User login
Managing Heart Failure in Women: Key Differences and Clinical Tips
This transcript has been edited for clarity.
Hi. I’m Dr Eileen Hsich. I’m the medical director for heart transplantation at the Cleveland Clinic, and my specialty is sex differences in heart failure. I’m excited to talk to you about heart failure treatment in women, addressing the differences in managing heart failure in women as well as practical tips for clinicians. You think that I’m going to be starting off by telling you about the differences in how we’re going to manage the patients, but I’m not. The reason I’m not going to do that is because our national guidelines are not sex specific.
What I’m really going to discuss with you today are the data so that you can decide for yourself what we should do and whether there really are differences. As we begin, I always think about the prevalence of the disease. Currently, there are 6.7 million Americans with heart failure, and approximately 45% of them are women. Globally, our best research shows that there are over 56 million people living with heart failure, and half of them are women.
We also know that there are different underlying causes in women and men. For women, the four risk factors are hypertension, diabetes, atrial fibrillation (AFib), and left bundle branch block. I know you knew about hypertension. Diabetes may not have been right up there in your mind. You see many women with AFib, so I know that you were thinking about it. We’re going to come back to left bundle branch block; it really is very interesting.
For men, it is the risk for heart failure development after a myocardial infarction. Men are more likely to have an ischemic cardiomyopathy. It is also important to state that when women have heart failure, it is often with more preserved ejection fraction. We know that heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) is more common in women and heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) is more common in men.
Now we’re going to talk about the four pillars in medical management, and we’re going to start out with the easy medications that show no sex differences in benefit. The mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists (MRAs) show that there are no sex differences in regard to benefit. Women benefit as much as men, based on two of the largest studies, which were the RALES study, which studied heart failure that was ischemic and nonischemic, and then the EPHESUS study, which was specific to patients who had myocardial infarction. There was a mortality benefit in the women.
The next set of drugs that we’re going to mention are the sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors. The combined endpoint for women and men was a combined endpoint of death and heart failure hospitalization. No matter what the ejection fraction was, women benefited like men for this drug.
The third class of agents that I want to discuss is the beta-blockers, which are really very interesting because they’re so powerful. The studies for these drugs were stopped prematurely. When you take into consideration that women are underenrolled in clinical trials, remember that the studies for these drugs were stopped, so there weren’t that many women. The fact that we showed a mortality benefit is really important.
The first drug that we’re going to refer to is bisoprolol because CIBIS II was the first trial for this drug to demonstrate a mortality benefit in women and men. The second drug that I want to mention is metoprolol XL, which did not demonstrate a mortality benefit in the MERIT-HF study, but did demonstrate a benefit in reduced heart failure hospitalizations, which is also very important.
The third drug is carvedilol, which had been shown to reduce a combined endpoint of mortality and heart failure hospitalizations for patients with moderate symptoms. When I talk about these studies, they have anywhere from 250 to 1000 women enrolled, so these are relatively small studies and they still did demonstrate a benefit.
When we talk about angiotensin receptor–neprilysin inhibitors (ARNI), I think that’s when it gets a little complex. The data are not very clear because ARNI is a combination pill — sacubitril combined with valsartan. When you have an ideal control for a study and you want to know what your magic ingredient is, which is the sacubitril, you really want to compare valsartan with ARNI so that you can find out what your magic little ingredient is doing.
When we had the PARAGON-HF study, which was for HFpEF patients who had an ejection fraction greater than 45%, there was a benefit in the women and not in the men, and that really was in the women with the lower ejection fractions. That’s very interesting because the control was valsartan.
When we had the PARADIGM-HF study, that was more complex. The control was an angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor, which is not an ideal control for women since, even in a meta-analysis that had over 1000 women, there has not been a proven benefit. The confidence intervals remain wide. Therefore, it’s not quite a fair comparison to randomize women to ARNI versus an ACE inhibitor. Comparing ARNI to valsartan would be better in order to determine the additional benefit of sacubitril since valsartan alone has already been shown, in the Val-HeFT study, to reduce heart failure hospitalizations in women — although not mortality. There was a benefit.
When you look at the PARADIGM-HF study, which was for HFrEF patients, and you see that there is a benefit in the women, where the combined endpoint was heart failure hospitalization and mortality, you then see that there’s a figure that shows what happens when we look at mortality alone. The benefit is not driven by mortality; it’s driven by heart failure hospitalizations for the women, for which valsartan already had been shown to do this. Therefore, I don’t know if sacubitril/valsartan is more powerful because we didn’t have the right control in studies. From my standpoint, the data really are not there. We can all have our own biased opinions.
When we talk about devices, that gets really interesting because it goes back to those risk factors. We’re going to start with implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs). We have shown in many ICD trials that women and men had similar survival. There were very few women in these device trials. If you think the medical trials had only a few women, just imagine what the ICD trials had.
Santangeli and colleagues hypothesized that an ICD only saves you from sudden death. It doesn›t really save you from anything else. In heart failure, women do live longer than men. Is this device really saving you? They weren’t interested in all-cause mortality; they were interested in whether the device fired appropriately for ventricular tachycardia or ventricular fibrillation. They demonstrated in that meta-analysis that it was not very clear that women had the benefit. The rationale behind that comes from the MADIT studies that showed that men were more likely than women to have ventricular arrhythmias.
This is also true based on the Seattle Heart Failure Model. The derivation cohort had very few ICDs at that time, and women were less likely than men to have ventricular arrhythmias as the cause of death. It’s not that we shouldn’t put them in — I very strongly believe that we should — but we don’t have that data.
In fact, in the Santangeli and colleagues study, women were more likely to have inappropriate firing for AFib. Remember that we talked about how one of the risk factors for heart failure was AFib. Women are more likely to have AFib and the ICD firing for AFib and not ventricular arrhythmias. This may be dependent on the type of cardiomyopathy.
Next, we’re going to talk about biventricular pacemakers. Women tend to benefit more so that there is an improvement in symptoms and survival. What is fascinating is that left bundle branch block is a risk factor for the development of heart failure in women, which makes this next statement even more fascinating.
The FDA does their own analysis when they are reviewing devices and everything else, and they published one of them in JAMA Internal Medicine, taking three studies and seeing the benefit in women and men. They found that everybody benefits when the left bundle branch block has a QRS greater than 150 milliseconds. But with a QRS between 130 and 149 milliseconds, only the women benefited. That›s fascinating because that is a risk factor — the development of the left bundle branch block causing heart failure in women. It makes you wonder whether you are correcting something that actually was responsible for their heart failure.
In advanced heart failure, we have left ventricular assist devices (LVADs) and heart transplantation. For years, we couldn’t get LVADs small enough to fit in women. When they were larger, there were complications that were more common in women, such as stroke. With the newer devices — the HeartMate 3 is small, for instance — complications for everyone are very infrequent, and women and men benefit. I’m going to encourage clinicians to use them.
For heart transplantation, as I mentioned before, women tend to get HFpEF. I didn’t mention that they get heart failure when they’re older, for the most part. There are fewer women who are transplanted than men and eligible at younger ages. What we had for decades was that women were dying while they were on the waitlist for heart transplantation at a faster rate than men but living longer after transplantation. As LVADs became more appropriately sized for women, the complication rates went down; and we did see an improvement on the waitlist mortality rate before we changed the allocation system. But it really wasn’t until after we changed the allocation system in 2018 that we saw great success. Now, women have similar survival while on the waitlist. They’re transplanted at a faster rate despite the fact that they’re less likely to receive the temporary mechanical support, and they tend to still do very well.
We have some differences in therapy response. Thank you.
Dr. Hsich disclosed ties with Natera, DEFINE steering committee (no money), and MEDCAC (Medicare/Medicaid) committee. She received research grant from the National Institutes of Health.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
This transcript has been edited for clarity.
Hi. I’m Dr Eileen Hsich. I’m the medical director for heart transplantation at the Cleveland Clinic, and my specialty is sex differences in heart failure. I’m excited to talk to you about heart failure treatment in women, addressing the differences in managing heart failure in women as well as practical tips for clinicians. You think that I’m going to be starting off by telling you about the differences in how we’re going to manage the patients, but I’m not. The reason I’m not going to do that is because our national guidelines are not sex specific.
What I’m really going to discuss with you today are the data so that you can decide for yourself what we should do and whether there really are differences. As we begin, I always think about the prevalence of the disease. Currently, there are 6.7 million Americans with heart failure, and approximately 45% of them are women. Globally, our best research shows that there are over 56 million people living with heart failure, and half of them are women.
We also know that there are different underlying causes in women and men. For women, the four risk factors are hypertension, diabetes, atrial fibrillation (AFib), and left bundle branch block. I know you knew about hypertension. Diabetes may not have been right up there in your mind. You see many women with AFib, so I know that you were thinking about it. We’re going to come back to left bundle branch block; it really is very interesting.
For men, it is the risk for heart failure development after a myocardial infarction. Men are more likely to have an ischemic cardiomyopathy. It is also important to state that when women have heart failure, it is often with more preserved ejection fraction. We know that heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) is more common in women and heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) is more common in men.
Now we’re going to talk about the four pillars in medical management, and we’re going to start out with the easy medications that show no sex differences in benefit. The mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists (MRAs) show that there are no sex differences in regard to benefit. Women benefit as much as men, based on two of the largest studies, which were the RALES study, which studied heart failure that was ischemic and nonischemic, and then the EPHESUS study, which was specific to patients who had myocardial infarction. There was a mortality benefit in the women.
The next set of drugs that we’re going to mention are the sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors. The combined endpoint for women and men was a combined endpoint of death and heart failure hospitalization. No matter what the ejection fraction was, women benefited like men for this drug.
The third class of agents that I want to discuss is the beta-blockers, which are really very interesting because they’re so powerful. The studies for these drugs were stopped prematurely. When you take into consideration that women are underenrolled in clinical trials, remember that the studies for these drugs were stopped, so there weren’t that many women. The fact that we showed a mortality benefit is really important.
The first drug that we’re going to refer to is bisoprolol because CIBIS II was the first trial for this drug to demonstrate a mortality benefit in women and men. The second drug that I want to mention is metoprolol XL, which did not demonstrate a mortality benefit in the MERIT-HF study, but did demonstrate a benefit in reduced heart failure hospitalizations, which is also very important.
The third drug is carvedilol, which had been shown to reduce a combined endpoint of mortality and heart failure hospitalizations for patients with moderate symptoms. When I talk about these studies, they have anywhere from 250 to 1000 women enrolled, so these are relatively small studies and they still did demonstrate a benefit.
When we talk about angiotensin receptor–neprilysin inhibitors (ARNI), I think that’s when it gets a little complex. The data are not very clear because ARNI is a combination pill — sacubitril combined with valsartan. When you have an ideal control for a study and you want to know what your magic ingredient is, which is the sacubitril, you really want to compare valsartan with ARNI so that you can find out what your magic little ingredient is doing.
When we had the PARAGON-HF study, which was for HFpEF patients who had an ejection fraction greater than 45%, there was a benefit in the women and not in the men, and that really was in the women with the lower ejection fractions. That’s very interesting because the control was valsartan.
When we had the PARADIGM-HF study, that was more complex. The control was an angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor, which is not an ideal control for women since, even in a meta-analysis that had over 1000 women, there has not been a proven benefit. The confidence intervals remain wide. Therefore, it’s not quite a fair comparison to randomize women to ARNI versus an ACE inhibitor. Comparing ARNI to valsartan would be better in order to determine the additional benefit of sacubitril since valsartan alone has already been shown, in the Val-HeFT study, to reduce heart failure hospitalizations in women — although not mortality. There was a benefit.
When you look at the PARADIGM-HF study, which was for HFrEF patients, and you see that there is a benefit in the women, where the combined endpoint was heart failure hospitalization and mortality, you then see that there’s a figure that shows what happens when we look at mortality alone. The benefit is not driven by mortality; it’s driven by heart failure hospitalizations for the women, for which valsartan already had been shown to do this. Therefore, I don’t know if sacubitril/valsartan is more powerful because we didn’t have the right control in studies. From my standpoint, the data really are not there. We can all have our own biased opinions.
When we talk about devices, that gets really interesting because it goes back to those risk factors. We’re going to start with implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs). We have shown in many ICD trials that women and men had similar survival. There were very few women in these device trials. If you think the medical trials had only a few women, just imagine what the ICD trials had.
Santangeli and colleagues hypothesized that an ICD only saves you from sudden death. It doesn›t really save you from anything else. In heart failure, women do live longer than men. Is this device really saving you? They weren’t interested in all-cause mortality; they were interested in whether the device fired appropriately for ventricular tachycardia or ventricular fibrillation. They demonstrated in that meta-analysis that it was not very clear that women had the benefit. The rationale behind that comes from the MADIT studies that showed that men were more likely than women to have ventricular arrhythmias.
This is also true based on the Seattle Heart Failure Model. The derivation cohort had very few ICDs at that time, and women were less likely than men to have ventricular arrhythmias as the cause of death. It’s not that we shouldn’t put them in — I very strongly believe that we should — but we don’t have that data.
In fact, in the Santangeli and colleagues study, women were more likely to have inappropriate firing for AFib. Remember that we talked about how one of the risk factors for heart failure was AFib. Women are more likely to have AFib and the ICD firing for AFib and not ventricular arrhythmias. This may be dependent on the type of cardiomyopathy.
Next, we’re going to talk about biventricular pacemakers. Women tend to benefit more so that there is an improvement in symptoms and survival. What is fascinating is that left bundle branch block is a risk factor for the development of heart failure in women, which makes this next statement even more fascinating.
The FDA does their own analysis when they are reviewing devices and everything else, and they published one of them in JAMA Internal Medicine, taking three studies and seeing the benefit in women and men. They found that everybody benefits when the left bundle branch block has a QRS greater than 150 milliseconds. But with a QRS between 130 and 149 milliseconds, only the women benefited. That›s fascinating because that is a risk factor — the development of the left bundle branch block causing heart failure in women. It makes you wonder whether you are correcting something that actually was responsible for their heart failure.
In advanced heart failure, we have left ventricular assist devices (LVADs) and heart transplantation. For years, we couldn’t get LVADs small enough to fit in women. When they were larger, there were complications that were more common in women, such as stroke. With the newer devices — the HeartMate 3 is small, for instance — complications for everyone are very infrequent, and women and men benefit. I’m going to encourage clinicians to use them.
For heart transplantation, as I mentioned before, women tend to get HFpEF. I didn’t mention that they get heart failure when they’re older, for the most part. There are fewer women who are transplanted than men and eligible at younger ages. What we had for decades was that women were dying while they were on the waitlist for heart transplantation at a faster rate than men but living longer after transplantation. As LVADs became more appropriately sized for women, the complication rates went down; and we did see an improvement on the waitlist mortality rate before we changed the allocation system. But it really wasn’t until after we changed the allocation system in 2018 that we saw great success. Now, women have similar survival while on the waitlist. They’re transplanted at a faster rate despite the fact that they’re less likely to receive the temporary mechanical support, and they tend to still do very well.
We have some differences in therapy response. Thank you.
Dr. Hsich disclosed ties with Natera, DEFINE steering committee (no money), and MEDCAC (Medicare/Medicaid) committee. She received research grant from the National Institutes of Health.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
This transcript has been edited for clarity.
Hi. I’m Dr Eileen Hsich. I’m the medical director for heart transplantation at the Cleveland Clinic, and my specialty is sex differences in heart failure. I’m excited to talk to you about heart failure treatment in women, addressing the differences in managing heart failure in women as well as practical tips for clinicians. You think that I’m going to be starting off by telling you about the differences in how we’re going to manage the patients, but I’m not. The reason I’m not going to do that is because our national guidelines are not sex specific.
What I’m really going to discuss with you today are the data so that you can decide for yourself what we should do and whether there really are differences. As we begin, I always think about the prevalence of the disease. Currently, there are 6.7 million Americans with heart failure, and approximately 45% of them are women. Globally, our best research shows that there are over 56 million people living with heart failure, and half of them are women.
We also know that there are different underlying causes in women and men. For women, the four risk factors are hypertension, diabetes, atrial fibrillation (AFib), and left bundle branch block. I know you knew about hypertension. Diabetes may not have been right up there in your mind. You see many women with AFib, so I know that you were thinking about it. We’re going to come back to left bundle branch block; it really is very interesting.
For men, it is the risk for heart failure development after a myocardial infarction. Men are more likely to have an ischemic cardiomyopathy. It is also important to state that when women have heart failure, it is often with more preserved ejection fraction. We know that heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) is more common in women and heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) is more common in men.
Now we’re going to talk about the four pillars in medical management, and we’re going to start out with the easy medications that show no sex differences in benefit. The mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists (MRAs) show that there are no sex differences in regard to benefit. Women benefit as much as men, based on two of the largest studies, which were the RALES study, which studied heart failure that was ischemic and nonischemic, and then the EPHESUS study, which was specific to patients who had myocardial infarction. There was a mortality benefit in the women.
The next set of drugs that we’re going to mention are the sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors. The combined endpoint for women and men was a combined endpoint of death and heart failure hospitalization. No matter what the ejection fraction was, women benefited like men for this drug.
The third class of agents that I want to discuss is the beta-blockers, which are really very interesting because they’re so powerful. The studies for these drugs were stopped prematurely. When you take into consideration that women are underenrolled in clinical trials, remember that the studies for these drugs were stopped, so there weren’t that many women. The fact that we showed a mortality benefit is really important.
The first drug that we’re going to refer to is bisoprolol because CIBIS II was the first trial for this drug to demonstrate a mortality benefit in women and men. The second drug that I want to mention is metoprolol XL, which did not demonstrate a mortality benefit in the MERIT-HF study, but did demonstrate a benefit in reduced heart failure hospitalizations, which is also very important.
The third drug is carvedilol, which had been shown to reduce a combined endpoint of mortality and heart failure hospitalizations for patients with moderate symptoms. When I talk about these studies, they have anywhere from 250 to 1000 women enrolled, so these are relatively small studies and they still did demonstrate a benefit.
When we talk about angiotensin receptor–neprilysin inhibitors (ARNI), I think that’s when it gets a little complex. The data are not very clear because ARNI is a combination pill — sacubitril combined with valsartan. When you have an ideal control for a study and you want to know what your magic ingredient is, which is the sacubitril, you really want to compare valsartan with ARNI so that you can find out what your magic little ingredient is doing.
When we had the PARAGON-HF study, which was for HFpEF patients who had an ejection fraction greater than 45%, there was a benefit in the women and not in the men, and that really was in the women with the lower ejection fractions. That’s very interesting because the control was valsartan.
When we had the PARADIGM-HF study, that was more complex. The control was an angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor, which is not an ideal control for women since, even in a meta-analysis that had over 1000 women, there has not been a proven benefit. The confidence intervals remain wide. Therefore, it’s not quite a fair comparison to randomize women to ARNI versus an ACE inhibitor. Comparing ARNI to valsartan would be better in order to determine the additional benefit of sacubitril since valsartan alone has already been shown, in the Val-HeFT study, to reduce heart failure hospitalizations in women — although not mortality. There was a benefit.
When you look at the PARADIGM-HF study, which was for HFrEF patients, and you see that there is a benefit in the women, where the combined endpoint was heart failure hospitalization and mortality, you then see that there’s a figure that shows what happens when we look at mortality alone. The benefit is not driven by mortality; it’s driven by heart failure hospitalizations for the women, for which valsartan already had been shown to do this. Therefore, I don’t know if sacubitril/valsartan is more powerful because we didn’t have the right control in studies. From my standpoint, the data really are not there. We can all have our own biased opinions.
When we talk about devices, that gets really interesting because it goes back to those risk factors. We’re going to start with implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs). We have shown in many ICD trials that women and men had similar survival. There were very few women in these device trials. If you think the medical trials had only a few women, just imagine what the ICD trials had.
Santangeli and colleagues hypothesized that an ICD only saves you from sudden death. It doesn›t really save you from anything else. In heart failure, women do live longer than men. Is this device really saving you? They weren’t interested in all-cause mortality; they were interested in whether the device fired appropriately for ventricular tachycardia or ventricular fibrillation. They demonstrated in that meta-analysis that it was not very clear that women had the benefit. The rationale behind that comes from the MADIT studies that showed that men were more likely than women to have ventricular arrhythmias.
This is also true based on the Seattle Heart Failure Model. The derivation cohort had very few ICDs at that time, and women were less likely than men to have ventricular arrhythmias as the cause of death. It’s not that we shouldn’t put them in — I very strongly believe that we should — but we don’t have that data.
In fact, in the Santangeli and colleagues study, women were more likely to have inappropriate firing for AFib. Remember that we talked about how one of the risk factors for heart failure was AFib. Women are more likely to have AFib and the ICD firing for AFib and not ventricular arrhythmias. This may be dependent on the type of cardiomyopathy.
Next, we’re going to talk about biventricular pacemakers. Women tend to benefit more so that there is an improvement in symptoms and survival. What is fascinating is that left bundle branch block is a risk factor for the development of heart failure in women, which makes this next statement even more fascinating.
The FDA does their own analysis when they are reviewing devices and everything else, and they published one of them in JAMA Internal Medicine, taking three studies and seeing the benefit in women and men. They found that everybody benefits when the left bundle branch block has a QRS greater than 150 milliseconds. But with a QRS between 130 and 149 milliseconds, only the women benefited. That›s fascinating because that is a risk factor — the development of the left bundle branch block causing heart failure in women. It makes you wonder whether you are correcting something that actually was responsible for their heart failure.
In advanced heart failure, we have left ventricular assist devices (LVADs) and heart transplantation. For years, we couldn’t get LVADs small enough to fit in women. When they were larger, there were complications that were more common in women, such as stroke. With the newer devices — the HeartMate 3 is small, for instance — complications for everyone are very infrequent, and women and men benefit. I’m going to encourage clinicians to use them.
For heart transplantation, as I mentioned before, women tend to get HFpEF. I didn’t mention that they get heart failure when they’re older, for the most part. There are fewer women who are transplanted than men and eligible at younger ages. What we had for decades was that women were dying while they were on the waitlist for heart transplantation at a faster rate than men but living longer after transplantation. As LVADs became more appropriately sized for women, the complication rates went down; and we did see an improvement on the waitlist mortality rate before we changed the allocation system. But it really wasn’t until after we changed the allocation system in 2018 that we saw great success. Now, women have similar survival while on the waitlist. They’re transplanted at a faster rate despite the fact that they’re less likely to receive the temporary mechanical support, and they tend to still do very well.
We have some differences in therapy response. Thank you.
Dr. Hsich disclosed ties with Natera, DEFINE steering committee (no money), and MEDCAC (Medicare/Medicaid) committee. She received research grant from the National Institutes of Health.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Delays After Tests for Suspected Heart Failure ‘a Scandal’
LISBON, PORTUGAL — Few people with suspected heart failure and elevated N-terminal prohormone of brain natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) levels are receiving a diagnosis after a year, reported investigators, who say high rates of hospitalization are common.
Presenting here at the Heart Failure Association of the European Society of Cardiology (HFA-ESC) 2024, researchers shared results from the REVOLUTION-HF study involving almost 8000 people who consulted outpatient primary and secondary care over a 5-year period.
The outcomes were even worse in patients with high NT-proBNP levels.
Patients with suspected heart failure are “waiting far too long to see a specialist, and that results in a delay to guideline-directed medical therapy, despite the fact that we’re perfectly happy to slap them all on diuretics,” said study presenter Lisa Anderson, MD, PhD, Cardiovascular Clinical Academic Group, Molecular and Clinical Sciences Research Institute, St George’s Hospital, University of London, England.
“We need to rethink our management of heart failure patients presenting in the community,” she said.
A big gap exists internationally between presentation with heart failure, an elevated NT-proBNP, and confirmatory specialist assessment, she explained.
“It’s a scandal that patients are coming to the GP with signs and symptoms of heart failure, they get tested for natriuretic peptides, and nothing happens,” said co-author Antoni Bayés-Genís, MD, PhD, Heart Institute director, Hospital Universitari Germans Trias i Pujol Catedràtic, Barcelona, Spain.
“These patients may receive an echo, or not, in the coming 12 months,” and “during these 12 months, there is a huge number of heart failure hospitalizations and deaths that could probably be prevented.”
Why the Reluctance to Diagnose?
Many issues get in the way of early diagnosis, Dr. Bayés-Genís said. “Inertia, comorbidities, ageism.”
A lot of patients with heart failure are elderly women with some degree of weight gain, he said. “And they come to the clinic with fatigue, so we tell them, ‘Well, that’s normal.”
But “it may not be normal,” he added. “This is a very important topic that we, as a society, need to address.”
There are several “misconceptions” about heart failure, said Ileana L. Piña, MD, MPH, the Robert Stein Chair for Quality and Safety, Sidney Kimmel Medical College, Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, who was not involved in the study.
For example, “we’re all convinced that guideline-directed medical therapy works,” but the evidence is only for patients “with a diagnosis.” In addition, “millions of patients get tested” for heart failure, but they already have a “known diagnosis.”
“When we study these drugs, we’re studying them on patients with manifest disease,” who are only then randomized, Dr. Piña said. “But we seldom see them while they’re developing heart failure. And it’s a process; it doesn’t happen overnight.”
Patients initially often think they may have asthma, and so what follows is an extended period of “uncertainty” and “important time lost” before they finally undergo the assessments that show that they have heart failure, she said.
However, “uncertainty” often lands a patient “in the emergency room or with an unscheduled office visit, where NT-proBNP might get ordered and there’s a long lineup for an echo.”
There are several strengths of the current study, Dr. Piña said, including the fact that 50% of the study population were women, and they were older than a typical trial population. Nevertheless, the results were “eye-opening but not surprising” and, in the end, “disappointing.”
“I agree, we need a revolution, Dr. Anderson,” Dr. Piña said. “The revolution of paying attention to the NT-proBNP when you get it and it’s elevated” and then following through with echocardiography and starting “guideline-directed medical therapy early.”
The diagnosis of heart failure “relies on the presentation of patients with nonspecific signs and symptoms,” such as dyspnea and peripheral edema, “but initiation of guideline-directed medical therapy — life-saving treatment — has to wait until we have a formal echocardiography and specialist clinician assessment,” Dr. Anderson said.
The latest clinical consensus statement from the Heart Failure Association “proposes both rule-in and rule-out NT-proBNP levels for heart failure diagnosis, and obviously we all recognize that it’s important to treat patients as soon as they’re diagnosed,” she explained.
REVOLUTION-HF
To examine the risk profile for patients presenting to outpatient care with suspected heart failure, the researchers conducted REVOLUTION-HF, which leveraged nationwide Swedish linked data from general practices, specialists, pharmacies, hospitals, and cause of death registers.
“Really impressively, most of these NT-proBNP tests were coming back within a day,” Dr. Anderson said, “so a really, really good turnaround.”
Individuals were excluded if they had an inpatient admission, echocardiography, or heart failure diagnosis between presentation and the NT-proBNP measurement.
These people were then compared with those presenting to primary or secondary outpatient care for any reason and matched for age, sex, care level, and index year. Both groups were followed up for 1 year.
“Despite this really impressive, almost immediate NT-proBNP testing,” the waiting times to undergo echocardiography were “really disappointing,” Dr. Anderson said.
The median time to first registered echocardiography was 40 days, and only 29% of patients with suspected heart failure received a diagnosis within a year of the index presentation date, which she described as “inadequately slow.”
“And how does this translate to medical therapy?” she asked.
Heart Failure Drugs
After the index presentation, the rate of loop diuretic use quadrupled among individuals suspected of having heart failure, but there was a “muted response” when it came to the prescribing of beta-blockers and the other pillars of heart failure therapy, which Dr. Anderson called “very disappointing.”
For outcomes after the index presentation, the rate of hospitalization was much higher in the group with suspected heart failure than in the control group (16.1 vs 2.2 events per 100 person-years). And all-cause mortality occurred more often in the group with suspected heart failure than in the control group (10.3 vs 6.5 events per 100 person-years).
Among patients with NT-proBNP levels of 2000 ng/L, there was a “rapid” onset of hospitalization “within the first few days” of the index presentation, which was tracked by a more linear rise in all-cause deaths, Dr. Anderson reported.
In the United Kingdom, “we are very proud of our 2- and 6-week pathways,” which stipulate that suspected heart failure patients with NT-proBNP levels between 400 and 2000 ng/L are to have a specialist assessment and transthoracic echocardiography within 6 weeks; for those with levels > 2000 ng/L, that interval is accelerated to 2 weeks, she said.
The current results show that “2 weeks is too slow.” And looking at the rest of the cohort with lower NT-proBNP levels, “patients have already been admitted and died” by 6 weeks, she said.
When patients are stratified by age, “you get exactly what you would expect,” Dr. Anderson said. “The older patients are the most at risk” for both hospitalization and all-cause mortality.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
LISBON, PORTUGAL — Few people with suspected heart failure and elevated N-terminal prohormone of brain natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) levels are receiving a diagnosis after a year, reported investigators, who say high rates of hospitalization are common.
Presenting here at the Heart Failure Association of the European Society of Cardiology (HFA-ESC) 2024, researchers shared results from the REVOLUTION-HF study involving almost 8000 people who consulted outpatient primary and secondary care over a 5-year period.
The outcomes were even worse in patients with high NT-proBNP levels.
Patients with suspected heart failure are “waiting far too long to see a specialist, and that results in a delay to guideline-directed medical therapy, despite the fact that we’re perfectly happy to slap them all on diuretics,” said study presenter Lisa Anderson, MD, PhD, Cardiovascular Clinical Academic Group, Molecular and Clinical Sciences Research Institute, St George’s Hospital, University of London, England.
“We need to rethink our management of heart failure patients presenting in the community,” she said.
A big gap exists internationally between presentation with heart failure, an elevated NT-proBNP, and confirmatory specialist assessment, she explained.
“It’s a scandal that patients are coming to the GP with signs and symptoms of heart failure, they get tested for natriuretic peptides, and nothing happens,” said co-author Antoni Bayés-Genís, MD, PhD, Heart Institute director, Hospital Universitari Germans Trias i Pujol Catedràtic, Barcelona, Spain.
“These patients may receive an echo, or not, in the coming 12 months,” and “during these 12 months, there is a huge number of heart failure hospitalizations and deaths that could probably be prevented.”
Why the Reluctance to Diagnose?
Many issues get in the way of early diagnosis, Dr. Bayés-Genís said. “Inertia, comorbidities, ageism.”
A lot of patients with heart failure are elderly women with some degree of weight gain, he said. “And they come to the clinic with fatigue, so we tell them, ‘Well, that’s normal.”
But “it may not be normal,” he added. “This is a very important topic that we, as a society, need to address.”
There are several “misconceptions” about heart failure, said Ileana L. Piña, MD, MPH, the Robert Stein Chair for Quality and Safety, Sidney Kimmel Medical College, Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, who was not involved in the study.
For example, “we’re all convinced that guideline-directed medical therapy works,” but the evidence is only for patients “with a diagnosis.” In addition, “millions of patients get tested” for heart failure, but they already have a “known diagnosis.”
“When we study these drugs, we’re studying them on patients with manifest disease,” who are only then randomized, Dr. Piña said. “But we seldom see them while they’re developing heart failure. And it’s a process; it doesn’t happen overnight.”
Patients initially often think they may have asthma, and so what follows is an extended period of “uncertainty” and “important time lost” before they finally undergo the assessments that show that they have heart failure, she said.
However, “uncertainty” often lands a patient “in the emergency room or with an unscheduled office visit, where NT-proBNP might get ordered and there’s a long lineup for an echo.”
There are several strengths of the current study, Dr. Piña said, including the fact that 50% of the study population were women, and they were older than a typical trial population. Nevertheless, the results were “eye-opening but not surprising” and, in the end, “disappointing.”
“I agree, we need a revolution, Dr. Anderson,” Dr. Piña said. “The revolution of paying attention to the NT-proBNP when you get it and it’s elevated” and then following through with echocardiography and starting “guideline-directed medical therapy early.”
The diagnosis of heart failure “relies on the presentation of patients with nonspecific signs and symptoms,” such as dyspnea and peripheral edema, “but initiation of guideline-directed medical therapy — life-saving treatment — has to wait until we have a formal echocardiography and specialist clinician assessment,” Dr. Anderson said.
The latest clinical consensus statement from the Heart Failure Association “proposes both rule-in and rule-out NT-proBNP levels for heart failure diagnosis, and obviously we all recognize that it’s important to treat patients as soon as they’re diagnosed,” she explained.
REVOLUTION-HF
To examine the risk profile for patients presenting to outpatient care with suspected heart failure, the researchers conducted REVOLUTION-HF, which leveraged nationwide Swedish linked data from general practices, specialists, pharmacies, hospitals, and cause of death registers.
“Really impressively, most of these NT-proBNP tests were coming back within a day,” Dr. Anderson said, “so a really, really good turnaround.”
Individuals were excluded if they had an inpatient admission, echocardiography, or heart failure diagnosis between presentation and the NT-proBNP measurement.
These people were then compared with those presenting to primary or secondary outpatient care for any reason and matched for age, sex, care level, and index year. Both groups were followed up for 1 year.
“Despite this really impressive, almost immediate NT-proBNP testing,” the waiting times to undergo echocardiography were “really disappointing,” Dr. Anderson said.
The median time to first registered echocardiography was 40 days, and only 29% of patients with suspected heart failure received a diagnosis within a year of the index presentation date, which she described as “inadequately slow.”
“And how does this translate to medical therapy?” she asked.
Heart Failure Drugs
After the index presentation, the rate of loop diuretic use quadrupled among individuals suspected of having heart failure, but there was a “muted response” when it came to the prescribing of beta-blockers and the other pillars of heart failure therapy, which Dr. Anderson called “very disappointing.”
For outcomes after the index presentation, the rate of hospitalization was much higher in the group with suspected heart failure than in the control group (16.1 vs 2.2 events per 100 person-years). And all-cause mortality occurred more often in the group with suspected heart failure than in the control group (10.3 vs 6.5 events per 100 person-years).
Among patients with NT-proBNP levels of 2000 ng/L, there was a “rapid” onset of hospitalization “within the first few days” of the index presentation, which was tracked by a more linear rise in all-cause deaths, Dr. Anderson reported.
In the United Kingdom, “we are very proud of our 2- and 6-week pathways,” which stipulate that suspected heart failure patients with NT-proBNP levels between 400 and 2000 ng/L are to have a specialist assessment and transthoracic echocardiography within 6 weeks; for those with levels > 2000 ng/L, that interval is accelerated to 2 weeks, she said.
The current results show that “2 weeks is too slow.” And looking at the rest of the cohort with lower NT-proBNP levels, “patients have already been admitted and died” by 6 weeks, she said.
When patients are stratified by age, “you get exactly what you would expect,” Dr. Anderson said. “The older patients are the most at risk” for both hospitalization and all-cause mortality.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
LISBON, PORTUGAL — Few people with suspected heart failure and elevated N-terminal prohormone of brain natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) levels are receiving a diagnosis after a year, reported investigators, who say high rates of hospitalization are common.
Presenting here at the Heart Failure Association of the European Society of Cardiology (HFA-ESC) 2024, researchers shared results from the REVOLUTION-HF study involving almost 8000 people who consulted outpatient primary and secondary care over a 5-year period.
The outcomes were even worse in patients with high NT-proBNP levels.
Patients with suspected heart failure are “waiting far too long to see a specialist, and that results in a delay to guideline-directed medical therapy, despite the fact that we’re perfectly happy to slap them all on diuretics,” said study presenter Lisa Anderson, MD, PhD, Cardiovascular Clinical Academic Group, Molecular and Clinical Sciences Research Institute, St George’s Hospital, University of London, England.
“We need to rethink our management of heart failure patients presenting in the community,” she said.
A big gap exists internationally between presentation with heart failure, an elevated NT-proBNP, and confirmatory specialist assessment, she explained.
“It’s a scandal that patients are coming to the GP with signs and symptoms of heart failure, they get tested for natriuretic peptides, and nothing happens,” said co-author Antoni Bayés-Genís, MD, PhD, Heart Institute director, Hospital Universitari Germans Trias i Pujol Catedràtic, Barcelona, Spain.
“These patients may receive an echo, or not, in the coming 12 months,” and “during these 12 months, there is a huge number of heart failure hospitalizations and deaths that could probably be prevented.”
Why the Reluctance to Diagnose?
Many issues get in the way of early diagnosis, Dr. Bayés-Genís said. “Inertia, comorbidities, ageism.”
A lot of patients with heart failure are elderly women with some degree of weight gain, he said. “And they come to the clinic with fatigue, so we tell them, ‘Well, that’s normal.”
But “it may not be normal,” he added. “This is a very important topic that we, as a society, need to address.”
There are several “misconceptions” about heart failure, said Ileana L. Piña, MD, MPH, the Robert Stein Chair for Quality and Safety, Sidney Kimmel Medical College, Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, who was not involved in the study.
For example, “we’re all convinced that guideline-directed medical therapy works,” but the evidence is only for patients “with a diagnosis.” In addition, “millions of patients get tested” for heart failure, but they already have a “known diagnosis.”
“When we study these drugs, we’re studying them on patients with manifest disease,” who are only then randomized, Dr. Piña said. “But we seldom see them while they’re developing heart failure. And it’s a process; it doesn’t happen overnight.”
Patients initially often think they may have asthma, and so what follows is an extended period of “uncertainty” and “important time lost” before they finally undergo the assessments that show that they have heart failure, she said.
However, “uncertainty” often lands a patient “in the emergency room or with an unscheduled office visit, where NT-proBNP might get ordered and there’s a long lineup for an echo.”
There are several strengths of the current study, Dr. Piña said, including the fact that 50% of the study population were women, and they were older than a typical trial population. Nevertheless, the results were “eye-opening but not surprising” and, in the end, “disappointing.”
“I agree, we need a revolution, Dr. Anderson,” Dr. Piña said. “The revolution of paying attention to the NT-proBNP when you get it and it’s elevated” and then following through with echocardiography and starting “guideline-directed medical therapy early.”
The diagnosis of heart failure “relies on the presentation of patients with nonspecific signs and symptoms,” such as dyspnea and peripheral edema, “but initiation of guideline-directed medical therapy — life-saving treatment — has to wait until we have a formal echocardiography and specialist clinician assessment,” Dr. Anderson said.
The latest clinical consensus statement from the Heart Failure Association “proposes both rule-in and rule-out NT-proBNP levels for heart failure diagnosis, and obviously we all recognize that it’s important to treat patients as soon as they’re diagnosed,” she explained.
REVOLUTION-HF
To examine the risk profile for patients presenting to outpatient care with suspected heart failure, the researchers conducted REVOLUTION-HF, which leveraged nationwide Swedish linked data from general practices, specialists, pharmacies, hospitals, and cause of death registers.
“Really impressively, most of these NT-proBNP tests were coming back within a day,” Dr. Anderson said, “so a really, really good turnaround.”
Individuals were excluded if they had an inpatient admission, echocardiography, or heart failure diagnosis between presentation and the NT-proBNP measurement.
These people were then compared with those presenting to primary or secondary outpatient care for any reason and matched for age, sex, care level, and index year. Both groups were followed up for 1 year.
“Despite this really impressive, almost immediate NT-proBNP testing,” the waiting times to undergo echocardiography were “really disappointing,” Dr. Anderson said.
The median time to first registered echocardiography was 40 days, and only 29% of patients with suspected heart failure received a diagnosis within a year of the index presentation date, which she described as “inadequately slow.”
“And how does this translate to medical therapy?” she asked.
Heart Failure Drugs
After the index presentation, the rate of loop diuretic use quadrupled among individuals suspected of having heart failure, but there was a “muted response” when it came to the prescribing of beta-blockers and the other pillars of heart failure therapy, which Dr. Anderson called “very disappointing.”
For outcomes after the index presentation, the rate of hospitalization was much higher in the group with suspected heart failure than in the control group (16.1 vs 2.2 events per 100 person-years). And all-cause mortality occurred more often in the group with suspected heart failure than in the control group (10.3 vs 6.5 events per 100 person-years).
Among patients with NT-proBNP levels of 2000 ng/L, there was a “rapid” onset of hospitalization “within the first few days” of the index presentation, which was tracked by a more linear rise in all-cause deaths, Dr. Anderson reported.
In the United Kingdom, “we are very proud of our 2- and 6-week pathways,” which stipulate that suspected heart failure patients with NT-proBNP levels between 400 and 2000 ng/L are to have a specialist assessment and transthoracic echocardiography within 6 weeks; for those with levels > 2000 ng/L, that interval is accelerated to 2 weeks, she said.
The current results show that “2 weeks is too slow.” And looking at the rest of the cohort with lower NT-proBNP levels, “patients have already been admitted and died” by 6 weeks, she said.
When patients are stratified by age, “you get exactly what you would expect,” Dr. Anderson said. “The older patients are the most at risk” for both hospitalization and all-cause mortality.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM HFA-ESC 2024
Yoga May Augment Medical Therapy in Heart Failure
LISBON, PORTUGAL — The addition of a yearlong customized yoga therapy intervention to guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT) appears to significantly improve heart failure measures associated with long-term prognosis, findings from an Indian study suggested.
The research, presented at the Heart Failure Association of the European Society of Cardiology (HFA-ESC) 2024 congress, involved 105 patients assigned to yoga plus GDMT or GDMT alone and demonstrated that there was a large shift in the New York Heart Association (NYHA) functional class from baseline to the 52-week follow-up.
“Yoga therapy has a beneficial impact on heart failure patients on optimal medical management,” said study presenter Ajit Singh, MD, Department of Medicine, Kasturba Medical College, Manipal, Karnataka, India, and the study “demonstrated an overall improvement in left ventricle dimensions and function.”
However, because patients were followed every day and almost a quarter had dropped out by 6 months, the study was “a challenge,” he noted. Nevertheless, the addition of yoga to GDMT could be a “game changer if we try for longer duration.”
For yoga therapy to be considered in clinical practice, a randomized study is required, said session cochair Dana Dawson, MD, PhD, professor of cardiovascular medicine and lead of the Cardiology and Cardiovascular Research Unit, University of Aberdeen, Scotland.
Patients in the current analysis, however, were not randomly allocated to treatment group, which resulted in baseline discrepancies that made the groups “incomparable,” Dr. Dawson explained.
Still, the study showed that yoga is feasible in this patient group and that, even just comparing baseline and follow-up outcomes in the yoga group, there were some significant results.
“It is effective in implementing a change,” she said, “and whether that change is clinically effective needs to be tested in a clinic in a randomized study.”
Why Yoga May Be Particularly Effective
Yoga may be different from other exercise and lifestyle interventions because it is “also about meditation and meeting with your own self,” which corresponds to a form of cognitive behavioral therapy, albeit “conducted in singular manner,” she added.
“It’s not going to be everyone’s cup of tea, and not everyone is going to be inclined to do it,” but it could be suitable in countries where yoga is more commonly practiced as a behavioral, as opposed to lifestyle, intervention, said Dr. Dawson.
Heart failure is a “complex chronic disease” that is a “prime cause of concern for healthcare sectors worldwide,” not least in India, where there is a “very high prevalence” of the disease, Dr. Singh noted.
Evidence from the literature indicates that yoga and other lifestyle modifications can improve the quality of life of patients with heart failure, alongside measures such as left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) and NYHA functional class, he said. However, the researchers did not find any study that looked at yoga therapy as an adjunct to standard-of-care treatment.
How Yoga Was Applied
They recruited patients aged 30-70 years with persistent heart failure symptoms, an LVEF of < 45%, and NYHA class III or lower heart failure. All participants had undergone a cardiac procedure 6-12 months previously, and all were receiving optimal GDMT.
Patients were assigned in a nonrandomized fashion to GDMT with or without a customized yoga program. Eight forms of pranayama breath work, meditation, and relaxation techniques were taught to patients in the yoga group by experienced hospital faculty.
They were supervised for 1 week and then advised to continue self-administered yoga at home once a week for 45 minutes. After each home session, an instructor followed up with each study participant to monitor progress.
All participants were assessed with echocardiography and other measures, including physical activities, to determine NYHA functional status at baseline, 6 months, and 1 year.
Of the 110 patients recruited, 25 had dropped out by 6 months. Of the remaining 85 patients included in the analysis, 40 were assigned to the yoga group. The average age was 49 years, and 70 (82%) of the participants were men. The lack of women in the study is a “major drawback,” Dr. Singh noted.
Women did not want to participate, he explained, “because they were afraid to get the follow-up,” saying, “We will not be able to follow this yoga therapy for 1 year.”
After 52 weeks, patients in the yoga group had significantly greater reductions from baseline in systolic and diastolic blood pressure, heart rate, and body mass index than those in the GDMT-alone group (P < .05 for all).
Patients in the yoga group also experienced significantly greater improvements in ejection fraction, increasing from an average of 41.5% to 44.4% over the course of the study. In contrast, ejection fraction decreased from 42.3% to 41.6% in the GDMT-alone group (P < .05).
Crucially, there was a marked improvement in the NYHA class in the yoga group.
With yoga, the proportion of patients with class I heart failure increased from 12% to 47% over the 52 weeks of the study, whereas the proportion with class II heart failure decreased from 57% to 30%, and the proportion with class III heart failure decreased from 30% to 12% (P < .001). In both the yoga and GDMT-alone groups, the proportion of patients with class IV disease increased from 0% to about 10%.
No funding was declared. No relevant financial relationships were declared.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
LISBON, PORTUGAL — The addition of a yearlong customized yoga therapy intervention to guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT) appears to significantly improve heart failure measures associated with long-term prognosis, findings from an Indian study suggested.
The research, presented at the Heart Failure Association of the European Society of Cardiology (HFA-ESC) 2024 congress, involved 105 patients assigned to yoga plus GDMT or GDMT alone and demonstrated that there was a large shift in the New York Heart Association (NYHA) functional class from baseline to the 52-week follow-up.
“Yoga therapy has a beneficial impact on heart failure patients on optimal medical management,” said study presenter Ajit Singh, MD, Department of Medicine, Kasturba Medical College, Manipal, Karnataka, India, and the study “demonstrated an overall improvement in left ventricle dimensions and function.”
However, because patients were followed every day and almost a quarter had dropped out by 6 months, the study was “a challenge,” he noted. Nevertheless, the addition of yoga to GDMT could be a “game changer if we try for longer duration.”
For yoga therapy to be considered in clinical practice, a randomized study is required, said session cochair Dana Dawson, MD, PhD, professor of cardiovascular medicine and lead of the Cardiology and Cardiovascular Research Unit, University of Aberdeen, Scotland.
Patients in the current analysis, however, were not randomly allocated to treatment group, which resulted in baseline discrepancies that made the groups “incomparable,” Dr. Dawson explained.
Still, the study showed that yoga is feasible in this patient group and that, even just comparing baseline and follow-up outcomes in the yoga group, there were some significant results.
“It is effective in implementing a change,” she said, “and whether that change is clinically effective needs to be tested in a clinic in a randomized study.”
Why Yoga May Be Particularly Effective
Yoga may be different from other exercise and lifestyle interventions because it is “also about meditation and meeting with your own self,” which corresponds to a form of cognitive behavioral therapy, albeit “conducted in singular manner,” she added.
“It’s not going to be everyone’s cup of tea, and not everyone is going to be inclined to do it,” but it could be suitable in countries where yoga is more commonly practiced as a behavioral, as opposed to lifestyle, intervention, said Dr. Dawson.
Heart failure is a “complex chronic disease” that is a “prime cause of concern for healthcare sectors worldwide,” not least in India, where there is a “very high prevalence” of the disease, Dr. Singh noted.
Evidence from the literature indicates that yoga and other lifestyle modifications can improve the quality of life of patients with heart failure, alongside measures such as left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) and NYHA functional class, he said. However, the researchers did not find any study that looked at yoga therapy as an adjunct to standard-of-care treatment.
How Yoga Was Applied
They recruited patients aged 30-70 years with persistent heart failure symptoms, an LVEF of < 45%, and NYHA class III or lower heart failure. All participants had undergone a cardiac procedure 6-12 months previously, and all were receiving optimal GDMT.
Patients were assigned in a nonrandomized fashion to GDMT with or without a customized yoga program. Eight forms of pranayama breath work, meditation, and relaxation techniques were taught to patients in the yoga group by experienced hospital faculty.
They were supervised for 1 week and then advised to continue self-administered yoga at home once a week for 45 minutes. After each home session, an instructor followed up with each study participant to monitor progress.
All participants were assessed with echocardiography and other measures, including physical activities, to determine NYHA functional status at baseline, 6 months, and 1 year.
Of the 110 patients recruited, 25 had dropped out by 6 months. Of the remaining 85 patients included in the analysis, 40 were assigned to the yoga group. The average age was 49 years, and 70 (82%) of the participants were men. The lack of women in the study is a “major drawback,” Dr. Singh noted.
Women did not want to participate, he explained, “because they were afraid to get the follow-up,” saying, “We will not be able to follow this yoga therapy for 1 year.”
After 52 weeks, patients in the yoga group had significantly greater reductions from baseline in systolic and diastolic blood pressure, heart rate, and body mass index than those in the GDMT-alone group (P < .05 for all).
Patients in the yoga group also experienced significantly greater improvements in ejection fraction, increasing from an average of 41.5% to 44.4% over the course of the study. In contrast, ejection fraction decreased from 42.3% to 41.6% in the GDMT-alone group (P < .05).
Crucially, there was a marked improvement in the NYHA class in the yoga group.
With yoga, the proportion of patients with class I heart failure increased from 12% to 47% over the 52 weeks of the study, whereas the proportion with class II heart failure decreased from 57% to 30%, and the proportion with class III heart failure decreased from 30% to 12% (P < .001). In both the yoga and GDMT-alone groups, the proportion of patients with class IV disease increased from 0% to about 10%.
No funding was declared. No relevant financial relationships were declared.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
LISBON, PORTUGAL — The addition of a yearlong customized yoga therapy intervention to guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT) appears to significantly improve heart failure measures associated with long-term prognosis, findings from an Indian study suggested.
The research, presented at the Heart Failure Association of the European Society of Cardiology (HFA-ESC) 2024 congress, involved 105 patients assigned to yoga plus GDMT or GDMT alone and demonstrated that there was a large shift in the New York Heart Association (NYHA) functional class from baseline to the 52-week follow-up.
“Yoga therapy has a beneficial impact on heart failure patients on optimal medical management,” said study presenter Ajit Singh, MD, Department of Medicine, Kasturba Medical College, Manipal, Karnataka, India, and the study “demonstrated an overall improvement in left ventricle dimensions and function.”
However, because patients were followed every day and almost a quarter had dropped out by 6 months, the study was “a challenge,” he noted. Nevertheless, the addition of yoga to GDMT could be a “game changer if we try for longer duration.”
For yoga therapy to be considered in clinical practice, a randomized study is required, said session cochair Dana Dawson, MD, PhD, professor of cardiovascular medicine and lead of the Cardiology and Cardiovascular Research Unit, University of Aberdeen, Scotland.
Patients in the current analysis, however, were not randomly allocated to treatment group, which resulted in baseline discrepancies that made the groups “incomparable,” Dr. Dawson explained.
Still, the study showed that yoga is feasible in this patient group and that, even just comparing baseline and follow-up outcomes in the yoga group, there were some significant results.
“It is effective in implementing a change,” she said, “and whether that change is clinically effective needs to be tested in a clinic in a randomized study.”
Why Yoga May Be Particularly Effective
Yoga may be different from other exercise and lifestyle interventions because it is “also about meditation and meeting with your own self,” which corresponds to a form of cognitive behavioral therapy, albeit “conducted in singular manner,” she added.
“It’s not going to be everyone’s cup of tea, and not everyone is going to be inclined to do it,” but it could be suitable in countries where yoga is more commonly practiced as a behavioral, as opposed to lifestyle, intervention, said Dr. Dawson.
Heart failure is a “complex chronic disease” that is a “prime cause of concern for healthcare sectors worldwide,” not least in India, where there is a “very high prevalence” of the disease, Dr. Singh noted.
Evidence from the literature indicates that yoga and other lifestyle modifications can improve the quality of life of patients with heart failure, alongside measures such as left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) and NYHA functional class, he said. However, the researchers did not find any study that looked at yoga therapy as an adjunct to standard-of-care treatment.
How Yoga Was Applied
They recruited patients aged 30-70 years with persistent heart failure symptoms, an LVEF of < 45%, and NYHA class III or lower heart failure. All participants had undergone a cardiac procedure 6-12 months previously, and all were receiving optimal GDMT.
Patients were assigned in a nonrandomized fashion to GDMT with or without a customized yoga program. Eight forms of pranayama breath work, meditation, and relaxation techniques were taught to patients in the yoga group by experienced hospital faculty.
They were supervised for 1 week and then advised to continue self-administered yoga at home once a week for 45 minutes. After each home session, an instructor followed up with each study participant to monitor progress.
All participants were assessed with echocardiography and other measures, including physical activities, to determine NYHA functional status at baseline, 6 months, and 1 year.
Of the 110 patients recruited, 25 had dropped out by 6 months. Of the remaining 85 patients included in the analysis, 40 were assigned to the yoga group. The average age was 49 years, and 70 (82%) of the participants were men. The lack of women in the study is a “major drawback,” Dr. Singh noted.
Women did not want to participate, he explained, “because they were afraid to get the follow-up,” saying, “We will not be able to follow this yoga therapy for 1 year.”
After 52 weeks, patients in the yoga group had significantly greater reductions from baseline in systolic and diastolic blood pressure, heart rate, and body mass index than those in the GDMT-alone group (P < .05 for all).
Patients in the yoga group also experienced significantly greater improvements in ejection fraction, increasing from an average of 41.5% to 44.4% over the course of the study. In contrast, ejection fraction decreased from 42.3% to 41.6% in the GDMT-alone group (P < .05).
Crucially, there was a marked improvement in the NYHA class in the yoga group.
With yoga, the proportion of patients with class I heart failure increased from 12% to 47% over the 52 weeks of the study, whereas the proportion with class II heart failure decreased from 57% to 30%, and the proportion with class III heart failure decreased from 30% to 12% (P < .001). In both the yoga and GDMT-alone groups, the proportion of patients with class IV disease increased from 0% to about 10%.
No funding was declared. No relevant financial relationships were declared.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
The Tyranny of Beta-Blockers
Beta-blockers are excellent drugs. They’re cheap and effective; feature prominently in hypertension guidelines; and remain a sine qua non for coronary artery disease, myocardial infarction, and heart failure treatment. They’ve been around forever, and we know they work. Good luck finding an adult medicine patient who isn’t on one.
Beta-blockers act by slowing resting heart rate (and blunting the heart rate response to exercise. The latter is a pernicious cause of activity intolerance that often goes unchecked. Even when the adverse effects of beta-blockers are appreciated, providers are loath to alter dosing, much less stop the drug. After all, beta-blockers are an integral part of guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT), and GDMT saves lives.
Balancing Heart Rate and Stroke Volume Effects
To augment cardiac output and optimize oxygen uptake (VO2) during exercise, we need the heart rate response. In fact, the heart rate response contributes more to cardiac output than augmenting stroke volume (SV) and more to VO2 than the increase in arteriovenous (AV) oxygen difference. An inability to increase the heart rate commensurate with physiologic work is called chronotropic incompetence (CI). That’s what beta-blockers do ─ they cause CI.
Physiology dictates that CI will cause activity intolerance. That said, it’s hard to quantify the impact from beta-blockers at the individual patient level. Data suggest the heart rate effect is profound. A study in patients without heart failure found that 22% of participants on beta-blockers had CI, and the investigators used a conservative CI definition (≤ 62% of heart rate reserve used). A recent report published in JAMA Cardiology found that stopping beta-blockers in patients with heart failure allowed for an extra 30 beats/min at max exercise.
Wasserman and Whipp’s textbook, the last word on all things exercise, presents a sample subject who undergoes two separate cardiopulmonary exercise tests (CPETs). Before the first, he’s given a placebo, and before the second, he gets an intravenous beta-blocker. He’s a 23-year-old otherwise healthy male — the perfect test case for isolating beta-blocker impact without confounding by comorbid diseases, other medications, or deconditioning. His max heart rate dropped by 30 beats/min after the beta-blocker, identical to what we saw in the JAMA Cardiology study (with the heart rate increasing by 30 beats/min following withdrawal). Case closed. Stop the beta-blockers on your patients so they can meet their exercise goals and get healthy!
Such pithy enthusiasm discounts physiology’s complexities. When blunting our patient’s heart rate response with beta-blockers, we also increase diastolic filling time, which increases SV. For the 23-year-old in Wasserman and Whipp’s physiology textbook, the beta-blocker increased O2 pulse (the product of SV and AV difference). Presumably, this is mediated by the increased SV. There was a net reduction in VO2 peak, but it was nominal, suggesting that the drop in heart rate was largely offset by the increase in O2 pulse. For the patients in the JAMA Cardiology study, the entire group had a small increase in VO2 peak with beta-blocker withdrawal, but the effect differed by left ventricular function. Across different studies, the beta-blocker effect on heart rate is consistent but the change in overall exercise capacity is not.
Patient Variability in Beta-Blocker Response
In addition to left ventricular function, there are other factors likely to drive variability at the patient level. We’ve treated the response to beta-blockers as a class effect — an obvious oversimplification. The impact on exercise and the heart will vary by dose and drug (eg, atenolol vs metoprolol vs carvedilol, and so on). Beta-blockers can also affect the lungs, and we’re still debating how cautious to be in the presence of asthma or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.
In a world of infinite time, resources, and expertise, we’d CPET everyone before and after beta-blocker use. Our current reality requires the unthinkable: We’ll have to talk to each other and our patients. For example, heart failure guidelines recommend titrating drugs to match the dose from trials that proved efficacy. These doses are quite high. Simple discussion with the cardiologist and the patient may allow for an adjustment back down with careful monitoring and close attention to activity tolerance. With any luck, you’ll preserve the benefits from GDMT while optimizing your patient›s ability to meet their exercise goals.
Dr. Holley, professor in the department of medicine, Uniformed Services University, Bethesda, Maryland, and a pulmonary/sleep and critical care medicine physician at MedStar Washington Hospital Center, Washington, disclosed ties with Metapharm, CHEST College, and WebMD.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Beta-blockers are excellent drugs. They’re cheap and effective; feature prominently in hypertension guidelines; and remain a sine qua non for coronary artery disease, myocardial infarction, and heart failure treatment. They’ve been around forever, and we know they work. Good luck finding an adult medicine patient who isn’t on one.
Beta-blockers act by slowing resting heart rate (and blunting the heart rate response to exercise. The latter is a pernicious cause of activity intolerance that often goes unchecked. Even when the adverse effects of beta-blockers are appreciated, providers are loath to alter dosing, much less stop the drug. After all, beta-blockers are an integral part of guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT), and GDMT saves lives.
Balancing Heart Rate and Stroke Volume Effects
To augment cardiac output and optimize oxygen uptake (VO2) during exercise, we need the heart rate response. In fact, the heart rate response contributes more to cardiac output than augmenting stroke volume (SV) and more to VO2 than the increase in arteriovenous (AV) oxygen difference. An inability to increase the heart rate commensurate with physiologic work is called chronotropic incompetence (CI). That’s what beta-blockers do ─ they cause CI.
Physiology dictates that CI will cause activity intolerance. That said, it’s hard to quantify the impact from beta-blockers at the individual patient level. Data suggest the heart rate effect is profound. A study in patients without heart failure found that 22% of participants on beta-blockers had CI, and the investigators used a conservative CI definition (≤ 62% of heart rate reserve used). A recent report published in JAMA Cardiology found that stopping beta-blockers in patients with heart failure allowed for an extra 30 beats/min at max exercise.
Wasserman and Whipp’s textbook, the last word on all things exercise, presents a sample subject who undergoes two separate cardiopulmonary exercise tests (CPETs). Before the first, he’s given a placebo, and before the second, he gets an intravenous beta-blocker. He’s a 23-year-old otherwise healthy male — the perfect test case for isolating beta-blocker impact without confounding by comorbid diseases, other medications, or deconditioning. His max heart rate dropped by 30 beats/min after the beta-blocker, identical to what we saw in the JAMA Cardiology study (with the heart rate increasing by 30 beats/min following withdrawal). Case closed. Stop the beta-blockers on your patients so they can meet their exercise goals and get healthy!
Such pithy enthusiasm discounts physiology’s complexities. When blunting our patient’s heart rate response with beta-blockers, we also increase diastolic filling time, which increases SV. For the 23-year-old in Wasserman and Whipp’s physiology textbook, the beta-blocker increased O2 pulse (the product of SV and AV difference). Presumably, this is mediated by the increased SV. There was a net reduction in VO2 peak, but it was nominal, suggesting that the drop in heart rate was largely offset by the increase in O2 pulse. For the patients in the JAMA Cardiology study, the entire group had a small increase in VO2 peak with beta-blocker withdrawal, but the effect differed by left ventricular function. Across different studies, the beta-blocker effect on heart rate is consistent but the change in overall exercise capacity is not.
Patient Variability in Beta-Blocker Response
In addition to left ventricular function, there are other factors likely to drive variability at the patient level. We’ve treated the response to beta-blockers as a class effect — an obvious oversimplification. The impact on exercise and the heart will vary by dose and drug (eg, atenolol vs metoprolol vs carvedilol, and so on). Beta-blockers can also affect the lungs, and we’re still debating how cautious to be in the presence of asthma or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.
In a world of infinite time, resources, and expertise, we’d CPET everyone before and after beta-blocker use. Our current reality requires the unthinkable: We’ll have to talk to each other and our patients. For example, heart failure guidelines recommend titrating drugs to match the dose from trials that proved efficacy. These doses are quite high. Simple discussion with the cardiologist and the patient may allow for an adjustment back down with careful monitoring and close attention to activity tolerance. With any luck, you’ll preserve the benefits from GDMT while optimizing your patient›s ability to meet their exercise goals.
Dr. Holley, professor in the department of medicine, Uniformed Services University, Bethesda, Maryland, and a pulmonary/sleep and critical care medicine physician at MedStar Washington Hospital Center, Washington, disclosed ties with Metapharm, CHEST College, and WebMD.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Beta-blockers are excellent drugs. They’re cheap and effective; feature prominently in hypertension guidelines; and remain a sine qua non for coronary artery disease, myocardial infarction, and heart failure treatment. They’ve been around forever, and we know they work. Good luck finding an adult medicine patient who isn’t on one.
Beta-blockers act by slowing resting heart rate (and blunting the heart rate response to exercise. The latter is a pernicious cause of activity intolerance that often goes unchecked. Even when the adverse effects of beta-blockers are appreciated, providers are loath to alter dosing, much less stop the drug. After all, beta-blockers are an integral part of guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT), and GDMT saves lives.
Balancing Heart Rate and Stroke Volume Effects
To augment cardiac output and optimize oxygen uptake (VO2) during exercise, we need the heart rate response. In fact, the heart rate response contributes more to cardiac output than augmenting stroke volume (SV) and more to VO2 than the increase in arteriovenous (AV) oxygen difference. An inability to increase the heart rate commensurate with physiologic work is called chronotropic incompetence (CI). That’s what beta-blockers do ─ they cause CI.
Physiology dictates that CI will cause activity intolerance. That said, it’s hard to quantify the impact from beta-blockers at the individual patient level. Data suggest the heart rate effect is profound. A study in patients without heart failure found that 22% of participants on beta-blockers had CI, and the investigators used a conservative CI definition (≤ 62% of heart rate reserve used). A recent report published in JAMA Cardiology found that stopping beta-blockers in patients with heart failure allowed for an extra 30 beats/min at max exercise.
Wasserman and Whipp’s textbook, the last word on all things exercise, presents a sample subject who undergoes two separate cardiopulmonary exercise tests (CPETs). Before the first, he’s given a placebo, and before the second, he gets an intravenous beta-blocker. He’s a 23-year-old otherwise healthy male — the perfect test case for isolating beta-blocker impact without confounding by comorbid diseases, other medications, or deconditioning. His max heart rate dropped by 30 beats/min after the beta-blocker, identical to what we saw in the JAMA Cardiology study (with the heart rate increasing by 30 beats/min following withdrawal). Case closed. Stop the beta-blockers on your patients so they can meet their exercise goals and get healthy!
Such pithy enthusiasm discounts physiology’s complexities. When blunting our patient’s heart rate response with beta-blockers, we also increase diastolic filling time, which increases SV. For the 23-year-old in Wasserman and Whipp’s physiology textbook, the beta-blocker increased O2 pulse (the product of SV and AV difference). Presumably, this is mediated by the increased SV. There was a net reduction in VO2 peak, but it was nominal, suggesting that the drop in heart rate was largely offset by the increase in O2 pulse. For the patients in the JAMA Cardiology study, the entire group had a small increase in VO2 peak with beta-blocker withdrawal, but the effect differed by left ventricular function. Across different studies, the beta-blocker effect on heart rate is consistent but the change in overall exercise capacity is not.
Patient Variability in Beta-Blocker Response
In addition to left ventricular function, there are other factors likely to drive variability at the patient level. We’ve treated the response to beta-blockers as a class effect — an obvious oversimplification. The impact on exercise and the heart will vary by dose and drug (eg, atenolol vs metoprolol vs carvedilol, and so on). Beta-blockers can also affect the lungs, and we’re still debating how cautious to be in the presence of asthma or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.
In a world of infinite time, resources, and expertise, we’d CPET everyone before and after beta-blocker use. Our current reality requires the unthinkable: We’ll have to talk to each other and our patients. For example, heart failure guidelines recommend titrating drugs to match the dose from trials that proved efficacy. These doses are quite high. Simple discussion with the cardiologist and the patient may allow for an adjustment back down with careful monitoring and close attention to activity tolerance. With any luck, you’ll preserve the benefits from GDMT while optimizing your patient›s ability to meet their exercise goals.
Dr. Holley, professor in the department of medicine, Uniformed Services University, Bethesda, Maryland, and a pulmonary/sleep and critical care medicine physician at MedStar Washington Hospital Center, Washington, disclosed ties with Metapharm, CHEST College, and WebMD.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
CVD Risk Rises With Higher NSAID Doses in Ankylosing Spondylitis
TOPLINE:
Higher doses of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) increase the risk for cardiovascular diseases (CVDs) such as ischemic heart disease, stroke, and congestive heart failure in patients with ankylosing spondylitis (AS) compared with lower doses.
METHODOLOGY:
- NSAIDs can suppress inflammation and relieve pain in patients with AS, but long-term treatment with NSAIDs poses concerns regarding gastrointestinal and renal toxicities and increased CVD risk.
- This nationwide cohort study used data from the Korean National Health Insurance database to investigate the risk for CVD associated with an increasing NSAID dosage in a real-world AS cohort.
- Investigators recruited 19,775 patients (mean age, 36.1 years; 75% men) with newly diagnosed AS and without any prior CVD between January 2010 and December 2018, among whom 99.7% received NSAID treatment and 30.2% received tumor necrosis factor inhibitor treatment.
- A time-varying approach was used to assess the NSAID exposure, wherein periods of NSAID use were defined as “NSAID-exposed” and periods longer than 1 month without NSAID use were defined as “NSAID-unexposed.”
- The primary outcome was the composite outcome of ischemic heart disease, stroke, or congestive heart failure.
TAKEAWAY:
- During the follow-up period of 98,290 person-years, 1663 cases of CVD were identified, which included 1157 cases of ischemic heart disease, 301 cases of stroke, and 613 cases of congestive heart failure.
- After adjusting for confounders, each defined daily dose increase in NSAIDs raised the risk for incident CVD by 10% (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 1.10; 95% CI, 1.08-1.13).
- Similarly, increasing the dose of NSAIDs was associated with an increased risk for ischemic heart disease (aHR, 1.08; 95% CI, 1.05-1.11), stroke (aHR, 1.09; 95% CI, 1.04-1.15), and congestive heart failure (aHR, 1.12; 95% CI, 1.08-1.16).
- The association between increasing NSAID dose and increased CVD risk was consistent across various subgroups, with NSAIDs posing a greater threat to cardiovascular health in women than in men.
IN PRACTICE:
The authors wrote, “Taken together, these results suggest that increasing the dose of NSAIDs is associated with a higher cardiovascular risk in AS, but that the increased risk might be lower than that in the general population.”
SOURCE:
First author Ji-Won Kim, MD, PhD, of the Division of Rheumatology, Department of Internal Medicine, Daegu Catholic University School of Medicine, Daegu, the Republic of Korea, and colleagues had their work published online on April 9 in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases.
LIMITATIONS:
The study was of retrospective nature. The levels of acute phase reactants and AS disease activity could not be determined owing to a lack of data in the National Health Insurance database. The accuracy of the diagnosis of cardiovascular outcomes on the basis of the International Classification of Disease codes was also questionable.
DISCLOSURES:
The study was supported by the National Research Foundation of Korea. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
TOPLINE:
Higher doses of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) increase the risk for cardiovascular diseases (CVDs) such as ischemic heart disease, stroke, and congestive heart failure in patients with ankylosing spondylitis (AS) compared with lower doses.
METHODOLOGY:
- NSAIDs can suppress inflammation and relieve pain in patients with AS, but long-term treatment with NSAIDs poses concerns regarding gastrointestinal and renal toxicities and increased CVD risk.
- This nationwide cohort study used data from the Korean National Health Insurance database to investigate the risk for CVD associated with an increasing NSAID dosage in a real-world AS cohort.
- Investigators recruited 19,775 patients (mean age, 36.1 years; 75% men) with newly diagnosed AS and without any prior CVD between January 2010 and December 2018, among whom 99.7% received NSAID treatment and 30.2% received tumor necrosis factor inhibitor treatment.
- A time-varying approach was used to assess the NSAID exposure, wherein periods of NSAID use were defined as “NSAID-exposed” and periods longer than 1 month without NSAID use were defined as “NSAID-unexposed.”
- The primary outcome was the composite outcome of ischemic heart disease, stroke, or congestive heart failure.
TAKEAWAY:
- During the follow-up period of 98,290 person-years, 1663 cases of CVD were identified, which included 1157 cases of ischemic heart disease, 301 cases of stroke, and 613 cases of congestive heart failure.
- After adjusting for confounders, each defined daily dose increase in NSAIDs raised the risk for incident CVD by 10% (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 1.10; 95% CI, 1.08-1.13).
- Similarly, increasing the dose of NSAIDs was associated with an increased risk for ischemic heart disease (aHR, 1.08; 95% CI, 1.05-1.11), stroke (aHR, 1.09; 95% CI, 1.04-1.15), and congestive heart failure (aHR, 1.12; 95% CI, 1.08-1.16).
- The association between increasing NSAID dose and increased CVD risk was consistent across various subgroups, with NSAIDs posing a greater threat to cardiovascular health in women than in men.
IN PRACTICE:
The authors wrote, “Taken together, these results suggest that increasing the dose of NSAIDs is associated with a higher cardiovascular risk in AS, but that the increased risk might be lower than that in the general population.”
SOURCE:
First author Ji-Won Kim, MD, PhD, of the Division of Rheumatology, Department of Internal Medicine, Daegu Catholic University School of Medicine, Daegu, the Republic of Korea, and colleagues had their work published online on April 9 in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases.
LIMITATIONS:
The study was of retrospective nature. The levels of acute phase reactants and AS disease activity could not be determined owing to a lack of data in the National Health Insurance database. The accuracy of the diagnosis of cardiovascular outcomes on the basis of the International Classification of Disease codes was also questionable.
DISCLOSURES:
The study was supported by the National Research Foundation of Korea. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
TOPLINE:
Higher doses of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) increase the risk for cardiovascular diseases (CVDs) such as ischemic heart disease, stroke, and congestive heart failure in patients with ankylosing spondylitis (AS) compared with lower doses.
METHODOLOGY:
- NSAIDs can suppress inflammation and relieve pain in patients with AS, but long-term treatment with NSAIDs poses concerns regarding gastrointestinal and renal toxicities and increased CVD risk.
- This nationwide cohort study used data from the Korean National Health Insurance database to investigate the risk for CVD associated with an increasing NSAID dosage in a real-world AS cohort.
- Investigators recruited 19,775 patients (mean age, 36.1 years; 75% men) with newly diagnosed AS and without any prior CVD between January 2010 and December 2018, among whom 99.7% received NSAID treatment and 30.2% received tumor necrosis factor inhibitor treatment.
- A time-varying approach was used to assess the NSAID exposure, wherein periods of NSAID use were defined as “NSAID-exposed” and periods longer than 1 month without NSAID use were defined as “NSAID-unexposed.”
- The primary outcome was the composite outcome of ischemic heart disease, stroke, or congestive heart failure.
TAKEAWAY:
- During the follow-up period of 98,290 person-years, 1663 cases of CVD were identified, which included 1157 cases of ischemic heart disease, 301 cases of stroke, and 613 cases of congestive heart failure.
- After adjusting for confounders, each defined daily dose increase in NSAIDs raised the risk for incident CVD by 10% (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 1.10; 95% CI, 1.08-1.13).
- Similarly, increasing the dose of NSAIDs was associated with an increased risk for ischemic heart disease (aHR, 1.08; 95% CI, 1.05-1.11), stroke (aHR, 1.09; 95% CI, 1.04-1.15), and congestive heart failure (aHR, 1.12; 95% CI, 1.08-1.16).
- The association between increasing NSAID dose and increased CVD risk was consistent across various subgroups, with NSAIDs posing a greater threat to cardiovascular health in women than in men.
IN PRACTICE:
The authors wrote, “Taken together, these results suggest that increasing the dose of NSAIDs is associated with a higher cardiovascular risk in AS, but that the increased risk might be lower than that in the general population.”
SOURCE:
First author Ji-Won Kim, MD, PhD, of the Division of Rheumatology, Department of Internal Medicine, Daegu Catholic University School of Medicine, Daegu, the Republic of Korea, and colleagues had their work published online on April 9 in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases.
LIMITATIONS:
The study was of retrospective nature. The levels of acute phase reactants and AS disease activity could not be determined owing to a lack of data in the National Health Insurance database. The accuracy of the diagnosis of cardiovascular outcomes on the basis of the International Classification of Disease codes was also questionable.
DISCLOSURES:
The study was supported by the National Research Foundation of Korea. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Traffic Noise Negatively Impacts Health
New research by Thomas Münzel, MD, senior professor of cardiology at Johannes Gutenberg University Mainz in Mainz, Germany, and colleagues again emphasized the harmful effects of noise on the heart and blood vessels. An analysis of current epidemiologic data provided strong indications that transportation noise is closely related to cardiovascular and cerebrovascular diseases, according to a statement on the data analysis. The results were published in Circulation Research.
Morbidity and Mortality
Epidemiologic studies have shown that road, rail, or air traffic noise increases the risk for cardiovascular morbidity and mortality, with strong evidence for ischemic heart disease, heart failure, and stroke, according to the scientists. These factors could favor vascular (endothelial) dysfunction, inflammation, and hypertension, thereby increasing cardiovascular risk.
Consequences and Pathomechanisms
In the current publication, the authors provided an overview of epidemiologic research on the effects of transportation noise on cardiovascular risk factors and diseases, discussed mechanistic insights from the latest clinical and experimental studies, and proposed new risk markers to address noise-induced cardiovascular effects in the general population. An integrated analysis in the article demonstrated that for every 10 dB(A) increase, the risk for cardiovascular diseases such as heart attack, stroke, and heart failure significantly increases by 3.2%.
The authors also explained the possible effects of noise on changes in gene networks, epigenetic pathways, circadian rhythms, signal transmission along the neuronal-cardiovascular axis, oxidative stress, inflammation, and metabolism. Finally, current and future noise protection strategies are described, and the existing evidence on noise as a cardiovascular risk factor is discussed.
Confirmed Cardiovascular Risk Factor
“As an increasing proportion of the population is exposed to harmful traffic noise, efforts to reduce noise and laws for noise reduction are of great importance for future public health,” said Dr. Münzel. “It is also important for us that due to the strong evidence, traffic noise is finally recognized as a risk factor for cardiovascular diseases.”
Heart Attack Outcomes
Dr. Münzel and other researchers from Mainz have been studying the cardiovascular consequences of air pollution and traffic noise for several years. For example, they found that heart attacks in people and animals exposed to high noise levels earlier in life healed poorly. These results were published last year in Cardiovascular Research. According to the authors, the findings suggest that traffic noise may play a significant role in the development and course of coronary heart disease, such as after a heart attack.
The scientists initially found in animal experiments that exposure to aircraft noise for 4 days led to increased inflammation in the vessels. Compared with mice not exposed to aircraft noise, the noise-exposed animals showed an increase in free radicals; these animals exhibited a significant inflammatory response and had impaired vessel function.
The researchers explained that the experimental data showed aircraft noise alone triggers a proinflammatory transcription program that promotes the infiltration of immune cells into cardiovascular tissue in animals with acute myocardial infarction. They noted an increased infiltration of CD45+ cells into the vessels and heart, dominated by neutrophils in vessel tissue and Ly6Chigh monocytes in heart tissue. This infiltration creates a proinflammatory milieu that adversely affects the outcome after myocardial infarction by predisposing the heart tissue to greater ischemic damage and functional impairment. Exposure of animals to aircraft noise before induction of myocardial infarction by left anterior descending (LAD) coronary artery ligation impaired left ventricular function and increased infarct size after cardiac ischemia. In addition, noise exposure exacerbated infarct-induced endothelial dysfunction of peripheral vessels as early as 24 hours after LAD ligation.
Clinical Confirmation
These experimental results were confirmed by observations in the population-based Gutenberg Health Study. The researchers analyzed data from 100 patients with heart attack. The lead and senior authors of the study Michael Molitor, MD, and Philip Wenzel, MD, of the University of Mainz, explained, “From our studies, we have learned that exposure to aircraft noise before a heart attack significantly amplifies subsequent cardiovascular inflammation and exacerbates ischemic heart failure, which is favored by inflammation-promoting vascular conditioning. Our translational results show that people who have been exposed to noise in the past have a worse course if they experience a heart attack later in life.”
Study participants who had experienced a heart attack in their medical history had elevated levels of C-reactive protein if they had been exposed to aircraft noise in the past and subsequently developed noise annoyance reactions (0.305 vs 1.5; P = .0094). In addition, left ventricular ejection fraction in these patients after a heart attack was worse than that in patients with infarction without noise exposure in their medical history (62.5 vs 65.6; P = .0053).
The results suggest that measures to reduce environmental noise could help improve the clinical outcomes of heart attack patients, according to the authors.
Mental Health Effects
Traffic noise also may be associated with an increased risk for depression and anxiety disorders, as reported 2 years ago by the German Society for Psychosomatic Medicine and Medical Psychotherapy. Evolution has programmed the human organism to perceive noises as indicators of potential sources of danger — even during sleep. “Noise puts the body on alert,” explained Manfred E. Beutel, MD, director of the Clinic for Psychosomatic Medicine and Psychotherapy at the University of Mainz. As a result, the autonomic nervous system activates stress hormones such as adrenaline and cortisol, leading to an increase in heart rate and blood pressure. If noise becomes chronic, chronic diseases can develop. “Indeed, observational and experimental studies have shown that persistent noise annoyance promotes incident hypertension, cardiovascular diseases, and type 2 diabetes,” said Dr. Beutel.
Depression Risk Doubled
Among the negative effects of noise annoyance are also mental illnesses, as has become increasingly clear. “Noise annoyance disrupts daily activities and interferes with feelings and thoughts, sleep, and recovery,” said Dr. Beutel. The interruptions trigger negative emotional reactions such as anger, distress, exhaustion, flight impulses, and stress symptoms. “Such conditions promote the development of depression over time,” said Dr. Beutel. This observation was confirmed by the large-scale Gutenberg Health Study using the example of the Mainz population, which suffers to a large extent from noise annoyance because of the nearby Frankfurt Airport. “With increasing noise annoyance, the rates of depression and anxiety disorders steadily increased, until the risks eventually doubled with extreme annoyance,” said Dr. Beutel. Other studies point in the same direction. For example, a meta-analysis found a 12% increase in the risk for depression per 10-dB increase in noise. Another study found an association between nocturnal noise annoyance and the use of antidepressants.
Fine Particulate Matter
According to an evaluation of the Gutenberg Study, people perceive noise annoyance from aircraft noise as the most pronounced, followed by road, neighborhood, industrial, and railway noise. Noise occurs most frequently in urban areas that also produce air pollution such as fine particulate matter. “Fine particulate matter is also suspected of promoting anxiety and depression,” said Dr. Beutel, “because the small particles of fine particulate matter can enter the bloodstream and trigger inflammatory processes there, which in turn are closely related to depression.”
This story was translated from Univadis Germany, which is part of the Medscape professional network, using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
New research by Thomas Münzel, MD, senior professor of cardiology at Johannes Gutenberg University Mainz in Mainz, Germany, and colleagues again emphasized the harmful effects of noise on the heart and blood vessels. An analysis of current epidemiologic data provided strong indications that transportation noise is closely related to cardiovascular and cerebrovascular diseases, according to a statement on the data analysis. The results were published in Circulation Research.
Morbidity and Mortality
Epidemiologic studies have shown that road, rail, or air traffic noise increases the risk for cardiovascular morbidity and mortality, with strong evidence for ischemic heart disease, heart failure, and stroke, according to the scientists. These factors could favor vascular (endothelial) dysfunction, inflammation, and hypertension, thereby increasing cardiovascular risk.
Consequences and Pathomechanisms
In the current publication, the authors provided an overview of epidemiologic research on the effects of transportation noise on cardiovascular risk factors and diseases, discussed mechanistic insights from the latest clinical and experimental studies, and proposed new risk markers to address noise-induced cardiovascular effects in the general population. An integrated analysis in the article demonstrated that for every 10 dB(A) increase, the risk for cardiovascular diseases such as heart attack, stroke, and heart failure significantly increases by 3.2%.
The authors also explained the possible effects of noise on changes in gene networks, epigenetic pathways, circadian rhythms, signal transmission along the neuronal-cardiovascular axis, oxidative stress, inflammation, and metabolism. Finally, current and future noise protection strategies are described, and the existing evidence on noise as a cardiovascular risk factor is discussed.
Confirmed Cardiovascular Risk Factor
“As an increasing proportion of the population is exposed to harmful traffic noise, efforts to reduce noise and laws for noise reduction are of great importance for future public health,” said Dr. Münzel. “It is also important for us that due to the strong evidence, traffic noise is finally recognized as a risk factor for cardiovascular diseases.”
Heart Attack Outcomes
Dr. Münzel and other researchers from Mainz have been studying the cardiovascular consequences of air pollution and traffic noise for several years. For example, they found that heart attacks in people and animals exposed to high noise levels earlier in life healed poorly. These results were published last year in Cardiovascular Research. According to the authors, the findings suggest that traffic noise may play a significant role in the development and course of coronary heart disease, such as after a heart attack.
The scientists initially found in animal experiments that exposure to aircraft noise for 4 days led to increased inflammation in the vessels. Compared with mice not exposed to aircraft noise, the noise-exposed animals showed an increase in free radicals; these animals exhibited a significant inflammatory response and had impaired vessel function.
The researchers explained that the experimental data showed aircraft noise alone triggers a proinflammatory transcription program that promotes the infiltration of immune cells into cardiovascular tissue in animals with acute myocardial infarction. They noted an increased infiltration of CD45+ cells into the vessels and heart, dominated by neutrophils in vessel tissue and Ly6Chigh monocytes in heart tissue. This infiltration creates a proinflammatory milieu that adversely affects the outcome after myocardial infarction by predisposing the heart tissue to greater ischemic damage and functional impairment. Exposure of animals to aircraft noise before induction of myocardial infarction by left anterior descending (LAD) coronary artery ligation impaired left ventricular function and increased infarct size after cardiac ischemia. In addition, noise exposure exacerbated infarct-induced endothelial dysfunction of peripheral vessels as early as 24 hours after LAD ligation.
Clinical Confirmation
These experimental results were confirmed by observations in the population-based Gutenberg Health Study. The researchers analyzed data from 100 patients with heart attack. The lead and senior authors of the study Michael Molitor, MD, and Philip Wenzel, MD, of the University of Mainz, explained, “From our studies, we have learned that exposure to aircraft noise before a heart attack significantly amplifies subsequent cardiovascular inflammation and exacerbates ischemic heart failure, which is favored by inflammation-promoting vascular conditioning. Our translational results show that people who have been exposed to noise in the past have a worse course if they experience a heart attack later in life.”
Study participants who had experienced a heart attack in their medical history had elevated levels of C-reactive protein if they had been exposed to aircraft noise in the past and subsequently developed noise annoyance reactions (0.305 vs 1.5; P = .0094). In addition, left ventricular ejection fraction in these patients after a heart attack was worse than that in patients with infarction without noise exposure in their medical history (62.5 vs 65.6; P = .0053).
The results suggest that measures to reduce environmental noise could help improve the clinical outcomes of heart attack patients, according to the authors.
Mental Health Effects
Traffic noise also may be associated with an increased risk for depression and anxiety disorders, as reported 2 years ago by the German Society for Psychosomatic Medicine and Medical Psychotherapy. Evolution has programmed the human organism to perceive noises as indicators of potential sources of danger — even during sleep. “Noise puts the body on alert,” explained Manfred E. Beutel, MD, director of the Clinic for Psychosomatic Medicine and Psychotherapy at the University of Mainz. As a result, the autonomic nervous system activates stress hormones such as adrenaline and cortisol, leading to an increase in heart rate and blood pressure. If noise becomes chronic, chronic diseases can develop. “Indeed, observational and experimental studies have shown that persistent noise annoyance promotes incident hypertension, cardiovascular diseases, and type 2 diabetes,” said Dr. Beutel.
Depression Risk Doubled
Among the negative effects of noise annoyance are also mental illnesses, as has become increasingly clear. “Noise annoyance disrupts daily activities and interferes with feelings and thoughts, sleep, and recovery,” said Dr. Beutel. The interruptions trigger negative emotional reactions such as anger, distress, exhaustion, flight impulses, and stress symptoms. “Such conditions promote the development of depression over time,” said Dr. Beutel. This observation was confirmed by the large-scale Gutenberg Health Study using the example of the Mainz population, which suffers to a large extent from noise annoyance because of the nearby Frankfurt Airport. “With increasing noise annoyance, the rates of depression and anxiety disorders steadily increased, until the risks eventually doubled with extreme annoyance,” said Dr. Beutel. Other studies point in the same direction. For example, a meta-analysis found a 12% increase in the risk for depression per 10-dB increase in noise. Another study found an association between nocturnal noise annoyance and the use of antidepressants.
Fine Particulate Matter
According to an evaluation of the Gutenberg Study, people perceive noise annoyance from aircraft noise as the most pronounced, followed by road, neighborhood, industrial, and railway noise. Noise occurs most frequently in urban areas that also produce air pollution such as fine particulate matter. “Fine particulate matter is also suspected of promoting anxiety and depression,” said Dr. Beutel, “because the small particles of fine particulate matter can enter the bloodstream and trigger inflammatory processes there, which in turn are closely related to depression.”
This story was translated from Univadis Germany, which is part of the Medscape professional network, using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
New research by Thomas Münzel, MD, senior professor of cardiology at Johannes Gutenberg University Mainz in Mainz, Germany, and colleagues again emphasized the harmful effects of noise on the heart and blood vessels. An analysis of current epidemiologic data provided strong indications that transportation noise is closely related to cardiovascular and cerebrovascular diseases, according to a statement on the data analysis. The results were published in Circulation Research.
Morbidity and Mortality
Epidemiologic studies have shown that road, rail, or air traffic noise increases the risk for cardiovascular morbidity and mortality, with strong evidence for ischemic heart disease, heart failure, and stroke, according to the scientists. These factors could favor vascular (endothelial) dysfunction, inflammation, and hypertension, thereby increasing cardiovascular risk.
Consequences and Pathomechanisms
In the current publication, the authors provided an overview of epidemiologic research on the effects of transportation noise on cardiovascular risk factors and diseases, discussed mechanistic insights from the latest clinical and experimental studies, and proposed new risk markers to address noise-induced cardiovascular effects in the general population. An integrated analysis in the article demonstrated that for every 10 dB(A) increase, the risk for cardiovascular diseases such as heart attack, stroke, and heart failure significantly increases by 3.2%.
The authors also explained the possible effects of noise on changes in gene networks, epigenetic pathways, circadian rhythms, signal transmission along the neuronal-cardiovascular axis, oxidative stress, inflammation, and metabolism. Finally, current and future noise protection strategies are described, and the existing evidence on noise as a cardiovascular risk factor is discussed.
Confirmed Cardiovascular Risk Factor
“As an increasing proportion of the population is exposed to harmful traffic noise, efforts to reduce noise and laws for noise reduction are of great importance for future public health,” said Dr. Münzel. “It is also important for us that due to the strong evidence, traffic noise is finally recognized as a risk factor for cardiovascular diseases.”
Heart Attack Outcomes
Dr. Münzel and other researchers from Mainz have been studying the cardiovascular consequences of air pollution and traffic noise for several years. For example, they found that heart attacks in people and animals exposed to high noise levels earlier in life healed poorly. These results were published last year in Cardiovascular Research. According to the authors, the findings suggest that traffic noise may play a significant role in the development and course of coronary heart disease, such as after a heart attack.
The scientists initially found in animal experiments that exposure to aircraft noise for 4 days led to increased inflammation in the vessels. Compared with mice not exposed to aircraft noise, the noise-exposed animals showed an increase in free radicals; these animals exhibited a significant inflammatory response and had impaired vessel function.
The researchers explained that the experimental data showed aircraft noise alone triggers a proinflammatory transcription program that promotes the infiltration of immune cells into cardiovascular tissue in animals with acute myocardial infarction. They noted an increased infiltration of CD45+ cells into the vessels and heart, dominated by neutrophils in vessel tissue and Ly6Chigh monocytes in heart tissue. This infiltration creates a proinflammatory milieu that adversely affects the outcome after myocardial infarction by predisposing the heart tissue to greater ischemic damage and functional impairment. Exposure of animals to aircraft noise before induction of myocardial infarction by left anterior descending (LAD) coronary artery ligation impaired left ventricular function and increased infarct size after cardiac ischemia. In addition, noise exposure exacerbated infarct-induced endothelial dysfunction of peripheral vessels as early as 24 hours after LAD ligation.
Clinical Confirmation
These experimental results were confirmed by observations in the population-based Gutenberg Health Study. The researchers analyzed data from 100 patients with heart attack. The lead and senior authors of the study Michael Molitor, MD, and Philip Wenzel, MD, of the University of Mainz, explained, “From our studies, we have learned that exposure to aircraft noise before a heart attack significantly amplifies subsequent cardiovascular inflammation and exacerbates ischemic heart failure, which is favored by inflammation-promoting vascular conditioning. Our translational results show that people who have been exposed to noise in the past have a worse course if they experience a heart attack later in life.”
Study participants who had experienced a heart attack in their medical history had elevated levels of C-reactive protein if they had been exposed to aircraft noise in the past and subsequently developed noise annoyance reactions (0.305 vs 1.5; P = .0094). In addition, left ventricular ejection fraction in these patients after a heart attack was worse than that in patients with infarction without noise exposure in their medical history (62.5 vs 65.6; P = .0053).
The results suggest that measures to reduce environmental noise could help improve the clinical outcomes of heart attack patients, according to the authors.
Mental Health Effects
Traffic noise also may be associated with an increased risk for depression and anxiety disorders, as reported 2 years ago by the German Society for Psychosomatic Medicine and Medical Psychotherapy. Evolution has programmed the human organism to perceive noises as indicators of potential sources of danger — even during sleep. “Noise puts the body on alert,” explained Manfred E. Beutel, MD, director of the Clinic for Psychosomatic Medicine and Psychotherapy at the University of Mainz. As a result, the autonomic nervous system activates stress hormones such as adrenaline and cortisol, leading to an increase in heart rate and blood pressure. If noise becomes chronic, chronic diseases can develop. “Indeed, observational and experimental studies have shown that persistent noise annoyance promotes incident hypertension, cardiovascular diseases, and type 2 diabetes,” said Dr. Beutel.
Depression Risk Doubled
Among the negative effects of noise annoyance are also mental illnesses, as has become increasingly clear. “Noise annoyance disrupts daily activities and interferes with feelings and thoughts, sleep, and recovery,” said Dr. Beutel. The interruptions trigger negative emotional reactions such as anger, distress, exhaustion, flight impulses, and stress symptoms. “Such conditions promote the development of depression over time,” said Dr. Beutel. This observation was confirmed by the large-scale Gutenberg Health Study using the example of the Mainz population, which suffers to a large extent from noise annoyance because of the nearby Frankfurt Airport. “With increasing noise annoyance, the rates of depression and anxiety disorders steadily increased, until the risks eventually doubled with extreme annoyance,” said Dr. Beutel. Other studies point in the same direction. For example, a meta-analysis found a 12% increase in the risk for depression per 10-dB increase in noise. Another study found an association between nocturnal noise annoyance and the use of antidepressants.
Fine Particulate Matter
According to an evaluation of the Gutenberg Study, people perceive noise annoyance from aircraft noise as the most pronounced, followed by road, neighborhood, industrial, and railway noise. Noise occurs most frequently in urban areas that also produce air pollution such as fine particulate matter. “Fine particulate matter is also suspected of promoting anxiety and depression,” said Dr. Beutel, “because the small particles of fine particulate matter can enter the bloodstream and trigger inflammatory processes there, which in turn are closely related to depression.”
This story was translated from Univadis Germany, which is part of the Medscape professional network, using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Hereditary Amyloidosis: 5 Things to Know
Amyloidosis is a condition marked by the accumulation of insoluble beta-sheet fibrillar protein aggregates in tissues that can be acquired or hereditary. Hereditary amyloidogenic transthyretin (hATTR) amyloidosis is an autosomal-dominant disease caused by pathogenic variants in the TTR gene. The TTR protein is essential for transporting thyroxine and retinol-binding protein and is primarily synthesized in the liver, becoming unstable as a result of the pathogenic mutations. Inherited pathogenic variants lead to the protein’s misfolding, aggregation, and deposition as amyloid fibrils in different organs, resulting in progressive multisystem dysfunction. hATTR amyloidosis is a heterogenous disease, characterized by a wide range of clinical manifestations affecting the peripheral (both somatic and autonomic) nervous system, heart, kidneys, and central nervous system (CNS); however, the heart and peripheral nerves appear to be the main targets of the TTR-related pathologic process. Without treatment, the prognosis is poor, with an average life expectancy of 7-11 years; however, in recent years, the development of new therapeutics has brought new hope to patients.
Here are five things to know about hereditary amyloidosis.
1. Diagnosis of hereditary amyloidosis requires a high level of suspicion.
The diagnosis of hATTR amyloidosis presents a significant challenge, particularly in nonendemic regions where a lack of family history and heterogeneity of clinical presentation can delay diagnosis by 4-5 years. A timely diagnosis requires clinicians to maintain a high index of suspicion, especially when evaluating patients with neuropathic symptoms. Early diagnosis is crucial to begin patients on recently available disease-modifying therapies that can slow the disease course. Failure to recognize is the major barrier to improved patient outcomes.
Confirming the diagnosis involves detecting amyloid deposits in tissue biopsy specimens from various possible sites, including the skin, nerves, myocardium, and others. However, the diagnosis can be challenging owing to the uneven distribution of amyloid fibrils, sometimes requiring multiple biopsies or alternative diagnostic approaches, such as TTR gene sequencing, to confirm the presence of an amyloidogenic pathogenic variant. Biopsy for hATTR amyloidosis is not required if imaging of the clinical phenotype and genetic testing are consistent.
Once diagnosed, the assessment of organ involvement is essential, using nerve conduction studies, cardiac investigations (eg, echocardiography, ECG, scintigraphy), ophthalmologic assessments, and complete renal function evaluations to fully understand the extent of disease impact.
2. Hereditary amyloidosis diseases are classified into two primary categories.
Hereditary amyloidosis represents a group of diseases caused by inherited gene mutations and is classified into two main types: ATTR (transthyretin-related) and non-TTR. Most cases of hereditary amyloidosis are associated with the TTR gene. Mutations in this protein lead to different forms of ATTR amyloidosis, categorized on the basis of the specific mutation involved, such as hATTR50M (genotype Val50Met), which is the most prevalent form.
ATTR mutations result in a variety of health issues, manifesting in three primary forms:
- Neuropathic ATTR (genotype Val50Met): Early symptoms include sensorimotor polyneuropathy of the legs, carpal tunnel syndrome, autonomic dysfunction, constipation/diarrhea, and impotence; late symptoms include cardiomyopathy, vitreous opacities, glaucoma, nephropathy, and CNS symptoms.
- Cardiac ATTR (genotype Val142Ile): This type is characterized by cardiomegaly, conduction block, arrhythmia, anginal pain, congestive heart failure, and sudden death.
- Leptomeningeal ATTR (genotype Asp38Gly): This is characterized by transient focal neurologic episodes, intracerebral and/or subarachnoid hemorrhages, dementia, ataxia, and psychosis.
Non-TTR amyloidoses are rarer than are ATTR variations and involve mutations in different genes that also have significant health impacts. These include proteins such as apolipoprotein AI, fibrinogen A alpha, lysozyme, apolipoprotein AII, gelsolin, and cystatin C. Each type contributes to a range of symptoms and requires individualized management approaches.
3. Heightened disease awareness has increased the recognized prevalence of hereditary amyloidosis.
hATTR amyloidosis has historically been recognized as a rare disease, with significant clusters in Portugal, Brazil, Sweden, and Japan and alongside smaller foci in regions such as Cyprus and Majorca. This disease›s variable incidence across Europe is now perceived to be on the rise. It is attributed to heightened disease awareness among healthcare providers and the broader availability of genetic testing, extending its recognized impact to at least 29 countries globally. The genetic landscape of hATTR amyloidosis is diverse, with over 140 mutations identified in the TTR gene. Among these, the Val50Met mutation is particularly notable for its association with large patient clusters in the endemic regions.
Morbidity and mortality associated with hATTR amyloidosis are significant, with an average lifespan of 7-11 years post diagnosis; however, survival rates can vary widely depending on the specific genetic variant and organ involvement. Early diagnosis can substantially improve outcomes; yet, for many, the prognosis remains poor, especially in cases dominated by cardiomyopathy. Genetics play a central role in the disease›s transmission, with autosomal-dominant inheritance patterns and high penetrance among carriers of pathogenic mutations. Research continues to uncover the broad spectrum of genetic variations contributing to hATTR amyloidosis, with ongoing studies poised to expand our understanding of its molecular underpinnings and potential treatment options.
4. The effect on quality of life is significant both in patients living with hATTR amyloidosis and their caregivers.
hATTR amyloidosis imposes a multifaceted burden on patients and their caregivers as the disease progresses. Symptoms range from sensorimotor impairment and gastrointestinal or autonomic dysfunction to heart failure, leading to significant health-related quality-of-life deficits. The systemic nature of hATTR amyloidosis significantly affects patients› lifestyles, daily activities, and general well-being, especially because it typically manifests in adulthood — a crucial time for occupational changes. The progression of hATTR amyloidosis exacerbates the challenges in maintaining employment and managing household chores, with symptomatic patients often unable to work and experiencing difficulties with absenteeism and presenteeism when they are able to work.
hATTR amyloidosis leads to physical, mental, occupational, and social limitations for patients, and it also places a considerable strain on their families and caregivers, who report poor mental health, work impairment, and a high time commitment (mean, 45.9 h/wk) to providing care.
5. There have been significant advancements in therapeutic options for early-stage hATTR amyloidosis.
After diagnosis, prompt initiation of treatment is recommended to delay the progression of hATTR amyloidosis; a multidisciplinary approach is essential, incorporating anti-amyloid therapy to inhibit further production and/or deposition of amyloid aggregates. Treatment strategies also include addressing symptomatic therapy and managing cardiac, renal, and ocular involvement. Although many therapies have been developed, especially for the early stages of hATTR amyloidosis, therapeutic benefits for patients with advanced disease remain limited.
Recent advancements in the treatment of hATTR amyloidosis have introduced RNA-targeted therapies including patisiran, vutrisiran, and eplontersen, which have shown efficacy in reducing hepatic TTR synthesis and the aggregation of misfolded monomers into amyloid deposits. These therapies, ranging from small interfering RNA formulations to antisense oligonucleotides, offer benefits in managing both cardiomyopathy and neuropathy associated with hATTR amyloidosis , administered through various methods, including intravenous infusions and subcutaneous injections. In addition, the stabilization of TTR tetramers with the use of drugs such as tafamidis and diflunisal has effectively prevented the formation of amyloidogenic monomers. Moreover, other investigational agents, including TTR stabilizers like acoramidis and tolcapone, as well as novel compounds that inhibit amyloid formation and disrupt fibrils, are expanding the therapeutic landscape for hATTR amyloidosis , providing hope for improved management of this complex condition.
Dr. Gertz is a professor and consultant in the Department of Hematology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota. He has disclosed the following relevant financial relationships: Received income in an amount equal to or greater than $250 from AstraZeneca, Ionis, and Alnylym.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Amyloidosis is a condition marked by the accumulation of insoluble beta-sheet fibrillar protein aggregates in tissues that can be acquired or hereditary. Hereditary amyloidogenic transthyretin (hATTR) amyloidosis is an autosomal-dominant disease caused by pathogenic variants in the TTR gene. The TTR protein is essential for transporting thyroxine and retinol-binding protein and is primarily synthesized in the liver, becoming unstable as a result of the pathogenic mutations. Inherited pathogenic variants lead to the protein’s misfolding, aggregation, and deposition as amyloid fibrils in different organs, resulting in progressive multisystem dysfunction. hATTR amyloidosis is a heterogenous disease, characterized by a wide range of clinical manifestations affecting the peripheral (both somatic and autonomic) nervous system, heart, kidneys, and central nervous system (CNS); however, the heart and peripheral nerves appear to be the main targets of the TTR-related pathologic process. Without treatment, the prognosis is poor, with an average life expectancy of 7-11 years; however, in recent years, the development of new therapeutics has brought new hope to patients.
Here are five things to know about hereditary amyloidosis.
1. Diagnosis of hereditary amyloidosis requires a high level of suspicion.
The diagnosis of hATTR amyloidosis presents a significant challenge, particularly in nonendemic regions where a lack of family history and heterogeneity of clinical presentation can delay diagnosis by 4-5 years. A timely diagnosis requires clinicians to maintain a high index of suspicion, especially when evaluating patients with neuropathic symptoms. Early diagnosis is crucial to begin patients on recently available disease-modifying therapies that can slow the disease course. Failure to recognize is the major barrier to improved patient outcomes.
Confirming the diagnosis involves detecting amyloid deposits in tissue biopsy specimens from various possible sites, including the skin, nerves, myocardium, and others. However, the diagnosis can be challenging owing to the uneven distribution of amyloid fibrils, sometimes requiring multiple biopsies or alternative diagnostic approaches, such as TTR gene sequencing, to confirm the presence of an amyloidogenic pathogenic variant. Biopsy for hATTR amyloidosis is not required if imaging of the clinical phenotype and genetic testing are consistent.
Once diagnosed, the assessment of organ involvement is essential, using nerve conduction studies, cardiac investigations (eg, echocardiography, ECG, scintigraphy), ophthalmologic assessments, and complete renal function evaluations to fully understand the extent of disease impact.
2. Hereditary amyloidosis diseases are classified into two primary categories.
Hereditary amyloidosis represents a group of diseases caused by inherited gene mutations and is classified into two main types: ATTR (transthyretin-related) and non-TTR. Most cases of hereditary amyloidosis are associated with the TTR gene. Mutations in this protein lead to different forms of ATTR amyloidosis, categorized on the basis of the specific mutation involved, such as hATTR50M (genotype Val50Met), which is the most prevalent form.
ATTR mutations result in a variety of health issues, manifesting in three primary forms:
- Neuropathic ATTR (genotype Val50Met): Early symptoms include sensorimotor polyneuropathy of the legs, carpal tunnel syndrome, autonomic dysfunction, constipation/diarrhea, and impotence; late symptoms include cardiomyopathy, vitreous opacities, glaucoma, nephropathy, and CNS symptoms.
- Cardiac ATTR (genotype Val142Ile): This type is characterized by cardiomegaly, conduction block, arrhythmia, anginal pain, congestive heart failure, and sudden death.
- Leptomeningeal ATTR (genotype Asp38Gly): This is characterized by transient focal neurologic episodes, intracerebral and/or subarachnoid hemorrhages, dementia, ataxia, and psychosis.
Non-TTR amyloidoses are rarer than are ATTR variations and involve mutations in different genes that also have significant health impacts. These include proteins such as apolipoprotein AI, fibrinogen A alpha, lysozyme, apolipoprotein AII, gelsolin, and cystatin C. Each type contributes to a range of symptoms and requires individualized management approaches.
3. Heightened disease awareness has increased the recognized prevalence of hereditary amyloidosis.
hATTR amyloidosis has historically been recognized as a rare disease, with significant clusters in Portugal, Brazil, Sweden, and Japan and alongside smaller foci in regions such as Cyprus and Majorca. This disease›s variable incidence across Europe is now perceived to be on the rise. It is attributed to heightened disease awareness among healthcare providers and the broader availability of genetic testing, extending its recognized impact to at least 29 countries globally. The genetic landscape of hATTR amyloidosis is diverse, with over 140 mutations identified in the TTR gene. Among these, the Val50Met mutation is particularly notable for its association with large patient clusters in the endemic regions.
Morbidity and mortality associated with hATTR amyloidosis are significant, with an average lifespan of 7-11 years post diagnosis; however, survival rates can vary widely depending on the specific genetic variant and organ involvement. Early diagnosis can substantially improve outcomes; yet, for many, the prognosis remains poor, especially in cases dominated by cardiomyopathy. Genetics play a central role in the disease›s transmission, with autosomal-dominant inheritance patterns and high penetrance among carriers of pathogenic mutations. Research continues to uncover the broad spectrum of genetic variations contributing to hATTR amyloidosis, with ongoing studies poised to expand our understanding of its molecular underpinnings and potential treatment options.
4. The effect on quality of life is significant both in patients living with hATTR amyloidosis and their caregivers.
hATTR amyloidosis imposes a multifaceted burden on patients and their caregivers as the disease progresses. Symptoms range from sensorimotor impairment and gastrointestinal or autonomic dysfunction to heart failure, leading to significant health-related quality-of-life deficits. The systemic nature of hATTR amyloidosis significantly affects patients› lifestyles, daily activities, and general well-being, especially because it typically manifests in adulthood — a crucial time for occupational changes. The progression of hATTR amyloidosis exacerbates the challenges in maintaining employment and managing household chores, with symptomatic patients often unable to work and experiencing difficulties with absenteeism and presenteeism when they are able to work.
hATTR amyloidosis leads to physical, mental, occupational, and social limitations for patients, and it also places a considerable strain on their families and caregivers, who report poor mental health, work impairment, and a high time commitment (mean, 45.9 h/wk) to providing care.
5. There have been significant advancements in therapeutic options for early-stage hATTR amyloidosis.
After diagnosis, prompt initiation of treatment is recommended to delay the progression of hATTR amyloidosis; a multidisciplinary approach is essential, incorporating anti-amyloid therapy to inhibit further production and/or deposition of amyloid aggregates. Treatment strategies also include addressing symptomatic therapy and managing cardiac, renal, and ocular involvement. Although many therapies have been developed, especially for the early stages of hATTR amyloidosis, therapeutic benefits for patients with advanced disease remain limited.
Recent advancements in the treatment of hATTR amyloidosis have introduced RNA-targeted therapies including patisiran, vutrisiran, and eplontersen, which have shown efficacy in reducing hepatic TTR synthesis and the aggregation of misfolded monomers into amyloid deposits. These therapies, ranging from small interfering RNA formulations to antisense oligonucleotides, offer benefits in managing both cardiomyopathy and neuropathy associated with hATTR amyloidosis , administered through various methods, including intravenous infusions and subcutaneous injections. In addition, the stabilization of TTR tetramers with the use of drugs such as tafamidis and diflunisal has effectively prevented the formation of amyloidogenic monomers. Moreover, other investigational agents, including TTR stabilizers like acoramidis and tolcapone, as well as novel compounds that inhibit amyloid formation and disrupt fibrils, are expanding the therapeutic landscape for hATTR amyloidosis , providing hope for improved management of this complex condition.
Dr. Gertz is a professor and consultant in the Department of Hematology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota. He has disclosed the following relevant financial relationships: Received income in an amount equal to or greater than $250 from AstraZeneca, Ionis, and Alnylym.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Amyloidosis is a condition marked by the accumulation of insoluble beta-sheet fibrillar protein aggregates in tissues that can be acquired or hereditary. Hereditary amyloidogenic transthyretin (hATTR) amyloidosis is an autosomal-dominant disease caused by pathogenic variants in the TTR gene. The TTR protein is essential for transporting thyroxine and retinol-binding protein and is primarily synthesized in the liver, becoming unstable as a result of the pathogenic mutations. Inherited pathogenic variants lead to the protein’s misfolding, aggregation, and deposition as amyloid fibrils in different organs, resulting in progressive multisystem dysfunction. hATTR amyloidosis is a heterogenous disease, characterized by a wide range of clinical manifestations affecting the peripheral (both somatic and autonomic) nervous system, heart, kidneys, and central nervous system (CNS); however, the heart and peripheral nerves appear to be the main targets of the TTR-related pathologic process. Without treatment, the prognosis is poor, with an average life expectancy of 7-11 years; however, in recent years, the development of new therapeutics has brought new hope to patients.
Here are five things to know about hereditary amyloidosis.
1. Diagnosis of hereditary amyloidosis requires a high level of suspicion.
The diagnosis of hATTR amyloidosis presents a significant challenge, particularly in nonendemic regions where a lack of family history and heterogeneity of clinical presentation can delay diagnosis by 4-5 years. A timely diagnosis requires clinicians to maintain a high index of suspicion, especially when evaluating patients with neuropathic symptoms. Early diagnosis is crucial to begin patients on recently available disease-modifying therapies that can slow the disease course. Failure to recognize is the major barrier to improved patient outcomes.
Confirming the diagnosis involves detecting amyloid deposits in tissue biopsy specimens from various possible sites, including the skin, nerves, myocardium, and others. However, the diagnosis can be challenging owing to the uneven distribution of amyloid fibrils, sometimes requiring multiple biopsies or alternative diagnostic approaches, such as TTR gene sequencing, to confirm the presence of an amyloidogenic pathogenic variant. Biopsy for hATTR amyloidosis is not required if imaging of the clinical phenotype and genetic testing are consistent.
Once diagnosed, the assessment of organ involvement is essential, using nerve conduction studies, cardiac investigations (eg, echocardiography, ECG, scintigraphy), ophthalmologic assessments, and complete renal function evaluations to fully understand the extent of disease impact.
2. Hereditary amyloidosis diseases are classified into two primary categories.
Hereditary amyloidosis represents a group of diseases caused by inherited gene mutations and is classified into two main types: ATTR (transthyretin-related) and non-TTR. Most cases of hereditary amyloidosis are associated with the TTR gene. Mutations in this protein lead to different forms of ATTR amyloidosis, categorized on the basis of the specific mutation involved, such as hATTR50M (genotype Val50Met), which is the most prevalent form.
ATTR mutations result in a variety of health issues, manifesting in three primary forms:
- Neuropathic ATTR (genotype Val50Met): Early symptoms include sensorimotor polyneuropathy of the legs, carpal tunnel syndrome, autonomic dysfunction, constipation/diarrhea, and impotence; late symptoms include cardiomyopathy, vitreous opacities, glaucoma, nephropathy, and CNS symptoms.
- Cardiac ATTR (genotype Val142Ile): This type is characterized by cardiomegaly, conduction block, arrhythmia, anginal pain, congestive heart failure, and sudden death.
- Leptomeningeal ATTR (genotype Asp38Gly): This is characterized by transient focal neurologic episodes, intracerebral and/or subarachnoid hemorrhages, dementia, ataxia, and psychosis.
Non-TTR amyloidoses are rarer than are ATTR variations and involve mutations in different genes that also have significant health impacts. These include proteins such as apolipoprotein AI, fibrinogen A alpha, lysozyme, apolipoprotein AII, gelsolin, and cystatin C. Each type contributes to a range of symptoms and requires individualized management approaches.
3. Heightened disease awareness has increased the recognized prevalence of hereditary amyloidosis.
hATTR amyloidosis has historically been recognized as a rare disease, with significant clusters in Portugal, Brazil, Sweden, and Japan and alongside smaller foci in regions such as Cyprus and Majorca. This disease›s variable incidence across Europe is now perceived to be on the rise. It is attributed to heightened disease awareness among healthcare providers and the broader availability of genetic testing, extending its recognized impact to at least 29 countries globally. The genetic landscape of hATTR amyloidosis is diverse, with over 140 mutations identified in the TTR gene. Among these, the Val50Met mutation is particularly notable for its association with large patient clusters in the endemic regions.
Morbidity and mortality associated with hATTR amyloidosis are significant, with an average lifespan of 7-11 years post diagnosis; however, survival rates can vary widely depending on the specific genetic variant and organ involvement. Early diagnosis can substantially improve outcomes; yet, for many, the prognosis remains poor, especially in cases dominated by cardiomyopathy. Genetics play a central role in the disease›s transmission, with autosomal-dominant inheritance patterns and high penetrance among carriers of pathogenic mutations. Research continues to uncover the broad spectrum of genetic variations contributing to hATTR amyloidosis, with ongoing studies poised to expand our understanding of its molecular underpinnings and potential treatment options.
4. The effect on quality of life is significant both in patients living with hATTR amyloidosis and their caregivers.
hATTR amyloidosis imposes a multifaceted burden on patients and their caregivers as the disease progresses. Symptoms range from sensorimotor impairment and gastrointestinal or autonomic dysfunction to heart failure, leading to significant health-related quality-of-life deficits. The systemic nature of hATTR amyloidosis significantly affects patients› lifestyles, daily activities, and general well-being, especially because it typically manifests in adulthood — a crucial time for occupational changes. The progression of hATTR amyloidosis exacerbates the challenges in maintaining employment and managing household chores, with symptomatic patients often unable to work and experiencing difficulties with absenteeism and presenteeism when they are able to work.
hATTR amyloidosis leads to physical, mental, occupational, and social limitations for patients, and it also places a considerable strain on their families and caregivers, who report poor mental health, work impairment, and a high time commitment (mean, 45.9 h/wk) to providing care.
5. There have been significant advancements in therapeutic options for early-stage hATTR amyloidosis.
After diagnosis, prompt initiation of treatment is recommended to delay the progression of hATTR amyloidosis; a multidisciplinary approach is essential, incorporating anti-amyloid therapy to inhibit further production and/or deposition of amyloid aggregates. Treatment strategies also include addressing symptomatic therapy and managing cardiac, renal, and ocular involvement. Although many therapies have been developed, especially for the early stages of hATTR amyloidosis, therapeutic benefits for patients with advanced disease remain limited.
Recent advancements in the treatment of hATTR amyloidosis have introduced RNA-targeted therapies including patisiran, vutrisiran, and eplontersen, which have shown efficacy in reducing hepatic TTR synthesis and the aggregation of misfolded monomers into amyloid deposits. These therapies, ranging from small interfering RNA formulations to antisense oligonucleotides, offer benefits in managing both cardiomyopathy and neuropathy associated with hATTR amyloidosis , administered through various methods, including intravenous infusions and subcutaneous injections. In addition, the stabilization of TTR tetramers with the use of drugs such as tafamidis and diflunisal has effectively prevented the formation of amyloidogenic monomers. Moreover, other investigational agents, including TTR stabilizers like acoramidis and tolcapone, as well as novel compounds that inhibit amyloid formation and disrupt fibrils, are expanding the therapeutic landscape for hATTR amyloidosis , providing hope for improved management of this complex condition.
Dr. Gertz is a professor and consultant in the Department of Hematology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota. He has disclosed the following relevant financial relationships: Received income in an amount equal to or greater than $250 from AstraZeneca, Ionis, and Alnylym.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Heart Failure the Most Common Complication of Atrial Fibrillation, Not Stroke
FROM BMJ
The lifetime risk of atrial fibrillation (AF) increased from 2000 to 2022 from one in four to one in three, a Danish population-based study of temporal trends found.
Heart failure was the most frequent complication linked to this arrhythmia, with a lifetime risk of two in five, twice that of stroke, according to investigators led by Nicklas Vinter, MD, PhD, a postdoctoral researcher at the Danish Center for Health Service Research in the Department of Clinical Medicine at Aalborg University, Denmark.
Published in BMJ, the study found the lifetime risks of post-AF stroke, ischemic stroke, and myocardial infarction improved only modestly over time and remained high, with virtually no improvement in the lifetime risk of heart failure.
“Our work provides novel lifetime risk estimates that are instrumental in facilitating effective risk communication between patients and their physicians,” Dr. Vinter said in an interview. “The knowledge of risks from a lifelong perspective may serve as a motivator for patients to commence or intensify preventive efforts.” AF patients could, for example, adopt healthier lifestyles or adhere to prescribed medications, Dr. Vinter explained.
“The substantial lifetime risk of heart failure following atrial fibrillation necessitates heightened attention to its prevention and early detection,” Dr. Vinter said. “Furthermore, the high lifetime risk of stroke remains a critical complication, which highlights the importance of continuous attention to the initiation and maintenance of oral anticoagulation therapy.”
The Study
The cohort consisted of 3.5 million individuals (51.7% women) who did not have AF as of age 45 or older. These individuals were followed until incident AF, migration, death, or end of follow-up, whichever came first.
All 362,721 individuals with incident AF (53.6% men) but no prevalent complication were further followed over two time periods (2000-2010 and 2011-2020) until incident heart failure, stroke, or myocardial infarction.
Among the findings:
- Lifetime AF risk increased from 24.2% in 2000-2010 to 30.9% in 2011-2022, for a difference of 6.7% (95% confidence interval [CI], 6.5%-6.8%).
- Lifetime AF risk rose across all subgroups over time, with a larger increase in men and individuals with heart failure, myocardial infarction, stroke, diabetes, and chronic kidney disease.
- Lifetime risk of heart failure was 42.9% in 2000-2010 and 42.1% in 2011-2022, for a difference of −0.8% (95% CI, −3.8% to 2.2%).
- The lifetime risks of post-AF stroke and of myocardial infarction decreased slightly between the two periods, from 22.4% to 19.9% for stroke (difference −2.5%, 95% CI, −4.2% to −0.7%) and from 13.7% to 9.8% for myocardial infarction (−3.9%, 95% CI, −5.3% to −2.4%). No differential decrease between men and women emerged.
“Our novel quantification of the long-term downstream consequences of atrial fibrillation highlights the critical need for treatments to further decrease stroke risk as well as for heart failure prevention strategies among patients with atrial fibrillation,” the Danish researchers wrote.
Offering an outsider’s perspective, John P. Higgins, MD, MBA, MPhil, a sports cardiologist at McGovern Medical School at The University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston, said, “Think of atrial fibrillation as a barometer of underlying stress on the heart. When blood pressure is high, or a patient has underlying asymptomatic coronary artery disease or heart failure, they are more likely to have episodes of atrial fibrillation.”
According to Dr. Higgins, risk factors for AF are underappreciated in the United States and elsewhere, and primary care doctors need to be aware of them. “We should try to identify these risk factors and do primary prevention to improve risk factors to reduce the progression to heart failure and myocardial infarction and stroke. But lifelong prevention is even better, he added. “Doing things to prevent actually getting risk factors in the first place. So a healthy lifestyle including exercise, diet, hydration, sleep, relaxation, social contact, and a little sunlight might be the long-term keys and starting them at a young age, too.”
In an accompanying editorial, Jianhua Wu, PhD, a professor of biostatistics and health data science with the Wolfson Institute of Population Health at Queen Mary University of London, and a colleague, cited the study’s robust observational research and called the analysis noteworthy for its quantification of the long-term risks of post-AF sequelae. They cautioned, however, that its grouping into two 10-year periods (2000-2010 and 2011-2020) came at the cost of losing temporal resolution. They also called out the lack of reporting on the ethnic composition of the study population, a factor that influences lifetime AF risk, and the absence of subgroup analysis by socioeconomic status, which affects incidence and outcomes.
The editorialists noted that while interventions to prevent stroke dominated AF research and guidelines during the study time period, no evidence suggests these interventions can prevent incident heart failure. “Alignment of both randomised clinical trials and guidelines to better reflect the needs of the real-world population with atrial fibrillation is necessary because further improvements to patient prognosis are likely to require a broader perspective on atrial fibrillation management beyond prevention of stroke,” they wrote.
In the meantime this study “challenges research priorities and guideline design, and raises critical questions for the research and clinical communities about how the growing burden of atrial fibrillation can be stopped,” they wrote.
This work was supported by the Danish Cardiovascular Academy, which is funded by the Novo Nordisk Foundation, and The Danish Heart Foundation. Dr. Vinter has been an advisory board member and consultant for AstraZeneca and has an institutional research grant from BMS/Pfizer unrelated to the current study. He reported personal consulting fees from BMS and Pfizer. Other coauthors disclosed research support from and/or consulting work for private industry, as well as grants from not-for-profit research-funding organizations. Dr. Higgins had no competing interest to declare. The editorial writers had no relevant financial interests to declare. Dr. Wu is supported by Barts Charity.
FROM BMJ
The lifetime risk of atrial fibrillation (AF) increased from 2000 to 2022 from one in four to one in three, a Danish population-based study of temporal trends found.
Heart failure was the most frequent complication linked to this arrhythmia, with a lifetime risk of two in five, twice that of stroke, according to investigators led by Nicklas Vinter, MD, PhD, a postdoctoral researcher at the Danish Center for Health Service Research in the Department of Clinical Medicine at Aalborg University, Denmark.
Published in BMJ, the study found the lifetime risks of post-AF stroke, ischemic stroke, and myocardial infarction improved only modestly over time and remained high, with virtually no improvement in the lifetime risk of heart failure.
“Our work provides novel lifetime risk estimates that are instrumental in facilitating effective risk communication between patients and their physicians,” Dr. Vinter said in an interview. “The knowledge of risks from a lifelong perspective may serve as a motivator for patients to commence or intensify preventive efforts.” AF patients could, for example, adopt healthier lifestyles or adhere to prescribed medications, Dr. Vinter explained.
“The substantial lifetime risk of heart failure following atrial fibrillation necessitates heightened attention to its prevention and early detection,” Dr. Vinter said. “Furthermore, the high lifetime risk of stroke remains a critical complication, which highlights the importance of continuous attention to the initiation and maintenance of oral anticoagulation therapy.”
The Study
The cohort consisted of 3.5 million individuals (51.7% women) who did not have AF as of age 45 or older. These individuals were followed until incident AF, migration, death, or end of follow-up, whichever came first.
All 362,721 individuals with incident AF (53.6% men) but no prevalent complication were further followed over two time periods (2000-2010 and 2011-2020) until incident heart failure, stroke, or myocardial infarction.
Among the findings:
- Lifetime AF risk increased from 24.2% in 2000-2010 to 30.9% in 2011-2022, for a difference of 6.7% (95% confidence interval [CI], 6.5%-6.8%).
- Lifetime AF risk rose across all subgroups over time, with a larger increase in men and individuals with heart failure, myocardial infarction, stroke, diabetes, and chronic kidney disease.
- Lifetime risk of heart failure was 42.9% in 2000-2010 and 42.1% in 2011-2022, for a difference of −0.8% (95% CI, −3.8% to 2.2%).
- The lifetime risks of post-AF stroke and of myocardial infarction decreased slightly between the two periods, from 22.4% to 19.9% for stroke (difference −2.5%, 95% CI, −4.2% to −0.7%) and from 13.7% to 9.8% for myocardial infarction (−3.9%, 95% CI, −5.3% to −2.4%). No differential decrease between men and women emerged.
“Our novel quantification of the long-term downstream consequences of atrial fibrillation highlights the critical need for treatments to further decrease stroke risk as well as for heart failure prevention strategies among patients with atrial fibrillation,” the Danish researchers wrote.
Offering an outsider’s perspective, John P. Higgins, MD, MBA, MPhil, a sports cardiologist at McGovern Medical School at The University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston, said, “Think of atrial fibrillation as a barometer of underlying stress on the heart. When blood pressure is high, or a patient has underlying asymptomatic coronary artery disease or heart failure, they are more likely to have episodes of atrial fibrillation.”
According to Dr. Higgins, risk factors for AF are underappreciated in the United States and elsewhere, and primary care doctors need to be aware of them. “We should try to identify these risk factors and do primary prevention to improve risk factors to reduce the progression to heart failure and myocardial infarction and stroke. But lifelong prevention is even better, he added. “Doing things to prevent actually getting risk factors in the first place. So a healthy lifestyle including exercise, diet, hydration, sleep, relaxation, social contact, and a little sunlight might be the long-term keys and starting them at a young age, too.”
In an accompanying editorial, Jianhua Wu, PhD, a professor of biostatistics and health data science with the Wolfson Institute of Population Health at Queen Mary University of London, and a colleague, cited the study’s robust observational research and called the analysis noteworthy for its quantification of the long-term risks of post-AF sequelae. They cautioned, however, that its grouping into two 10-year periods (2000-2010 and 2011-2020) came at the cost of losing temporal resolution. They also called out the lack of reporting on the ethnic composition of the study population, a factor that influences lifetime AF risk, and the absence of subgroup analysis by socioeconomic status, which affects incidence and outcomes.
The editorialists noted that while interventions to prevent stroke dominated AF research and guidelines during the study time period, no evidence suggests these interventions can prevent incident heart failure. “Alignment of both randomised clinical trials and guidelines to better reflect the needs of the real-world population with atrial fibrillation is necessary because further improvements to patient prognosis are likely to require a broader perspective on atrial fibrillation management beyond prevention of stroke,” they wrote.
In the meantime this study “challenges research priorities and guideline design, and raises critical questions for the research and clinical communities about how the growing burden of atrial fibrillation can be stopped,” they wrote.
This work was supported by the Danish Cardiovascular Academy, which is funded by the Novo Nordisk Foundation, and The Danish Heart Foundation. Dr. Vinter has been an advisory board member and consultant for AstraZeneca and has an institutional research grant from BMS/Pfizer unrelated to the current study. He reported personal consulting fees from BMS and Pfizer. Other coauthors disclosed research support from and/or consulting work for private industry, as well as grants from not-for-profit research-funding organizations. Dr. Higgins had no competing interest to declare. The editorial writers had no relevant financial interests to declare. Dr. Wu is supported by Barts Charity.
FROM BMJ
The lifetime risk of atrial fibrillation (AF) increased from 2000 to 2022 from one in four to one in three, a Danish population-based study of temporal trends found.
Heart failure was the most frequent complication linked to this arrhythmia, with a lifetime risk of two in five, twice that of stroke, according to investigators led by Nicklas Vinter, MD, PhD, a postdoctoral researcher at the Danish Center for Health Service Research in the Department of Clinical Medicine at Aalborg University, Denmark.
Published in BMJ, the study found the lifetime risks of post-AF stroke, ischemic stroke, and myocardial infarction improved only modestly over time and remained high, with virtually no improvement in the lifetime risk of heart failure.
“Our work provides novel lifetime risk estimates that are instrumental in facilitating effective risk communication between patients and their physicians,” Dr. Vinter said in an interview. “The knowledge of risks from a lifelong perspective may serve as a motivator for patients to commence or intensify preventive efforts.” AF patients could, for example, adopt healthier lifestyles or adhere to prescribed medications, Dr. Vinter explained.
“The substantial lifetime risk of heart failure following atrial fibrillation necessitates heightened attention to its prevention and early detection,” Dr. Vinter said. “Furthermore, the high lifetime risk of stroke remains a critical complication, which highlights the importance of continuous attention to the initiation and maintenance of oral anticoagulation therapy.”
The Study
The cohort consisted of 3.5 million individuals (51.7% women) who did not have AF as of age 45 or older. These individuals were followed until incident AF, migration, death, or end of follow-up, whichever came first.
All 362,721 individuals with incident AF (53.6% men) but no prevalent complication were further followed over two time periods (2000-2010 and 2011-2020) until incident heart failure, stroke, or myocardial infarction.
Among the findings:
- Lifetime AF risk increased from 24.2% in 2000-2010 to 30.9% in 2011-2022, for a difference of 6.7% (95% confidence interval [CI], 6.5%-6.8%).
- Lifetime AF risk rose across all subgroups over time, with a larger increase in men and individuals with heart failure, myocardial infarction, stroke, diabetes, and chronic kidney disease.
- Lifetime risk of heart failure was 42.9% in 2000-2010 and 42.1% in 2011-2022, for a difference of −0.8% (95% CI, −3.8% to 2.2%).
- The lifetime risks of post-AF stroke and of myocardial infarction decreased slightly between the two periods, from 22.4% to 19.9% for stroke (difference −2.5%, 95% CI, −4.2% to −0.7%) and from 13.7% to 9.8% for myocardial infarction (−3.9%, 95% CI, −5.3% to −2.4%). No differential decrease between men and women emerged.
“Our novel quantification of the long-term downstream consequences of atrial fibrillation highlights the critical need for treatments to further decrease stroke risk as well as for heart failure prevention strategies among patients with atrial fibrillation,” the Danish researchers wrote.
Offering an outsider’s perspective, John P. Higgins, MD, MBA, MPhil, a sports cardiologist at McGovern Medical School at The University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston, said, “Think of atrial fibrillation as a barometer of underlying stress on the heart. When blood pressure is high, or a patient has underlying asymptomatic coronary artery disease or heart failure, they are more likely to have episodes of atrial fibrillation.”
According to Dr. Higgins, risk factors for AF are underappreciated in the United States and elsewhere, and primary care doctors need to be aware of them. “We should try to identify these risk factors and do primary prevention to improve risk factors to reduce the progression to heart failure and myocardial infarction and stroke. But lifelong prevention is even better, he added. “Doing things to prevent actually getting risk factors in the first place. So a healthy lifestyle including exercise, diet, hydration, sleep, relaxation, social contact, and a little sunlight might be the long-term keys and starting them at a young age, too.”
In an accompanying editorial, Jianhua Wu, PhD, a professor of biostatistics and health data science with the Wolfson Institute of Population Health at Queen Mary University of London, and a colleague, cited the study’s robust observational research and called the analysis noteworthy for its quantification of the long-term risks of post-AF sequelae. They cautioned, however, that its grouping into two 10-year periods (2000-2010 and 2011-2020) came at the cost of losing temporal resolution. They also called out the lack of reporting on the ethnic composition of the study population, a factor that influences lifetime AF risk, and the absence of subgroup analysis by socioeconomic status, which affects incidence and outcomes.
The editorialists noted that while interventions to prevent stroke dominated AF research and guidelines during the study time period, no evidence suggests these interventions can prevent incident heart failure. “Alignment of both randomised clinical trials and guidelines to better reflect the needs of the real-world population with atrial fibrillation is necessary because further improvements to patient prognosis are likely to require a broader perspective on atrial fibrillation management beyond prevention of stroke,” they wrote.
In the meantime this study “challenges research priorities and guideline design, and raises critical questions for the research and clinical communities about how the growing burden of atrial fibrillation can be stopped,” they wrote.
This work was supported by the Danish Cardiovascular Academy, which is funded by the Novo Nordisk Foundation, and The Danish Heart Foundation. Dr. Vinter has been an advisory board member and consultant for AstraZeneca and has an institutional research grant from BMS/Pfizer unrelated to the current study. He reported personal consulting fees from BMS and Pfizer. Other coauthors disclosed research support from and/or consulting work for private industry, as well as grants from not-for-profit research-funding organizations. Dr. Higgins had no competing interest to declare. The editorial writers had no relevant financial interests to declare. Dr. Wu is supported by Barts Charity.
Consider Skin Cancer, Infection Risks in Solid Organ Transplant Recipients
SAN DIEGO — because of their suppressed immune systems.
“There are over 450,000 people with a solid organ transplant living in the United States. If you do the math, that works out to about 40 organ transplant recipients for every dermatologist, so there’s a lot of them out there for us to take care of,” Sean Christensen, MD, PhD, associate professor of dermatology, Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut, said at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology (AAD). “If we expand that umbrella to include all types of immunosuppression, that’s over 4 million adults in the US.”
Dr. Christensen encouraged dermatologists to be aware of the varying risks for immunosuppressive drugs and best screening practices for these patients, and to take advantage of a validated skin cancer risk assessment tool for transplant patients.
During his presentation, he highlighted five classes of immunosuppressive drugs and their associated skin cancer risks:
- Calcineurin inhibitors (tacrolimus or cyclosporine), which cause severe immune suppression and pose a severe skin cancer risk. They may also cause gingival hyperplasia and sebaceous hyperplasia.
- Antimetabolites (mycophenolate mofetil or azathioprine), which cause moderate to severe immune suppression and pose a severe skin cancer risk.
- Mammalian target of rapamycin inhibitors (sirolimus or everolimus), which cause severe immune suppression and pose a moderate skin cancer risk. They also impair wound healing.
- Corticosteroids (prednisone), which cause mild to severe immune suppression and pose a minimal skin cancer risk.
- A decoy receptor protein (belatacept), which causes severe immune suppression and poses a mild skin cancer risk.
“Most of our solid-organ transplant recipients will be on both a calcineurin inhibitor and an antimetabolite,” Dr. Christensen said. “In addition to the skin cancer risk associated with immunosuppression, there is an additive risk” that is a direct effect of these medications on the skin. “That means our transplant recipients have a severely and disproportionate increase in skin cancer,” he noted.
Up to half of solid-organ transplant recipients will develop skin cancer, Dr. Christensen said. These patients have a sixfold to 10-fold increased risk for basal cell carcinoma (BCC), a 35- to 65-fold increased risk for squamous cell carcinoma (SCC), a twofold to sevenfold increased risk for melanoma, and a 16- to 100-fold increased risk for Merkel cell carcinoma.
Transplant recipients with SCC, he said, have a twofold to threefold higher risk for metastasis (4%-8% nodal metastasis) and twofold to fivefold higher risk for death (2%-7% mortality) from SCC.
As for other kinds of immunosuppression, HIV positivity, treatment with 6-mercaptopurine or azathioprine (for inflammatory bowel disease and rheumatoid arthritis), and antitumor necrosis factor agents (for psoriasis, inflammatory bowel disease, and rheumatoid arthritis) have been linked in studies to a higher risk for nonmelanoma skin cancer.
Dr. Christensen also highlighted graft-versus-host disease (GVHD). “It does look like there is a disproportionate and increased risk of SCC of the oropharynx and of the skin in patients who have chronic GVHD. This is probably due to a combination of both the immunosuppressive medications that are required but also from chronic and ongoing inflammation in the skin.”
Chronic GVHD has been linked to a 5.3-fold increase in the risk for SCC and a twofold increase in the risk for BCC, he added.
Moreover, new medications for treating GVHD have been linked to an increased risk for SCC, including a 3.2-fold increased risk for SCC associated with ruxolitinib, a Janus kinase (JAK) 1 and JAK2 inhibitor, in a study of patients with polycythemia vera and myelofibrosis; and a case report of SCC in a patient treated with belumosudil, a rho-associated coiled-coil-containing protein kinase-2 kinase inhibitor, for chronic GVHD. Risk for SCC appears to increase based on duration of use with voriconazole, an antifungal, which, he said, is a potent photosynthesizer.
Dr. Christensen also noted the higher risk for infections in immunocompromised patients and added that these patients can develop inflammatory disease despite immunosuppression:
Staphylococcus, Streptococcus, and Dermatophytes are the most common skin pathogens in these patients. There’s a significantly increased risk for reactivation of herpes simplex, varicella-zoster viruses, and cytomegalovirus. Opportunistic and disseminated fungal infections, such as mycobacteria, Candida, histoplasma, cryptococcus, aspergillus, and mucormycosis, can also appear.
More than 80% of transplant recipients develop molluscum and verruca vulgaris/human papillomavirus infection. They may also develop noninfectious inflammatory dermatoses.
Risk Calculator
What can dermatologists do to help transplant patients? Dr. Christensen highlighted the Skin and UV Neoplasia Transplant Risk Assessment Calculator, which predicts skin cancer risk based on points given for race, gender, skin cancer history, age at transplant, and site of transplant.
The tool, validated in a 2023 study of transplant recipients in Europe, is available online and as an app. It makes recommendations to users about when patients should have initial skin screening exams. Those with the most risk — 45% at 5 years — should be screened within 6 months. “We can use [the tool] to triage these cases when we first meet them and get them plugged into the appropriate care,” Dr. Christensen said.
He recommended seeing high-risk patients at least annually. Patients with a prior SCC and a heavy burden of actinic keratosis should be followed more frequently, he said.
In regard to SCC, he highlighted a 2024 study of solid organ transplant recipients that found the risk for a second SCC after a first SCC was 74%, the risk for a third SCC after a second SCC was 83%, and the risk for another SCC after five SCCs was 92%.
Dr. Christensen disclosed relationships with Canfield Scientific Inc. (consulting), Inhibitor Therapeutics (advisory board), and Sol-Gel Technologies Ltd. (grants/research funding).
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
SAN DIEGO — because of their suppressed immune systems.
“There are over 450,000 people with a solid organ transplant living in the United States. If you do the math, that works out to about 40 organ transplant recipients for every dermatologist, so there’s a lot of them out there for us to take care of,” Sean Christensen, MD, PhD, associate professor of dermatology, Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut, said at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology (AAD). “If we expand that umbrella to include all types of immunosuppression, that’s over 4 million adults in the US.”
Dr. Christensen encouraged dermatologists to be aware of the varying risks for immunosuppressive drugs and best screening practices for these patients, and to take advantage of a validated skin cancer risk assessment tool for transplant patients.
During his presentation, he highlighted five classes of immunosuppressive drugs and their associated skin cancer risks:
- Calcineurin inhibitors (tacrolimus or cyclosporine), which cause severe immune suppression and pose a severe skin cancer risk. They may also cause gingival hyperplasia and sebaceous hyperplasia.
- Antimetabolites (mycophenolate mofetil or azathioprine), which cause moderate to severe immune suppression and pose a severe skin cancer risk.
- Mammalian target of rapamycin inhibitors (sirolimus or everolimus), which cause severe immune suppression and pose a moderate skin cancer risk. They also impair wound healing.
- Corticosteroids (prednisone), which cause mild to severe immune suppression and pose a minimal skin cancer risk.
- A decoy receptor protein (belatacept), which causes severe immune suppression and poses a mild skin cancer risk.
“Most of our solid-organ transplant recipients will be on both a calcineurin inhibitor and an antimetabolite,” Dr. Christensen said. “In addition to the skin cancer risk associated with immunosuppression, there is an additive risk” that is a direct effect of these medications on the skin. “That means our transplant recipients have a severely and disproportionate increase in skin cancer,” he noted.
Up to half of solid-organ transplant recipients will develop skin cancer, Dr. Christensen said. These patients have a sixfold to 10-fold increased risk for basal cell carcinoma (BCC), a 35- to 65-fold increased risk for squamous cell carcinoma (SCC), a twofold to sevenfold increased risk for melanoma, and a 16- to 100-fold increased risk for Merkel cell carcinoma.
Transplant recipients with SCC, he said, have a twofold to threefold higher risk for metastasis (4%-8% nodal metastasis) and twofold to fivefold higher risk for death (2%-7% mortality) from SCC.
As for other kinds of immunosuppression, HIV positivity, treatment with 6-mercaptopurine or azathioprine (for inflammatory bowel disease and rheumatoid arthritis), and antitumor necrosis factor agents (for psoriasis, inflammatory bowel disease, and rheumatoid arthritis) have been linked in studies to a higher risk for nonmelanoma skin cancer.
Dr. Christensen also highlighted graft-versus-host disease (GVHD). “It does look like there is a disproportionate and increased risk of SCC of the oropharynx and of the skin in patients who have chronic GVHD. This is probably due to a combination of both the immunosuppressive medications that are required but also from chronic and ongoing inflammation in the skin.”
Chronic GVHD has been linked to a 5.3-fold increase in the risk for SCC and a twofold increase in the risk for BCC, he added.
Moreover, new medications for treating GVHD have been linked to an increased risk for SCC, including a 3.2-fold increased risk for SCC associated with ruxolitinib, a Janus kinase (JAK) 1 and JAK2 inhibitor, in a study of patients with polycythemia vera and myelofibrosis; and a case report of SCC in a patient treated with belumosudil, a rho-associated coiled-coil-containing protein kinase-2 kinase inhibitor, for chronic GVHD. Risk for SCC appears to increase based on duration of use with voriconazole, an antifungal, which, he said, is a potent photosynthesizer.
Dr. Christensen also noted the higher risk for infections in immunocompromised patients and added that these patients can develop inflammatory disease despite immunosuppression:
Staphylococcus, Streptococcus, and Dermatophytes are the most common skin pathogens in these patients. There’s a significantly increased risk for reactivation of herpes simplex, varicella-zoster viruses, and cytomegalovirus. Opportunistic and disseminated fungal infections, such as mycobacteria, Candida, histoplasma, cryptococcus, aspergillus, and mucormycosis, can also appear.
More than 80% of transplant recipients develop molluscum and verruca vulgaris/human papillomavirus infection. They may also develop noninfectious inflammatory dermatoses.
Risk Calculator
What can dermatologists do to help transplant patients? Dr. Christensen highlighted the Skin and UV Neoplasia Transplant Risk Assessment Calculator, which predicts skin cancer risk based on points given for race, gender, skin cancer history, age at transplant, and site of transplant.
The tool, validated in a 2023 study of transplant recipients in Europe, is available online and as an app. It makes recommendations to users about when patients should have initial skin screening exams. Those with the most risk — 45% at 5 years — should be screened within 6 months. “We can use [the tool] to triage these cases when we first meet them and get them plugged into the appropriate care,” Dr. Christensen said.
He recommended seeing high-risk patients at least annually. Patients with a prior SCC and a heavy burden of actinic keratosis should be followed more frequently, he said.
In regard to SCC, he highlighted a 2024 study of solid organ transplant recipients that found the risk for a second SCC after a first SCC was 74%, the risk for a third SCC after a second SCC was 83%, and the risk for another SCC after five SCCs was 92%.
Dr. Christensen disclosed relationships with Canfield Scientific Inc. (consulting), Inhibitor Therapeutics (advisory board), and Sol-Gel Technologies Ltd. (grants/research funding).
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
SAN DIEGO — because of their suppressed immune systems.
“There are over 450,000 people with a solid organ transplant living in the United States. If you do the math, that works out to about 40 organ transplant recipients for every dermatologist, so there’s a lot of them out there for us to take care of,” Sean Christensen, MD, PhD, associate professor of dermatology, Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut, said at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology (AAD). “If we expand that umbrella to include all types of immunosuppression, that’s over 4 million adults in the US.”
Dr. Christensen encouraged dermatologists to be aware of the varying risks for immunosuppressive drugs and best screening practices for these patients, and to take advantage of a validated skin cancer risk assessment tool for transplant patients.
During his presentation, he highlighted five classes of immunosuppressive drugs and their associated skin cancer risks:
- Calcineurin inhibitors (tacrolimus or cyclosporine), which cause severe immune suppression and pose a severe skin cancer risk. They may also cause gingival hyperplasia and sebaceous hyperplasia.
- Antimetabolites (mycophenolate mofetil or azathioprine), which cause moderate to severe immune suppression and pose a severe skin cancer risk.
- Mammalian target of rapamycin inhibitors (sirolimus or everolimus), which cause severe immune suppression and pose a moderate skin cancer risk. They also impair wound healing.
- Corticosteroids (prednisone), which cause mild to severe immune suppression and pose a minimal skin cancer risk.
- A decoy receptor protein (belatacept), which causes severe immune suppression and poses a mild skin cancer risk.
“Most of our solid-organ transplant recipients will be on both a calcineurin inhibitor and an antimetabolite,” Dr. Christensen said. “In addition to the skin cancer risk associated with immunosuppression, there is an additive risk” that is a direct effect of these medications on the skin. “That means our transplant recipients have a severely and disproportionate increase in skin cancer,” he noted.
Up to half of solid-organ transplant recipients will develop skin cancer, Dr. Christensen said. These patients have a sixfold to 10-fold increased risk for basal cell carcinoma (BCC), a 35- to 65-fold increased risk for squamous cell carcinoma (SCC), a twofold to sevenfold increased risk for melanoma, and a 16- to 100-fold increased risk for Merkel cell carcinoma.
Transplant recipients with SCC, he said, have a twofold to threefold higher risk for metastasis (4%-8% nodal metastasis) and twofold to fivefold higher risk for death (2%-7% mortality) from SCC.
As for other kinds of immunosuppression, HIV positivity, treatment with 6-mercaptopurine or azathioprine (for inflammatory bowel disease and rheumatoid arthritis), and antitumor necrosis factor agents (for psoriasis, inflammatory bowel disease, and rheumatoid arthritis) have been linked in studies to a higher risk for nonmelanoma skin cancer.
Dr. Christensen also highlighted graft-versus-host disease (GVHD). “It does look like there is a disproportionate and increased risk of SCC of the oropharynx and of the skin in patients who have chronic GVHD. This is probably due to a combination of both the immunosuppressive medications that are required but also from chronic and ongoing inflammation in the skin.”
Chronic GVHD has been linked to a 5.3-fold increase in the risk for SCC and a twofold increase in the risk for BCC, he added.
Moreover, new medications for treating GVHD have been linked to an increased risk for SCC, including a 3.2-fold increased risk for SCC associated with ruxolitinib, a Janus kinase (JAK) 1 and JAK2 inhibitor, in a study of patients with polycythemia vera and myelofibrosis; and a case report of SCC in a patient treated with belumosudil, a rho-associated coiled-coil-containing protein kinase-2 kinase inhibitor, for chronic GVHD. Risk for SCC appears to increase based on duration of use with voriconazole, an antifungal, which, he said, is a potent photosynthesizer.
Dr. Christensen also noted the higher risk for infections in immunocompromised patients and added that these patients can develop inflammatory disease despite immunosuppression:
Staphylococcus, Streptococcus, and Dermatophytes are the most common skin pathogens in these patients. There’s a significantly increased risk for reactivation of herpes simplex, varicella-zoster viruses, and cytomegalovirus. Opportunistic and disseminated fungal infections, such as mycobacteria, Candida, histoplasma, cryptococcus, aspergillus, and mucormycosis, can also appear.
More than 80% of transplant recipients develop molluscum and verruca vulgaris/human papillomavirus infection. They may also develop noninfectious inflammatory dermatoses.
Risk Calculator
What can dermatologists do to help transplant patients? Dr. Christensen highlighted the Skin and UV Neoplasia Transplant Risk Assessment Calculator, which predicts skin cancer risk based on points given for race, gender, skin cancer history, age at transplant, and site of transplant.
The tool, validated in a 2023 study of transplant recipients in Europe, is available online and as an app. It makes recommendations to users about when patients should have initial skin screening exams. Those with the most risk — 45% at 5 years — should be screened within 6 months. “We can use [the tool] to triage these cases when we first meet them and get them plugged into the appropriate care,” Dr. Christensen said.
He recommended seeing high-risk patients at least annually. Patients with a prior SCC and a heavy burden of actinic keratosis should be followed more frequently, he said.
In regard to SCC, he highlighted a 2024 study of solid organ transplant recipients that found the risk for a second SCC after a first SCC was 74%, the risk for a third SCC after a second SCC was 83%, and the risk for another SCC after five SCCs was 92%.
Dr. Christensen disclosed relationships with Canfield Scientific Inc. (consulting), Inhibitor Therapeutics (advisory board), and Sol-Gel Technologies Ltd. (grants/research funding).
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM AAD 2024
ACC Consensus Guidance on What’s New in HFrEF Treatment
The American College of Cardiology has published a new update to its consensus decision pathway for the treatment of heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF).
Chair of the consensus document Writing Committee Thomas M. Maddox, MD, explained to this news organization that this new Decision Pathway provides a practical, streamlined update to frontline clinicians treating patients with heart failure and incorporates evidence from the 2022 AHA/ACC/HFSA Guideline for the Management of Heart Failure.
“While the AHA/ACC/HFSA Guidelines are wonderful in that they collate all the latest scientific evidence, they don’t speak as much to the practicalities of delivering the care. This is what this Decision Pathway document comes in — it is designed to help frontline clinicians with the practical reality of managing these patients,” Dr. Maddox, who is director of the Healthcare Innovation Lab at BJC HealthCare and the Washington University School of Medicine in St Louis, Missouri, commented.
The document, “Expert Consensus Decision Pathway for Optimization of Heart Failure Treatment: Answers to 10 Pivotal Issues About Heart Failure With Reduced Ejection Fraction,” was published online on March 8 in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.
The authors provided guidance on introducing the numerous evidence-based therapies now available for HFrEF, improving adherence, overcoming treatment barriers, acknowledging contraindications and situations for which few data exist, affording expensive therapies, treating special cohorts, and making the transition to palliative care.
Rather than focusing on extensive text, the document provided practical tips, tables, and figures to make clear the steps, tools, and provisos needed to treat patients with heart failure successfully and expeditiously, they added.
Dr. Maddox reported that there are three main updated areas of advice on the treatment of heart failure in the new document.
Valsartan/Sacubitril First Line
One of the major changes involves an elevation for the status of the angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitor (ARNI), Entresto (valsartan/sacubitril).
“It is now clear that this agent is superior to ACE-inhibitors or angiotensin receptor blockers in terms of reducing heart failure hospitalization and death, whereas previously it was seen as somewhat equivalent,” Dr. Maddox said. “So, barring a contraindication or another problem with getting the medication, this agent should be one of the first line medicines for all patients with heart failure and a reduced ejection fraction.”
Dual Sodium-Glucose Cotransporter 1/2 (SGLT1/2) Inhibitor
A second update involves the addition of sotagliflozin (a dual inhibitor of both SGLT1 and SGLT2) to the SGLT2 inhibitors as another first-line medication for patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction.
“We now have evidence that both SGLT2 and SGLT1 inhibitors are beneficial in reducing heart failure hospitalization and death. Previously we only had evidence on SGLT2 inhibitors — dapagliflozin and empagliflozin. Sotagliflozin is a newer agent, which inhibits both SGLT1 and SGLT2, and it turns out that inhibiting both are beneficial in heart failure. So, this gives us a third med in this category,” Dr. Maddox noted.
Rapid Initiation of the Four Pillars of Therapy
The document stated that more data have emerged recently to support early and rapid initiation and titration of the “four pillars” of medical therapy in heart failure to maximize the benefits of patient-reported outcomes and reduction in hospitalizations and mortality.
The four pillars of therapy are ARNI, a beta-blocker, a mineralocorticoid antagonist, and an SGLT inhibitor.
As an example, four-class medication initiation reduced the hazard of cardiovascular death or hospital admission for heart failure significantly (hazard ratio, 0.38) compared with therapy with just an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor/angiotensin receptor blocker plus a beta-blocker, the document reported.
“What we realize now is that the more quickly we can get patients on all four of these drug classes and escalate to target doses or maximally tolerated doses ideally within 3 months, the better the outcome,” Dr. Maddox said.
“Unfortunately, right now there is very incomplete realization and recognition of that in clinical practice. So, we are trying to highlight the importance of this to encourage clinicians to be more aggressive in making this happen.”
“In all patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction, getting them on all four of these medicines as quickly as possible will give the best outcome. We’ve seen evidence in support of this from several broad population trials,” he added. “There are times when they can’t take all four but we should do our best to get there.”
Practical Considerations
Dr. Maddox pointed out that the Consensus Document is also trying to account for practical realities and barriers to heart failure treatment.
“When we think about these recommendations — and evidence that getting patients on all these medicines is valuable, we also focus on the fact that there are three major barriers that can get in the way of this and how to think about overcoming those barriers,” he said.
The barriers are comorbidities/side effects of medications, costs of the medicines, and systems of care that are needed to ensure patients can be treated with multiple medications in a timely fashion.
In terms of comorbidities/side effects, Dr. Maddox explained that patients with heart failure are generally older and are likely to have other comorbidities. “The more medicines we give, the more likely we are to run into side effects. So, we have produced some guidance on how to monitor for adverse effects and ways to mitigate these effects so the guideline recommended therapies can be continued without creating new harms.”
He gave the example of mineralocorticoid antagonists, which can sometimes elevate potassium levels, particularly if there is some underlying kidney disease, so clinicians are advised to recommend a low-potassium diet for these patients or the use of potassium binding agents that will also lower the amount of potassium in the blood stream; in this way, patients are able to continue the mineralocorticoid antagonist.
On costs, Dr. Maddox noted that the valsartan/sacubitril combination drug and SGLT inhibitors are new medicines and are expensive.
“They can be prohibitively expensive for patients who have suboptimal pharmacy benefits or who are uninsured.”
The Consensus Document therefore provided some guidance on ways to identify rebate programs, access insurance, and find different pathways to obtaining those drugs at a more reasonable price. It also advocated for policy changes to allow these medicines to be more accessible to more people.
More Use of Digital Tools
On the issue of systems of care, Dr. Maddox noted that the preexisting model of delivering care, which almost always involves the patient coming into the doctor’s office, invokes a high burden on both the system and most especially, the patient.
“Patients do not want to come back and forth to the doctor’s office multiple times in a few weeks. This is often a nonstarter, particularly for patients with busy lives,” he commented.
The Consensus Document advised more use of digital tools to provide remote care and contact with patients including sensors that can measure variables such as heart rate and blood pressure and video appointments.
“We are still working out what are the right models of care and how they can be performed safely and how they can be funded. But I think at the end of the day, this will give us more practical ways of getting people on multiple heart failure medicines and monitoring them safely without causing an undue burden for them logistically,” Dr. Maddox said.
He pointed out that there are a record number of medicines now available to treat heart failure, and while this is welcome, many of these patients are also on multiple other medications for other comorbidities as well.
“If you start giving patients seven, eight, or nine different medicines that they have to take every day, sometimes multiple times a day — that’s complicated medically, logistically, and financially. The potential for interaction and complications increases with every additional medication.”
Dr. Maddox also noted that patients have limits on how many medications they will accept. “It really helps if we have an engaged patient who has a good relationship with the care team to try to develop the right treatment plan that is going to meet their needs and give them the best possible health outcomes.”
It can take many visits to get the patient on all these medications and then up-titrate to target doses.
“We try and do a couple of things in each appointment. Often, we tend to start one or maybe two drugs at a time at a relatively low dose to avoid side effects, so we can be talking about 12-16 different encounters in total,” he said.
He recommended making a plan and the use of new technologies to manage each incremental step.
A Team Approach
Another issue that is discussed in the document is the use of a healthcare team to manage all the necessary appointments.
“It is no longer practical that one person can be the engineer for all this. It should be a team effort,” Dr. Maddox stated.
Responsibilities can be allocated across physicians, nurses, pharmacists, and even case managers, so that the team can take more of a population approach and develop a system to get patients on the multiple medications as quickly as possible.
“While this can still be quite a big burden for the patient, we need to figure out a system to make this as palatable as possible for them. Practices need to tailor this themselves according to what resources they have,” he added.
While most new patients will be routed to cardiologists to start their treatment plans, once on their initial medications and these have been up titrated to target levels, they should be able to be managed by primary care doctors, who will have the most holistic view of the patient and their other comorbidities, Dr. Maddox advised.
“Following this guidance should lead to more patients receiving evidence-based care which leads to better health outcomes, but delivered in a practical way that fits with their life reality and logistical needs,” he concluded.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
The American College of Cardiology has published a new update to its consensus decision pathway for the treatment of heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF).
Chair of the consensus document Writing Committee Thomas M. Maddox, MD, explained to this news organization that this new Decision Pathway provides a practical, streamlined update to frontline clinicians treating patients with heart failure and incorporates evidence from the 2022 AHA/ACC/HFSA Guideline for the Management of Heart Failure.
“While the AHA/ACC/HFSA Guidelines are wonderful in that they collate all the latest scientific evidence, they don’t speak as much to the practicalities of delivering the care. This is what this Decision Pathway document comes in — it is designed to help frontline clinicians with the practical reality of managing these patients,” Dr. Maddox, who is director of the Healthcare Innovation Lab at BJC HealthCare and the Washington University School of Medicine in St Louis, Missouri, commented.
The document, “Expert Consensus Decision Pathway for Optimization of Heart Failure Treatment: Answers to 10 Pivotal Issues About Heart Failure With Reduced Ejection Fraction,” was published online on March 8 in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.
The authors provided guidance on introducing the numerous evidence-based therapies now available for HFrEF, improving adherence, overcoming treatment barriers, acknowledging contraindications and situations for which few data exist, affording expensive therapies, treating special cohorts, and making the transition to palliative care.
Rather than focusing on extensive text, the document provided practical tips, tables, and figures to make clear the steps, tools, and provisos needed to treat patients with heart failure successfully and expeditiously, they added.
Dr. Maddox reported that there are three main updated areas of advice on the treatment of heart failure in the new document.
Valsartan/Sacubitril First Line
One of the major changes involves an elevation for the status of the angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitor (ARNI), Entresto (valsartan/sacubitril).
“It is now clear that this agent is superior to ACE-inhibitors or angiotensin receptor blockers in terms of reducing heart failure hospitalization and death, whereas previously it was seen as somewhat equivalent,” Dr. Maddox said. “So, barring a contraindication or another problem with getting the medication, this agent should be one of the first line medicines for all patients with heart failure and a reduced ejection fraction.”
Dual Sodium-Glucose Cotransporter 1/2 (SGLT1/2) Inhibitor
A second update involves the addition of sotagliflozin (a dual inhibitor of both SGLT1 and SGLT2) to the SGLT2 inhibitors as another first-line medication for patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction.
“We now have evidence that both SGLT2 and SGLT1 inhibitors are beneficial in reducing heart failure hospitalization and death. Previously we only had evidence on SGLT2 inhibitors — dapagliflozin and empagliflozin. Sotagliflozin is a newer agent, which inhibits both SGLT1 and SGLT2, and it turns out that inhibiting both are beneficial in heart failure. So, this gives us a third med in this category,” Dr. Maddox noted.
Rapid Initiation of the Four Pillars of Therapy
The document stated that more data have emerged recently to support early and rapid initiation and titration of the “four pillars” of medical therapy in heart failure to maximize the benefits of patient-reported outcomes and reduction in hospitalizations and mortality.
The four pillars of therapy are ARNI, a beta-blocker, a mineralocorticoid antagonist, and an SGLT inhibitor.
As an example, four-class medication initiation reduced the hazard of cardiovascular death or hospital admission for heart failure significantly (hazard ratio, 0.38) compared with therapy with just an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor/angiotensin receptor blocker plus a beta-blocker, the document reported.
“What we realize now is that the more quickly we can get patients on all four of these drug classes and escalate to target doses or maximally tolerated doses ideally within 3 months, the better the outcome,” Dr. Maddox said.
“Unfortunately, right now there is very incomplete realization and recognition of that in clinical practice. So, we are trying to highlight the importance of this to encourage clinicians to be more aggressive in making this happen.”
“In all patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction, getting them on all four of these medicines as quickly as possible will give the best outcome. We’ve seen evidence in support of this from several broad population trials,” he added. “There are times when they can’t take all four but we should do our best to get there.”
Practical Considerations
Dr. Maddox pointed out that the Consensus Document is also trying to account for practical realities and barriers to heart failure treatment.
“When we think about these recommendations — and evidence that getting patients on all these medicines is valuable, we also focus on the fact that there are three major barriers that can get in the way of this and how to think about overcoming those barriers,” he said.
The barriers are comorbidities/side effects of medications, costs of the medicines, and systems of care that are needed to ensure patients can be treated with multiple medications in a timely fashion.
In terms of comorbidities/side effects, Dr. Maddox explained that patients with heart failure are generally older and are likely to have other comorbidities. “The more medicines we give, the more likely we are to run into side effects. So, we have produced some guidance on how to monitor for adverse effects and ways to mitigate these effects so the guideline recommended therapies can be continued without creating new harms.”
He gave the example of mineralocorticoid antagonists, which can sometimes elevate potassium levels, particularly if there is some underlying kidney disease, so clinicians are advised to recommend a low-potassium diet for these patients or the use of potassium binding agents that will also lower the amount of potassium in the blood stream; in this way, patients are able to continue the mineralocorticoid antagonist.
On costs, Dr. Maddox noted that the valsartan/sacubitril combination drug and SGLT inhibitors are new medicines and are expensive.
“They can be prohibitively expensive for patients who have suboptimal pharmacy benefits or who are uninsured.”
The Consensus Document therefore provided some guidance on ways to identify rebate programs, access insurance, and find different pathways to obtaining those drugs at a more reasonable price. It also advocated for policy changes to allow these medicines to be more accessible to more people.
More Use of Digital Tools
On the issue of systems of care, Dr. Maddox noted that the preexisting model of delivering care, which almost always involves the patient coming into the doctor’s office, invokes a high burden on both the system and most especially, the patient.
“Patients do not want to come back and forth to the doctor’s office multiple times in a few weeks. This is often a nonstarter, particularly for patients with busy lives,” he commented.
The Consensus Document advised more use of digital tools to provide remote care and contact with patients including sensors that can measure variables such as heart rate and blood pressure and video appointments.
“We are still working out what are the right models of care and how they can be performed safely and how they can be funded. But I think at the end of the day, this will give us more practical ways of getting people on multiple heart failure medicines and monitoring them safely without causing an undue burden for them logistically,” Dr. Maddox said.
He pointed out that there are a record number of medicines now available to treat heart failure, and while this is welcome, many of these patients are also on multiple other medications for other comorbidities as well.
“If you start giving patients seven, eight, or nine different medicines that they have to take every day, sometimes multiple times a day — that’s complicated medically, logistically, and financially. The potential for interaction and complications increases with every additional medication.”
Dr. Maddox also noted that patients have limits on how many medications they will accept. “It really helps if we have an engaged patient who has a good relationship with the care team to try to develop the right treatment plan that is going to meet their needs and give them the best possible health outcomes.”
It can take many visits to get the patient on all these medications and then up-titrate to target doses.
“We try and do a couple of things in each appointment. Often, we tend to start one or maybe two drugs at a time at a relatively low dose to avoid side effects, so we can be talking about 12-16 different encounters in total,” he said.
He recommended making a plan and the use of new technologies to manage each incremental step.
A Team Approach
Another issue that is discussed in the document is the use of a healthcare team to manage all the necessary appointments.
“It is no longer practical that one person can be the engineer for all this. It should be a team effort,” Dr. Maddox stated.
Responsibilities can be allocated across physicians, nurses, pharmacists, and even case managers, so that the team can take more of a population approach and develop a system to get patients on the multiple medications as quickly as possible.
“While this can still be quite a big burden for the patient, we need to figure out a system to make this as palatable as possible for them. Practices need to tailor this themselves according to what resources they have,” he added.
While most new patients will be routed to cardiologists to start their treatment plans, once on their initial medications and these have been up titrated to target levels, they should be able to be managed by primary care doctors, who will have the most holistic view of the patient and their other comorbidities, Dr. Maddox advised.
“Following this guidance should lead to more patients receiving evidence-based care which leads to better health outcomes, but delivered in a practical way that fits with their life reality and logistical needs,” he concluded.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
The American College of Cardiology has published a new update to its consensus decision pathway for the treatment of heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF).
Chair of the consensus document Writing Committee Thomas M. Maddox, MD, explained to this news organization that this new Decision Pathway provides a practical, streamlined update to frontline clinicians treating patients with heart failure and incorporates evidence from the 2022 AHA/ACC/HFSA Guideline for the Management of Heart Failure.
“While the AHA/ACC/HFSA Guidelines are wonderful in that they collate all the latest scientific evidence, they don’t speak as much to the practicalities of delivering the care. This is what this Decision Pathway document comes in — it is designed to help frontline clinicians with the practical reality of managing these patients,” Dr. Maddox, who is director of the Healthcare Innovation Lab at BJC HealthCare and the Washington University School of Medicine in St Louis, Missouri, commented.
The document, “Expert Consensus Decision Pathway for Optimization of Heart Failure Treatment: Answers to 10 Pivotal Issues About Heart Failure With Reduced Ejection Fraction,” was published online on March 8 in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.
The authors provided guidance on introducing the numerous evidence-based therapies now available for HFrEF, improving adherence, overcoming treatment barriers, acknowledging contraindications and situations for which few data exist, affording expensive therapies, treating special cohorts, and making the transition to palliative care.
Rather than focusing on extensive text, the document provided practical tips, tables, and figures to make clear the steps, tools, and provisos needed to treat patients with heart failure successfully and expeditiously, they added.
Dr. Maddox reported that there are three main updated areas of advice on the treatment of heart failure in the new document.
Valsartan/Sacubitril First Line
One of the major changes involves an elevation for the status of the angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitor (ARNI), Entresto (valsartan/sacubitril).
“It is now clear that this agent is superior to ACE-inhibitors or angiotensin receptor blockers in terms of reducing heart failure hospitalization and death, whereas previously it was seen as somewhat equivalent,” Dr. Maddox said. “So, barring a contraindication or another problem with getting the medication, this agent should be one of the first line medicines for all patients with heart failure and a reduced ejection fraction.”
Dual Sodium-Glucose Cotransporter 1/2 (SGLT1/2) Inhibitor
A second update involves the addition of sotagliflozin (a dual inhibitor of both SGLT1 and SGLT2) to the SGLT2 inhibitors as another first-line medication for patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction.
“We now have evidence that both SGLT2 and SGLT1 inhibitors are beneficial in reducing heart failure hospitalization and death. Previously we only had evidence on SGLT2 inhibitors — dapagliflozin and empagliflozin. Sotagliflozin is a newer agent, which inhibits both SGLT1 and SGLT2, and it turns out that inhibiting both are beneficial in heart failure. So, this gives us a third med in this category,” Dr. Maddox noted.
Rapid Initiation of the Four Pillars of Therapy
The document stated that more data have emerged recently to support early and rapid initiation and titration of the “four pillars” of medical therapy in heart failure to maximize the benefits of patient-reported outcomes and reduction in hospitalizations and mortality.
The four pillars of therapy are ARNI, a beta-blocker, a mineralocorticoid antagonist, and an SGLT inhibitor.
As an example, four-class medication initiation reduced the hazard of cardiovascular death or hospital admission for heart failure significantly (hazard ratio, 0.38) compared with therapy with just an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor/angiotensin receptor blocker plus a beta-blocker, the document reported.
“What we realize now is that the more quickly we can get patients on all four of these drug classes and escalate to target doses or maximally tolerated doses ideally within 3 months, the better the outcome,” Dr. Maddox said.
“Unfortunately, right now there is very incomplete realization and recognition of that in clinical practice. So, we are trying to highlight the importance of this to encourage clinicians to be more aggressive in making this happen.”
“In all patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction, getting them on all four of these medicines as quickly as possible will give the best outcome. We’ve seen evidence in support of this from several broad population trials,” he added. “There are times when they can’t take all four but we should do our best to get there.”
Practical Considerations
Dr. Maddox pointed out that the Consensus Document is also trying to account for practical realities and barriers to heart failure treatment.
“When we think about these recommendations — and evidence that getting patients on all these medicines is valuable, we also focus on the fact that there are three major barriers that can get in the way of this and how to think about overcoming those barriers,” he said.
The barriers are comorbidities/side effects of medications, costs of the medicines, and systems of care that are needed to ensure patients can be treated with multiple medications in a timely fashion.
In terms of comorbidities/side effects, Dr. Maddox explained that patients with heart failure are generally older and are likely to have other comorbidities. “The more medicines we give, the more likely we are to run into side effects. So, we have produced some guidance on how to monitor for adverse effects and ways to mitigate these effects so the guideline recommended therapies can be continued without creating new harms.”
He gave the example of mineralocorticoid antagonists, which can sometimes elevate potassium levels, particularly if there is some underlying kidney disease, so clinicians are advised to recommend a low-potassium diet for these patients or the use of potassium binding agents that will also lower the amount of potassium in the blood stream; in this way, patients are able to continue the mineralocorticoid antagonist.
On costs, Dr. Maddox noted that the valsartan/sacubitril combination drug and SGLT inhibitors are new medicines and are expensive.
“They can be prohibitively expensive for patients who have suboptimal pharmacy benefits or who are uninsured.”
The Consensus Document therefore provided some guidance on ways to identify rebate programs, access insurance, and find different pathways to obtaining those drugs at a more reasonable price. It also advocated for policy changes to allow these medicines to be more accessible to more people.
More Use of Digital Tools
On the issue of systems of care, Dr. Maddox noted that the preexisting model of delivering care, which almost always involves the patient coming into the doctor’s office, invokes a high burden on both the system and most especially, the patient.
“Patients do not want to come back and forth to the doctor’s office multiple times in a few weeks. This is often a nonstarter, particularly for patients with busy lives,” he commented.
The Consensus Document advised more use of digital tools to provide remote care and contact with patients including sensors that can measure variables such as heart rate and blood pressure and video appointments.
“We are still working out what are the right models of care and how they can be performed safely and how they can be funded. But I think at the end of the day, this will give us more practical ways of getting people on multiple heart failure medicines and monitoring them safely without causing an undue burden for them logistically,” Dr. Maddox said.
He pointed out that there are a record number of medicines now available to treat heart failure, and while this is welcome, many of these patients are also on multiple other medications for other comorbidities as well.
“If you start giving patients seven, eight, or nine different medicines that they have to take every day, sometimes multiple times a day — that’s complicated medically, logistically, and financially. The potential for interaction and complications increases with every additional medication.”
Dr. Maddox also noted that patients have limits on how many medications they will accept. “It really helps if we have an engaged patient who has a good relationship with the care team to try to develop the right treatment plan that is going to meet their needs and give them the best possible health outcomes.”
It can take many visits to get the patient on all these medications and then up-titrate to target doses.
“We try and do a couple of things in each appointment. Often, we tend to start one or maybe two drugs at a time at a relatively low dose to avoid side effects, so we can be talking about 12-16 different encounters in total,” he said.
He recommended making a plan and the use of new technologies to manage each incremental step.
A Team Approach
Another issue that is discussed in the document is the use of a healthcare team to manage all the necessary appointments.
“It is no longer practical that one person can be the engineer for all this. It should be a team effort,” Dr. Maddox stated.
Responsibilities can be allocated across physicians, nurses, pharmacists, and even case managers, so that the team can take more of a population approach and develop a system to get patients on the multiple medications as quickly as possible.
“While this can still be quite a big burden for the patient, we need to figure out a system to make this as palatable as possible for them. Practices need to tailor this themselves according to what resources they have,” he added.
While most new patients will be routed to cardiologists to start their treatment plans, once on their initial medications and these have been up titrated to target levels, they should be able to be managed by primary care doctors, who will have the most holistic view of the patient and their other comorbidities, Dr. Maddox advised.
“Following this guidance should lead to more patients receiving evidence-based care which leads to better health outcomes, but delivered in a practical way that fits with their life reality and logistical needs,” he concluded.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.