on liraglutide treatment.
The STEP 1 and STEP 4 trials were sponsored by Novo Nordisk, the company that markets semaglutide (Wegovy). Dr. Garvey has reported serving as an advisor without compensation to Novo Nordisk as well as Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, Jazz, and Pfizer. He is also a site principal investigator for multicentered clinical trials sponsored by the University of Alabama at Birmingham and funded by Novo Nordisk, Eli Lilly, Epitomee, and Pfizer. Dr .Galindo has reported being a consultant or advisor for Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, Pfizer, Sanofi, and Weight Watchers and receiving research funding from Dexcom, Eli Lilly, and Novo Nordisk. Dr. Nauck has reported being an advisor or consultant to Novo Nordisk as well as to Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, Menarini/Berlin Chemie, MSD, Regor, and ShouTi/Gasherbrum, receiving research funding from MSD, being a member of a data monitoring and safety board for Inventiva, and being a speaker on behalf of Novo Nordisk as well as for Eli Lilly, Menarini/Berlin Chemie, MSD, and Sun Pharmaceuticals.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Just over 51% of older hypertensive adults regularly check their own blood pressure, compared with 48% of those with blood pressure–related health conditions (BPHCs), based on a 2021 survey of individuals aged 50-80 years.
“Guidelines recommend that patients use self-measured blood pressure monitoring (SBPM) outside the clinic to diagnose and manage hypertension,” but just 61% of respondents with a BPHC and 68% of those with hypertension said that they had received such a recommendation from a physician, nurse, or other health care professional, Melanie V. Springer, MD, and associates said in JAMA Network Open.
The prevalence of regular monitoring among those with hypertension, 51.2%, does, however, compare favorably with an earlier study showing that 43% of adults aged 18 and older regularly monitored their BP in 2005 and 2008, “which is perhaps associated with our sample’s older age,” said Dr. Springer and associates of the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.
The current study, they noted, is the first to report “SBPM prevalence in adults ages 50 to 80 years with hypertension or BPHCs, who have a higher risk of adverse outcomes from uncontrolled BP than younger adults.” The analysis is based on data from the National Poll on Healthy Aging, conducted by the University of Michigan in January 2021 and completed by 2,023 individuals.
The frequency of home monitoring varied among adults with BPHCs, as just under 15% reported daily checks and the largest proportion, about 28%, used their device one to three times per month. The results of home monitoring were shared with health care professionals by 50.2% of respondents with a BPHC and by 51.5% of those with hypertension, they said in the research letter.
Home monitoring’s less-than-universal recommendation by providers and use by patients “suggest that protocols should be developed to educate patients about the importance of SBPM and sharing readings with clinicians and the frequency that SBPM should be performed,” Dr. Springer and associates wrote.
The study was funded by AARP, Michigan Medicine, the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke, and the Department of Veterans Affairs. One investigator has received consulting fees or honoraria from SeeChange Health, HealthMine, the Kaiser Permanente Washington Health Research Institute, the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, AbilTo, Kansas City Area Life Sciences Institute, American Diabetes Association, Donaghue Foundation, and Luxembourg National Research Fund.
Just over 51% of older hypertensive adults regularly check their own blood pressure, compared with 48% of those with blood pressure–related health conditions (BPHCs), based on a 2021 survey of individuals aged 50-80 years.
“Guidelines recommend that patients use self-measured blood pressure monitoring (SBPM) outside the clinic to diagnose and manage hypertension,” but just 61% of respondents with a BPHC and 68% of those with hypertension said that they had received such a recommendation from a physician, nurse, or other health care professional, Melanie V. Springer, MD, and associates said in JAMA Network Open.
The prevalence of regular monitoring among those with hypertension, 51.2%, does, however, compare favorably with an earlier study showing that 43% of adults aged 18 and older regularly monitored their BP in 2005 and 2008, “which is perhaps associated with our sample’s older age,” said Dr. Springer and associates of the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.
The current study, they noted, is the first to report “SBPM prevalence in adults ages 50 to 80 years with hypertension or BPHCs, who have a higher risk of adverse outcomes from uncontrolled BP than younger adults.” The analysis is based on data from the National Poll on Healthy Aging, conducted by the University of Michigan in January 2021 and completed by 2,023 individuals.
The frequency of home monitoring varied among adults with BPHCs, as just under 15% reported daily checks and the largest proportion, about 28%, used their device one to three times per month. The results of home monitoring were shared with health care professionals by 50.2% of respondents with a BPHC and by 51.5% of those with hypertension, they said in the research letter.
Home monitoring’s less-than-universal recommendation by providers and use by patients “suggest that protocols should be developed to educate patients about the importance of SBPM and sharing readings with clinicians and the frequency that SBPM should be performed,” Dr. Springer and associates wrote.
The study was funded by AARP, Michigan Medicine, the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke, and the Department of Veterans Affairs. One investigator has received consulting fees or honoraria from SeeChange Health, HealthMine, the Kaiser Permanente Washington Health Research Institute, the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, AbilTo, Kansas City Area Life Sciences Institute, American Diabetes Association, Donaghue Foundation, and Luxembourg National Research Fund.
Just over 51% of older hypertensive adults regularly check their own blood pressure, compared with 48% of those with blood pressure–related health conditions (BPHCs), based on a 2021 survey of individuals aged 50-80 years.
“Guidelines recommend that patients use self-measured blood pressure monitoring (SBPM) outside the clinic to diagnose and manage hypertension,” but just 61% of respondents with a BPHC and 68% of those with hypertension said that they had received such a recommendation from a physician, nurse, or other health care professional, Melanie V. Springer, MD, and associates said in JAMA Network Open.
The prevalence of regular monitoring among those with hypertension, 51.2%, does, however, compare favorably with an earlier study showing that 43% of adults aged 18 and older regularly monitored their BP in 2005 and 2008, “which is perhaps associated with our sample’s older age,” said Dr. Springer and associates of the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.
The current study, they noted, is the first to report “SBPM prevalence in adults ages 50 to 80 years with hypertension or BPHCs, who have a higher risk of adverse outcomes from uncontrolled BP than younger adults.” The analysis is based on data from the National Poll on Healthy Aging, conducted by the University of Michigan in January 2021 and completed by 2,023 individuals.
The frequency of home monitoring varied among adults with BPHCs, as just under 15% reported daily checks and the largest proportion, about 28%, used their device one to three times per month. The results of home monitoring were shared with health care professionals by 50.2% of respondents with a BPHC and by 51.5% of those with hypertension, they said in the research letter.
Home monitoring’s less-than-universal recommendation by providers and use by patients “suggest that protocols should be developed to educate patients about the importance of SBPM and sharing readings with clinicians and the frequency that SBPM should be performed,” Dr. Springer and associates wrote.
The study was funded by AARP, Michigan Medicine, the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke, and the Department of Veterans Affairs. One investigator has received consulting fees or honoraria from SeeChange Health, HealthMine, the Kaiser Permanente Washington Health Research Institute, the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, AbilTo, Kansas City Area Life Sciences Institute, American Diabetes Association, Donaghue Foundation, and Luxembourg National Research Fund.
Wearing a cuffless device on the wrist to continuously monitor blood pressure was associated with a significantly lower systolic BP at 6 months among hypertensive adults, real-world results from Europe show.
“We don’t know what they did to reduce their blood pressure,” Jay Shah, MD, Division of Cardiology, Mayo Clinic Arizona, Phoenix, told this news organization.
“The idea is that because they were exposed to their data on a continual basis, that may have prompted them to do something that led to an improvement in their blood pressure, whether it be exercise more, go to their doctor, or change their medication,” said Dr. Shah, who is also chief medical officer for Aktiia.
Dr. Shah presented the study at the Hypertension Scientific Sessions, San Diego.
Empowering data
The study used the Aktiia 24/7 BP monitor; Atkiia funded the trial. The monitor passively and continually monitors BP values from photoplethysmography signals collected via optical sensors at the wrist.
After initial individualized calibration using a cuff-based reference, BP measurements are displayed on a smartphone app, allowing users to consistently monitor their own BP for long periods of time.
Aktiia received CE mark in Europe in January 2021 and is currently under review by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.
Dr. Shah and colleagues analyzed systolic BP (SBP) trends among 838 real-world Aktiia users in Europe (age 57 ± 11 years; 14% women) who consistently used the monitor for 6 months.
Altogether, they had data on 375 (± 287) app interactions, 3,646 (± 1,417) cuffless readings per user, and 9 (± 7) cuff readings per user.
Traditional cuff SBP averages were calculated monthly and compared with the SBP average of the first month. A t-test analysis was used to detect the difference in SBP between the first and successive months.
On the basis of the mean SBP calculated over 6 months, 136 participants were hypertensive (SBP > 140 mm Hg) and the rest had SBP less than 140 mm Hg.
Hypertensive users saw a statistically significant reduction in SBP of –3.2 mm Hg (95% CI, –0.70 to –5.59; P < .02), beginning at 3 months of continual cuffless BP monitoring, which was sustained through 6 months.
Among users with SBP less than 140 mm Hg, the mean SBP remained unchanged.
“The magnitude of improvement might look modest, but even a 5 mm Hg reduction in systolic BP correlates to a 10% decrease in cardiovascular risk,” Dr. Shah told this news organization.
He noted that “one of the major hurdles is that people may not be aware they have high blood pressure because they don’t feel it. And with a regular cuff, they’ll only see that number when they actually check their blood pressure, which is extremely rare, even for people who have hypertension.”
“Having the ability to show someone their continual blood pressure picture really empowers them to do something to make changes and to be aware, [as well as] to be a more active participant in their health,” Dr. Shah said.
He said that a good analogy is diabetes management, which has transitioned from single finger-stick glucose monitoring to continuous glucose monitoring that provides a complete 24/7 picture of glucose levels.
Transforming technology
Offering perspective on the study, Harlan Krumholz, MD, SM, with Yale New Haven Hospital and Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, Conn., said that having an accurate, affordable, unobtrusive cuffless continuous BP monitor would “transform” BP management.
Courtesy Yale University
Dr. Harlan M. Krumholz
“This could unlock an era of precision BP management with empowerment of patients to view and act on their numbers,” Dr. Krumholz said in an interview.
“We need data to be confident in the devices – and then research to best leverage the streams of information – and strategies to optimize its use in practice,” Dr. Krumholz added.
“Like any new innovation, we need to mitigate risks and monitor for unintended adverse consequences, but I am bullish on the future of cuffless continuous BP monitors,” Dr. Krumholz said.
Dr. Krumholz said that he “applauds Aktiia for doing studies that assess the effect of the information they are producing on BP over time. We need to know that new approaches not only generate valid information but that they can improve health.”
Ready for prime time?
In June, the European Society of Hypertension issued a statement noting that cuffless BP measurement is a fast-growing and promising field with considerable potential for improving hypertension awareness, management, and control, but because the accuracy of these new devices has not yet been validated, they are not yet suitable for clinical use.
Also providing perspective, Stephen Juraschek, MD, PhD, research director, Hypertension Center of Excellence at Healthcare Associates, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, said that “there is a lot of interest in cuffless BP monitors due to their ease of measurement, comfort, and ability to obtain BP measurements in multiple settings and environments, and this study showed that the monitoring improved BP over time.”
“It is believed that the increased awareness and feedback may promote healthier behaviors aimed at lowering BP. However, this result should not be conflated with the accuracy of these monitors,” Dr. Juraschek cautioned.
He also noted that there is still no formally approved validation protocol by the Association for the Advancement of Medical Instrumentation.
“While a number of cuffless devices are cleared by the FDA through its 510k mechanism (that is, demonstration of device equivalence), there is no formal stamp of approval or attestation that the measurements are accurate,” Dr. Juraschek said in an interview.
In his view, “more work is needed to understand the validity of these devices. For now, validated, cuff-based home devices are recommended for BP measurement at home, while further work is done to determine the accuracy of these cuffless technologies.”
The study was funded by Aktiia. Dr. Shah is an employee of the company. Dr. Krumholz has no relevant disclosures. Dr. Juraschek is a member of the Validate BP review committee and the AAMI sphygmomanometer committee.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Wearing a cuffless device on the wrist to continuously monitor blood pressure was associated with a significantly lower systolic BP at 6 months among hypertensive adults, real-world results from Europe show.
“We don’t know what they did to reduce their blood pressure,” Jay Shah, MD, Division of Cardiology, Mayo Clinic Arizona, Phoenix, told this news organization.
“The idea is that because they were exposed to their data on a continual basis, that may have prompted them to do something that led to an improvement in their blood pressure, whether it be exercise more, go to their doctor, or change their medication,” said Dr. Shah, who is also chief medical officer for Aktiia.
Dr. Shah presented the study at the Hypertension Scientific Sessions, San Diego.
Empowering data
The study used the Aktiia 24/7 BP monitor; Atkiia funded the trial. The monitor passively and continually monitors BP values from photoplethysmography signals collected via optical sensors at the wrist.
After initial individualized calibration using a cuff-based reference, BP measurements are displayed on a smartphone app, allowing users to consistently monitor their own BP for long periods of time.
Aktiia received CE mark in Europe in January 2021 and is currently under review by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.
Dr. Shah and colleagues analyzed systolic BP (SBP) trends among 838 real-world Aktiia users in Europe (age 57 ± 11 years; 14% women) who consistently used the monitor for 6 months.
Altogether, they had data on 375 (± 287) app interactions, 3,646 (± 1,417) cuffless readings per user, and 9 (± 7) cuff readings per user.
Traditional cuff SBP averages were calculated monthly and compared with the SBP average of the first month. A t-test analysis was used to detect the difference in SBP between the first and successive months.
On the basis of the mean SBP calculated over 6 months, 136 participants were hypertensive (SBP > 140 mm Hg) and the rest had SBP less than 140 mm Hg.
Hypertensive users saw a statistically significant reduction in SBP of –3.2 mm Hg (95% CI, –0.70 to –5.59; P < .02), beginning at 3 months of continual cuffless BP monitoring, which was sustained through 6 months.
Among users with SBP less than 140 mm Hg, the mean SBP remained unchanged.
“The magnitude of improvement might look modest, but even a 5 mm Hg reduction in systolic BP correlates to a 10% decrease in cardiovascular risk,” Dr. Shah told this news organization.
He noted that “one of the major hurdles is that people may not be aware they have high blood pressure because they don’t feel it. And with a regular cuff, they’ll only see that number when they actually check their blood pressure, which is extremely rare, even for people who have hypertension.”
“Having the ability to show someone their continual blood pressure picture really empowers them to do something to make changes and to be aware, [as well as] to be a more active participant in their health,” Dr. Shah said.
He said that a good analogy is diabetes management, which has transitioned from single finger-stick glucose monitoring to continuous glucose monitoring that provides a complete 24/7 picture of glucose levels.
Transforming technology
Offering perspective on the study, Harlan Krumholz, MD, SM, with Yale New Haven Hospital and Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, Conn., said that having an accurate, affordable, unobtrusive cuffless continuous BP monitor would “transform” BP management.
Courtesy Yale University
Dr. Harlan M. Krumholz
“This could unlock an era of precision BP management with empowerment of patients to view and act on their numbers,” Dr. Krumholz said in an interview.
“We need data to be confident in the devices – and then research to best leverage the streams of information – and strategies to optimize its use in practice,” Dr. Krumholz added.
“Like any new innovation, we need to mitigate risks and monitor for unintended adverse consequences, but I am bullish on the future of cuffless continuous BP monitors,” Dr. Krumholz said.
Dr. Krumholz said that he “applauds Aktiia for doing studies that assess the effect of the information they are producing on BP over time. We need to know that new approaches not only generate valid information but that they can improve health.”
Ready for prime time?
In June, the European Society of Hypertension issued a statement noting that cuffless BP measurement is a fast-growing and promising field with considerable potential for improving hypertension awareness, management, and control, but because the accuracy of these new devices has not yet been validated, they are not yet suitable for clinical use.
Also providing perspective, Stephen Juraschek, MD, PhD, research director, Hypertension Center of Excellence at Healthcare Associates, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, said that “there is a lot of interest in cuffless BP monitors due to their ease of measurement, comfort, and ability to obtain BP measurements in multiple settings and environments, and this study showed that the monitoring improved BP over time.”
“It is believed that the increased awareness and feedback may promote healthier behaviors aimed at lowering BP. However, this result should not be conflated with the accuracy of these monitors,” Dr. Juraschek cautioned.
He also noted that there is still no formally approved validation protocol by the Association for the Advancement of Medical Instrumentation.
“While a number of cuffless devices are cleared by the FDA through its 510k mechanism (that is, demonstration of device equivalence), there is no formal stamp of approval or attestation that the measurements are accurate,” Dr. Juraschek said in an interview.
In his view, “more work is needed to understand the validity of these devices. For now, validated, cuff-based home devices are recommended for BP measurement at home, while further work is done to determine the accuracy of these cuffless technologies.”
The study was funded by Aktiia. Dr. Shah is an employee of the company. Dr. Krumholz has no relevant disclosures. Dr. Juraschek is a member of the Validate BP review committee and the AAMI sphygmomanometer committee.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Wearing a cuffless device on the wrist to continuously monitor blood pressure was associated with a significantly lower systolic BP at 6 months among hypertensive adults, real-world results from Europe show.
“We don’t know what they did to reduce their blood pressure,” Jay Shah, MD, Division of Cardiology, Mayo Clinic Arizona, Phoenix, told this news organization.
“The idea is that because they were exposed to their data on a continual basis, that may have prompted them to do something that led to an improvement in their blood pressure, whether it be exercise more, go to their doctor, or change their medication,” said Dr. Shah, who is also chief medical officer for Aktiia.
Dr. Shah presented the study at the Hypertension Scientific Sessions, San Diego.
Empowering data
The study used the Aktiia 24/7 BP monitor; Atkiia funded the trial. The monitor passively and continually monitors BP values from photoplethysmography signals collected via optical sensors at the wrist.
After initial individualized calibration using a cuff-based reference, BP measurements are displayed on a smartphone app, allowing users to consistently monitor their own BP for long periods of time.
Aktiia received CE mark in Europe in January 2021 and is currently under review by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.
Dr. Shah and colleagues analyzed systolic BP (SBP) trends among 838 real-world Aktiia users in Europe (age 57 ± 11 years; 14% women) who consistently used the monitor for 6 months.
Altogether, they had data on 375 (± 287) app interactions, 3,646 (± 1,417) cuffless readings per user, and 9 (± 7) cuff readings per user.
Traditional cuff SBP averages were calculated monthly and compared with the SBP average of the first month. A t-test analysis was used to detect the difference in SBP between the first and successive months.
On the basis of the mean SBP calculated over 6 months, 136 participants were hypertensive (SBP > 140 mm Hg) and the rest had SBP less than 140 mm Hg.
Hypertensive users saw a statistically significant reduction in SBP of –3.2 mm Hg (95% CI, –0.70 to –5.59; P < .02), beginning at 3 months of continual cuffless BP monitoring, which was sustained through 6 months.
Among users with SBP less than 140 mm Hg, the mean SBP remained unchanged.
“The magnitude of improvement might look modest, but even a 5 mm Hg reduction in systolic BP correlates to a 10% decrease in cardiovascular risk,” Dr. Shah told this news organization.
He noted that “one of the major hurdles is that people may not be aware they have high blood pressure because they don’t feel it. And with a regular cuff, they’ll only see that number when they actually check their blood pressure, which is extremely rare, even for people who have hypertension.”
“Having the ability to show someone their continual blood pressure picture really empowers them to do something to make changes and to be aware, [as well as] to be a more active participant in their health,” Dr. Shah said.
He said that a good analogy is diabetes management, which has transitioned from single finger-stick glucose monitoring to continuous glucose monitoring that provides a complete 24/7 picture of glucose levels.
Transforming technology
Offering perspective on the study, Harlan Krumholz, MD, SM, with Yale New Haven Hospital and Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, Conn., said that having an accurate, affordable, unobtrusive cuffless continuous BP monitor would “transform” BP management.
Courtesy Yale University
Dr. Harlan M. Krumholz
“This could unlock an era of precision BP management with empowerment of patients to view and act on their numbers,” Dr. Krumholz said in an interview.
“We need data to be confident in the devices – and then research to best leverage the streams of information – and strategies to optimize its use in practice,” Dr. Krumholz added.
“Like any new innovation, we need to mitigate risks and monitor for unintended adverse consequences, but I am bullish on the future of cuffless continuous BP monitors,” Dr. Krumholz said.
Dr. Krumholz said that he “applauds Aktiia for doing studies that assess the effect of the information they are producing on BP over time. We need to know that new approaches not only generate valid information but that they can improve health.”
Ready for prime time?
In June, the European Society of Hypertension issued a statement noting that cuffless BP measurement is a fast-growing and promising field with considerable potential for improving hypertension awareness, management, and control, but because the accuracy of these new devices has not yet been validated, they are not yet suitable for clinical use.
Also providing perspective, Stephen Juraschek, MD, PhD, research director, Hypertension Center of Excellence at Healthcare Associates, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, said that “there is a lot of interest in cuffless BP monitors due to their ease of measurement, comfort, and ability to obtain BP measurements in multiple settings and environments, and this study showed that the monitoring improved BP over time.”
“It is believed that the increased awareness and feedback may promote healthier behaviors aimed at lowering BP. However, this result should not be conflated with the accuracy of these monitors,” Dr. Juraschek cautioned.
He also noted that there is still no formally approved validation protocol by the Association for the Advancement of Medical Instrumentation.
“While a number of cuffless devices are cleared by the FDA through its 510k mechanism (that is, demonstration of device equivalence), there is no formal stamp of approval or attestation that the measurements are accurate,” Dr. Juraschek said in an interview.
In his view, “more work is needed to understand the validity of these devices. For now, validated, cuff-based home devices are recommended for BP measurement at home, while further work is done to determine the accuracy of these cuffless technologies.”
The study was funded by Aktiia. Dr. Shah is an employee of the company. Dr. Krumholz has no relevant disclosures. Dr. Juraschek is a member of the Validate BP review committee and the AAMI sphygmomanometer committee.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Systolic blood pressure went down safely and consistently 2 months after renal denervation achieved by ultrasound ablation in patients with uncontrolled, mild to moderate hypertension (HTN) in a key sham-controlled test of the balloon-equipped catheter.
The BP reductions were significant almost regardless of how they were measured – at home, in the office, during the day, at night, or over 24 hours – and weren’t dependent on baseline BP levels.
The 224-patient RADIANCE II Pivotal Study follows two earlier successful sham-controlled trials that used the same renal denervation catheter in other types of patients with HTN. They were RADIANCE-HTN SOLO, which entered patients with mild to moderate HTN not taking medication, and RADIANCE-HTN TRIO, which included patients with HTN despite fixed-dose, single-pill, triple-antihypertensive therapy.
Courtesy American College of Cardiology
Dr. Ajay J. Kirtane
The consistent results of all three trials suggest that the ultrasound renal denervation (uRDN) technique “lowers blood pressure across the spectrum of hypertension,” concluded co–principal investigator Ajay J. Kirtane, MD, SM, Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York–Presbyterian Hospital, when presenting RADIANCE II at the Transcatheter Cardiovascular Therapeutics annual meeting, sponsored by the Cardiovascular Research Foundation.
RADIANCE II, the largest of the three studies, met its prespecified primary efficacy endpoint of change in daytime ambulatory systolic BP at 2 months by showing a significant 6.3–mm Hg greater reduction in the uRDN group, compared with the sham-control group. There were no major adverse events at 30 days in either group.
The trial was similarly successful for the secondary endpoints of change in systolic BP measured in various other settings, including over 24 hours. Reductions after uRDN averaged 5-7 mm Hg greater than in the control group.
Sparse top-line results of the RADIANCE II pivotal trial were announced in July by the study’s sponsor, ReCor Medical.
Dr. Kirtane stressed in an interview that uRDN and likely any form of HTN renal denervation therapy is not a substitute for standard management. “This is really for patients in whom you’ve made best efforts to do the traditional things – lifestyle modification, medications, all of that – and yet they’re still uncontrolled.” At that point, assuming denervation therapy is available in practice, “it would be something to potentially consider.”
As a panelist after Dr. Kirtane’s formal presentation of RADIANCE II at the conference, Naomi D. Fisher, MD, who was a RADIANCE-HTN TRIO investigator, described how the treatment’s perceived intended patient population evolved over time.
“We all began with the idea that we were going to treat patients with resistant hypertension, that was going to be the first target. We have learned that those patients are far fewer than we thought,” said Dr. Fisher, who directs the hypertension service at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston.
Initial estimates were that such patients with the resistant form, “meaning they require more than three drugs to control their blood pressure,” would represent 15%-20% of patients with HTN.
“We learned from our TRIO data that if you give these patients one single combined pill, lo and behold, many of them become controlled,” she said. “There is so much nonadherence out there in the world, about 50% of our patients aren’t taking their pills. It’s a hard and true fact.”
Exclude patients who aren’t adherent and “our true resistance population becomes minuscule. So, I don’t think that’s going to be the main population” for renal denervation therapy.
More likely, she said, it would be “patients who are uncontrolled and unable to take their medications. So that is going to include nonadherence, intolerance. It’s a very large category of patients. And the priorities can be stacked in favor of those who have higher cardiovascular risk.”
RADIANCE II can show the persistence of uRDN’s BP-lowering effect only out to 2 months so far, but the effect’s durability based on the RADIANCE program’s combined experience appears to be at least 2 years, Dr. Kirtane said in an interview.
“The RADIANCE II pivotal trial is a powerful, well-designed study attesting to the efficacy of renal denervation in BP lowering,” Franz H. Messerli, MD, Swiss Cardiovascular Center, University Hospital Bern, said in an interview.
The trial “shows the well-known unpredictability of antihypertensive response. We cannot predict who responds to renal denervation and who does not, and who even has a paradoxical increase in BP,” Dr. Messerli, an international hypertension expert not associated with the trial, said in an interview.
“As long as we cannot predict the antihypertensive response to renal denervation therapy, potential synergism/antagonism with drug therapy remains an educated guess,” he said.
“Hypertension is a disease that lasts years and decades. As impressive as RADIANCE II’s 2-month snapshot is, I look forward to similar or better BP data 12 and 24 months after renal denervation,” Dr. Messerli added.
RADIANCE II entered patients with mild to moderate uncontrolled HTN, that is, a systolic BP at least 140/90 mm Hg and less than 180/120 mm Hg, who were receiving no more than two antihypertensive medications. They could have no history of cardiovascular or cerebrovascular events or uncontrolled diabetes, and their estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) had to be at least 40 mL/min per 1.73 m2.
After a 4-week drug washout period, patients who were clinically stable with an ambulatory BP of at least 135/85 mm Hg and less than 170/105 mm Hg underwent CT and renal angiography. Then, the 224 patients still anatomically eligible for the procedure were randomly assigned 2:1 to uRDN or a sham-control procedure: 150 and 74 patients, respectively.
At 2 months, daytime ambulatory systolic BP on average fell 7.9 mm Hg in the uRDN group and 1.8 mm Hg in the sham-control group, for a drop that was steeper by 6.3 mm Hg (P < .0001) after uRDN.
Also in the uRDN group, there was a 6.2–mm Hg larger decrease in 24-hour ambulatory systolic BP (P < .0001), a 5.8–mm Hg greater decline in nighttime ambulatory systolic BP (P < .0004), a 7.6–mm Hg steeper drop in mean home systolic BP (P < .0001), and 5.4 mm Hg more of a decrease in office-based systolic BP (P = .0035).
No significant differences were seen in subgroup analyses by sex, age, higher versus lower baseline systolic pressures, high versus low baseline eGFR, degree of abdominal obesity, U.S. versus European site, or whether patients entered before or during the COVID pandemic
Regulators have been accepting change in systolic BP as a surrogate for clinical endpoints in trials of antihypertensive therapy, whether pharmacologic or interventional, under consideration for approval. “That’s why safety endpoints are important to investigate” in these clinical trials, especially for invasive therapies like renal denervation, Dr. Kirtane observed.
That said, “in the longer-term follow-ups of the renal denervation therapies that are out there, including this one, there does not appear to be an appreciable decline in glomerular filtration rate, or any adverse safety signals that we see to date,” Dr. Kirtane said in an interview. “But we know that these are low-frequency events, so we have to be very vigilant, and we can’t get complacent about it.”
In RADIANCE II, there were zero adverse events within 30 days in both groups; the endpoint included death, new myocardial infarction, renal artery complications requiring invasive intervention, and hospitalization for major cardiovascular or hemodynamic-related events. Nor were there instances of new-onset renal artery stenosis greater than 70% documented by imaging at 6 months.
The ReCor uRDN catheter uses ultrasound energy to disrupt renal nerve signaling, a technology thought to deliver safer “burns,” compared with other renal denervation catheter technologies. It features an axially stabilizing balloon that transmits ultrasound energy – two to three sonications, each lasting 7 seconds, Dr. Kirtane said – outward through the arterial wall. The design is intended to ensure consistently circumferential ablation. Circulating saline within the balloon, Kirtane noted, directly cools the adjacent vessel wall to help it avoid thermal damage.
Dr. Kirtane reported receiving institutional funding from Medtronic, Boston Scientific, Abbott Vascular, Amgen, CSI, Philips, ReCor Medical, Neurotronic, Biotronik, Chiesi, Bolt Medical, Magenta Medical, Canon, SoniVie, Shockwave Medical, and Merck; consulting for IMDS; and receiving travel and meal expenses from Medtronic, Boston Scientific, Abbott Vascular, CSI, Siemens, Philips, ReCor Medical, Chiesi, OpSens, Zoll, and Regeneron. Dr. Fisher disclosed receiving honoraria or fees for consulting or serving on a speaker’s bureau for Medtronic, ReCor Medical, and Aktiia and receiving grant support or holding research contracts for Recor Medical and Aktiia. Dr. Messerli disclosed receiving honoraria from Medtronic, Menarini, Krka, and Ipca.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Systolic blood pressure went down safely and consistently 2 months after renal denervation achieved by ultrasound ablation in patients with uncontrolled, mild to moderate hypertension (HTN) in a key sham-controlled test of the balloon-equipped catheter.
The BP reductions were significant almost regardless of how they were measured – at home, in the office, during the day, at night, or over 24 hours – and weren’t dependent on baseline BP levels.
The 224-patient RADIANCE II Pivotal Study follows two earlier successful sham-controlled trials that used the same renal denervation catheter in other types of patients with HTN. They were RADIANCE-HTN SOLO, which entered patients with mild to moderate HTN not taking medication, and RADIANCE-HTN TRIO, which included patients with HTN despite fixed-dose, single-pill, triple-antihypertensive therapy.
Courtesy American College of Cardiology
Dr. Ajay J. Kirtane
The consistent results of all three trials suggest that the ultrasound renal denervation (uRDN) technique “lowers blood pressure across the spectrum of hypertension,” concluded co–principal investigator Ajay J. Kirtane, MD, SM, Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York–Presbyterian Hospital, when presenting RADIANCE II at the Transcatheter Cardiovascular Therapeutics annual meeting, sponsored by the Cardiovascular Research Foundation.
RADIANCE II, the largest of the three studies, met its prespecified primary efficacy endpoint of change in daytime ambulatory systolic BP at 2 months by showing a significant 6.3–mm Hg greater reduction in the uRDN group, compared with the sham-control group. There were no major adverse events at 30 days in either group.
The trial was similarly successful for the secondary endpoints of change in systolic BP measured in various other settings, including over 24 hours. Reductions after uRDN averaged 5-7 mm Hg greater than in the control group.
Sparse top-line results of the RADIANCE II pivotal trial were announced in July by the study’s sponsor, ReCor Medical.
Dr. Kirtane stressed in an interview that uRDN and likely any form of HTN renal denervation therapy is not a substitute for standard management. “This is really for patients in whom you’ve made best efforts to do the traditional things – lifestyle modification, medications, all of that – and yet they’re still uncontrolled.” At that point, assuming denervation therapy is available in practice, “it would be something to potentially consider.”
As a panelist after Dr. Kirtane’s formal presentation of RADIANCE II at the conference, Naomi D. Fisher, MD, who was a RADIANCE-HTN TRIO investigator, described how the treatment’s perceived intended patient population evolved over time.
“We all began with the idea that we were going to treat patients with resistant hypertension, that was going to be the first target. We have learned that those patients are far fewer than we thought,” said Dr. Fisher, who directs the hypertension service at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston.
Initial estimates were that such patients with the resistant form, “meaning they require more than three drugs to control their blood pressure,” would represent 15%-20% of patients with HTN.
“We learned from our TRIO data that if you give these patients one single combined pill, lo and behold, many of them become controlled,” she said. “There is so much nonadherence out there in the world, about 50% of our patients aren’t taking their pills. It’s a hard and true fact.”
Exclude patients who aren’t adherent and “our true resistance population becomes minuscule. So, I don’t think that’s going to be the main population” for renal denervation therapy.
More likely, she said, it would be “patients who are uncontrolled and unable to take their medications. So that is going to include nonadherence, intolerance. It’s a very large category of patients. And the priorities can be stacked in favor of those who have higher cardiovascular risk.”
RADIANCE II can show the persistence of uRDN’s BP-lowering effect only out to 2 months so far, but the effect’s durability based on the RADIANCE program’s combined experience appears to be at least 2 years, Dr. Kirtane said in an interview.
“The RADIANCE II pivotal trial is a powerful, well-designed study attesting to the efficacy of renal denervation in BP lowering,” Franz H. Messerli, MD, Swiss Cardiovascular Center, University Hospital Bern, said in an interview.
The trial “shows the well-known unpredictability of antihypertensive response. We cannot predict who responds to renal denervation and who does not, and who even has a paradoxical increase in BP,” Dr. Messerli, an international hypertension expert not associated with the trial, said in an interview.
“As long as we cannot predict the antihypertensive response to renal denervation therapy, potential synergism/antagonism with drug therapy remains an educated guess,” he said.
“Hypertension is a disease that lasts years and decades. As impressive as RADIANCE II’s 2-month snapshot is, I look forward to similar or better BP data 12 and 24 months after renal denervation,” Dr. Messerli added.
RADIANCE II entered patients with mild to moderate uncontrolled HTN, that is, a systolic BP at least 140/90 mm Hg and less than 180/120 mm Hg, who were receiving no more than two antihypertensive medications. They could have no history of cardiovascular or cerebrovascular events or uncontrolled diabetes, and their estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) had to be at least 40 mL/min per 1.73 m2.
After a 4-week drug washout period, patients who were clinically stable with an ambulatory BP of at least 135/85 mm Hg and less than 170/105 mm Hg underwent CT and renal angiography. Then, the 224 patients still anatomically eligible for the procedure were randomly assigned 2:1 to uRDN or a sham-control procedure: 150 and 74 patients, respectively.
At 2 months, daytime ambulatory systolic BP on average fell 7.9 mm Hg in the uRDN group and 1.8 mm Hg in the sham-control group, for a drop that was steeper by 6.3 mm Hg (P < .0001) after uRDN.
Also in the uRDN group, there was a 6.2–mm Hg larger decrease in 24-hour ambulatory systolic BP (P < .0001), a 5.8–mm Hg greater decline in nighttime ambulatory systolic BP (P < .0004), a 7.6–mm Hg steeper drop in mean home systolic BP (P < .0001), and 5.4 mm Hg more of a decrease in office-based systolic BP (P = .0035).
No significant differences were seen in subgroup analyses by sex, age, higher versus lower baseline systolic pressures, high versus low baseline eGFR, degree of abdominal obesity, U.S. versus European site, or whether patients entered before or during the COVID pandemic
Regulators have been accepting change in systolic BP as a surrogate for clinical endpoints in trials of antihypertensive therapy, whether pharmacologic or interventional, under consideration for approval. “That’s why safety endpoints are important to investigate” in these clinical trials, especially for invasive therapies like renal denervation, Dr. Kirtane observed.
That said, “in the longer-term follow-ups of the renal denervation therapies that are out there, including this one, there does not appear to be an appreciable decline in glomerular filtration rate, or any adverse safety signals that we see to date,” Dr. Kirtane said in an interview. “But we know that these are low-frequency events, so we have to be very vigilant, and we can’t get complacent about it.”
In RADIANCE II, there were zero adverse events within 30 days in both groups; the endpoint included death, new myocardial infarction, renal artery complications requiring invasive intervention, and hospitalization for major cardiovascular or hemodynamic-related events. Nor were there instances of new-onset renal artery stenosis greater than 70% documented by imaging at 6 months.
The ReCor uRDN catheter uses ultrasound energy to disrupt renal nerve signaling, a technology thought to deliver safer “burns,” compared with other renal denervation catheter technologies. It features an axially stabilizing balloon that transmits ultrasound energy – two to three sonications, each lasting 7 seconds, Dr. Kirtane said – outward through the arterial wall. The design is intended to ensure consistently circumferential ablation. Circulating saline within the balloon, Kirtane noted, directly cools the adjacent vessel wall to help it avoid thermal damage.
Dr. Kirtane reported receiving institutional funding from Medtronic, Boston Scientific, Abbott Vascular, Amgen, CSI, Philips, ReCor Medical, Neurotronic, Biotronik, Chiesi, Bolt Medical, Magenta Medical, Canon, SoniVie, Shockwave Medical, and Merck; consulting for IMDS; and receiving travel and meal expenses from Medtronic, Boston Scientific, Abbott Vascular, CSI, Siemens, Philips, ReCor Medical, Chiesi, OpSens, Zoll, and Regeneron. Dr. Fisher disclosed receiving honoraria or fees for consulting or serving on a speaker’s bureau for Medtronic, ReCor Medical, and Aktiia and receiving grant support or holding research contracts for Recor Medical and Aktiia. Dr. Messerli disclosed receiving honoraria from Medtronic, Menarini, Krka, and Ipca.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Systolic blood pressure went down safely and consistently 2 months after renal denervation achieved by ultrasound ablation in patients with uncontrolled, mild to moderate hypertension (HTN) in a key sham-controlled test of the balloon-equipped catheter.
The BP reductions were significant almost regardless of how they were measured – at home, in the office, during the day, at night, or over 24 hours – and weren’t dependent on baseline BP levels.
The 224-patient RADIANCE II Pivotal Study follows two earlier successful sham-controlled trials that used the same renal denervation catheter in other types of patients with HTN. They were RADIANCE-HTN SOLO, which entered patients with mild to moderate HTN not taking medication, and RADIANCE-HTN TRIO, which included patients with HTN despite fixed-dose, single-pill, triple-antihypertensive therapy.
Courtesy American College of Cardiology
Dr. Ajay J. Kirtane
The consistent results of all three trials suggest that the ultrasound renal denervation (uRDN) technique “lowers blood pressure across the spectrum of hypertension,” concluded co–principal investigator Ajay J. Kirtane, MD, SM, Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York–Presbyterian Hospital, when presenting RADIANCE II at the Transcatheter Cardiovascular Therapeutics annual meeting, sponsored by the Cardiovascular Research Foundation.
RADIANCE II, the largest of the three studies, met its prespecified primary efficacy endpoint of change in daytime ambulatory systolic BP at 2 months by showing a significant 6.3–mm Hg greater reduction in the uRDN group, compared with the sham-control group. There were no major adverse events at 30 days in either group.
The trial was similarly successful for the secondary endpoints of change in systolic BP measured in various other settings, including over 24 hours. Reductions after uRDN averaged 5-7 mm Hg greater than in the control group.
Sparse top-line results of the RADIANCE II pivotal trial were announced in July by the study’s sponsor, ReCor Medical.
Dr. Kirtane stressed in an interview that uRDN and likely any form of HTN renal denervation therapy is not a substitute for standard management. “This is really for patients in whom you’ve made best efforts to do the traditional things – lifestyle modification, medications, all of that – and yet they’re still uncontrolled.” At that point, assuming denervation therapy is available in practice, “it would be something to potentially consider.”
As a panelist after Dr. Kirtane’s formal presentation of RADIANCE II at the conference, Naomi D. Fisher, MD, who was a RADIANCE-HTN TRIO investigator, described how the treatment’s perceived intended patient population evolved over time.
“We all began with the idea that we were going to treat patients with resistant hypertension, that was going to be the first target. We have learned that those patients are far fewer than we thought,” said Dr. Fisher, who directs the hypertension service at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston.
Initial estimates were that such patients with the resistant form, “meaning they require more than three drugs to control their blood pressure,” would represent 15%-20% of patients with HTN.
“We learned from our TRIO data that if you give these patients one single combined pill, lo and behold, many of them become controlled,” she said. “There is so much nonadherence out there in the world, about 50% of our patients aren’t taking their pills. It’s a hard and true fact.”
Exclude patients who aren’t adherent and “our true resistance population becomes minuscule. So, I don’t think that’s going to be the main population” for renal denervation therapy.
More likely, she said, it would be “patients who are uncontrolled and unable to take their medications. So that is going to include nonadherence, intolerance. It’s a very large category of patients. And the priorities can be stacked in favor of those who have higher cardiovascular risk.”
RADIANCE II can show the persistence of uRDN’s BP-lowering effect only out to 2 months so far, but the effect’s durability based on the RADIANCE program’s combined experience appears to be at least 2 years, Dr. Kirtane said in an interview.
“The RADIANCE II pivotal trial is a powerful, well-designed study attesting to the efficacy of renal denervation in BP lowering,” Franz H. Messerli, MD, Swiss Cardiovascular Center, University Hospital Bern, said in an interview.
The trial “shows the well-known unpredictability of antihypertensive response. We cannot predict who responds to renal denervation and who does not, and who even has a paradoxical increase in BP,” Dr. Messerli, an international hypertension expert not associated with the trial, said in an interview.
“As long as we cannot predict the antihypertensive response to renal denervation therapy, potential synergism/antagonism with drug therapy remains an educated guess,” he said.
“Hypertension is a disease that lasts years and decades. As impressive as RADIANCE II’s 2-month snapshot is, I look forward to similar or better BP data 12 and 24 months after renal denervation,” Dr. Messerli added.
RADIANCE II entered patients with mild to moderate uncontrolled HTN, that is, a systolic BP at least 140/90 mm Hg and less than 180/120 mm Hg, who were receiving no more than two antihypertensive medications. They could have no history of cardiovascular or cerebrovascular events or uncontrolled diabetes, and their estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) had to be at least 40 mL/min per 1.73 m2.
After a 4-week drug washout period, patients who were clinically stable with an ambulatory BP of at least 135/85 mm Hg and less than 170/105 mm Hg underwent CT and renal angiography. Then, the 224 patients still anatomically eligible for the procedure were randomly assigned 2:1 to uRDN or a sham-control procedure: 150 and 74 patients, respectively.
At 2 months, daytime ambulatory systolic BP on average fell 7.9 mm Hg in the uRDN group and 1.8 mm Hg in the sham-control group, for a drop that was steeper by 6.3 mm Hg (P < .0001) after uRDN.
Also in the uRDN group, there was a 6.2–mm Hg larger decrease in 24-hour ambulatory systolic BP (P < .0001), a 5.8–mm Hg greater decline in nighttime ambulatory systolic BP (P < .0004), a 7.6–mm Hg steeper drop in mean home systolic BP (P < .0001), and 5.4 mm Hg more of a decrease in office-based systolic BP (P = .0035).
No significant differences were seen in subgroup analyses by sex, age, higher versus lower baseline systolic pressures, high versus low baseline eGFR, degree of abdominal obesity, U.S. versus European site, or whether patients entered before or during the COVID pandemic
Regulators have been accepting change in systolic BP as a surrogate for clinical endpoints in trials of antihypertensive therapy, whether pharmacologic or interventional, under consideration for approval. “That’s why safety endpoints are important to investigate” in these clinical trials, especially for invasive therapies like renal denervation, Dr. Kirtane observed.
That said, “in the longer-term follow-ups of the renal denervation therapies that are out there, including this one, there does not appear to be an appreciable decline in glomerular filtration rate, or any adverse safety signals that we see to date,” Dr. Kirtane said in an interview. “But we know that these are low-frequency events, so we have to be very vigilant, and we can’t get complacent about it.”
In RADIANCE II, there were zero adverse events within 30 days in both groups; the endpoint included death, new myocardial infarction, renal artery complications requiring invasive intervention, and hospitalization for major cardiovascular or hemodynamic-related events. Nor were there instances of new-onset renal artery stenosis greater than 70% documented by imaging at 6 months.
The ReCor uRDN catheter uses ultrasound energy to disrupt renal nerve signaling, a technology thought to deliver safer “burns,” compared with other renal denervation catheter technologies. It features an axially stabilizing balloon that transmits ultrasound energy – two to three sonications, each lasting 7 seconds, Dr. Kirtane said – outward through the arterial wall. The design is intended to ensure consistently circumferential ablation. Circulating saline within the balloon, Kirtane noted, directly cools the adjacent vessel wall to help it avoid thermal damage.
Dr. Kirtane reported receiving institutional funding from Medtronic, Boston Scientific, Abbott Vascular, Amgen, CSI, Philips, ReCor Medical, Neurotronic, Biotronik, Chiesi, Bolt Medical, Magenta Medical, Canon, SoniVie, Shockwave Medical, and Merck; consulting for IMDS; and receiving travel and meal expenses from Medtronic, Boston Scientific, Abbott Vascular, CSI, Siemens, Philips, ReCor Medical, Chiesi, OpSens, Zoll, and Regeneron. Dr. Fisher disclosed receiving honoraria or fees for consulting or serving on a speaker’s bureau for Medtronic, ReCor Medical, and Aktiia and receiving grant support or holding research contracts for Recor Medical and Aktiia. Dr. Messerli disclosed receiving honoraria from Medtronic, Menarini, Krka, and Ipca.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News
