Hypertension

A lack of standardized blood pressure training among doctors, physician assistants, nurses, and other health care professionals is preventing the country’s medical community from curbing hypertension, according to the American Medical Association. Hypertension affects about half of U.S. adults and is a leading contributor to cardiovascular disease.

First-year medical students typically read about BP measurement in a textbook and possibly attend a lecture before practicing using a manual cuff a few times on classmates, said Martha Gulati, MD, professor and director of preventive cardiology at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles.

The dearth of BP instruction is alarming because inaccurate readings contribute to under- and overtreatment of hypertension, she said in an interview.

The AMA hopes $100,000 in grants to five health education schools will help improve BP instruction. The group recently announced it would give $20,000 each to five schools that train health professionals, expanding on a 2021 program to improve BP measurement training.

The new grants for interactive lessons will benefit nearly 5,000 students from Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore; Nova Southeastern University, Fort Lauderdale, Fla.; University of Washington, Seattle; Stony Brook (N.Y.) University; and the University of Pittsburgh.

In a 2021 survey of 571 clinicians, most of whom were cardiologists, Dr. Gulati found that only 23% performed accurate BP measurements despite the majority saying they trusted BP readings taken in their clinic. Accurate readings were defined as routinely checking BP in both arms, checking BP at least twice each visit, and waiting 5 minutes before taking the reading.

Med students fare no better when it comes to BP skills. In a 2017 study of 159 students from medical schools in 37 states, only one student demonstrated proficiency in all 11 elements necessary to measure BP accurately. Students, on average, performed just four of them correctly.

The elements of proper BP measurement include patients resting for 5 minutes before the measurement with legs uncrossed, feet on floor, and arm supported, not talking, reading, or using cell phone; BP taken in both arms with correct size of cuff placed over bare arm; and identifying BP from the arm with the higher reading as clinically more important and as the one to use for future readings.

Manual BP readings require an appropriately sized BP cuff, a sphygmomanometer, and a clinician skilled in using a stethoscope and auscultatory method. Meanwhile, automated readings require a clinician to place the cuff, but a digital device collects the measurement. Though preference depends on the setting and clinician, automated readings are more common. In Dr. Gulati’s study, automated BP assessment was used by 58% of respondents.

Depending on the BP device and technique, significant variations in readings can occur. In a 2021 study, Current Hypertension Reports found that automated readings may more closely reflect the patient’s baseline BP and produce results similar to ambulatory monitoring by a medical professional. An earlier JAMA Internal Medicine analysis found that clinicians’ manual readings reflect higher BP measurements than automated readings.

Though the AMA offers a free online series on BP measurement for students, making the training available to more health care team members can help prevent hypertension, said Kate Kirley, MD, director of the AMA’s chronic disease prevention and programs.

Concern over the lack of standardized BP techniques isn’t new. In 2019, the American Heart Association and the AMA created an online BP course for health care workers. Two years later, the AMA offered grants to five medical schools for training courses.

Most of the new training sessions already on the AMA website take students about 15 minutes to complete. Dr. Kirley says because equipment varies across settings, participants will learn how to conduct manual, semi-automated, and automated office BP readings and identify workarounds for less-than-ideal room setups that can skew results. They will also explore how to guide patients in performing BP readings at home.

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

A lack of standardized blood pressure training among doctors, physician assistants, nurses, and other health care professionals is preventing the country’s medical community from curbing hypertension, according to the American Medical Association. Hypertension affects about half of U.S. adults and is a leading contributor to cardiovascular disease.

First-year medical students typically read about BP measurement in a textbook and possibly attend a lecture before practicing using a manual cuff a few times on classmates, said Martha Gulati, MD, professor and director of preventive cardiology at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles.

The dearth of BP instruction is alarming because inaccurate readings contribute to under- and overtreatment of hypertension, she said in an interview.

The AMA hopes $100,000 in grants to five health education schools will help improve BP instruction. The group recently announced it would give $20,000 each to five schools that train health professionals, expanding on a 2021 program to improve BP measurement training.

The new grants for interactive lessons will benefit nearly 5,000 students from Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore; Nova Southeastern University, Fort Lauderdale, Fla.; University of Washington, Seattle; Stony Brook (N.Y.) University; and the University of Pittsburgh.

In a 2021 survey of 571 clinicians, most of whom were cardiologists, Dr. Gulati found that only 23% performed accurate BP measurements despite the majority saying they trusted BP readings taken in their clinic. Accurate readings were defined as routinely checking BP in both arms, checking BP at least twice each visit, and waiting 5 minutes before taking the reading.

Med students fare no better when it comes to BP skills. In a 2017 study of 159 students from medical schools in 37 states, only one student demonstrated proficiency in all 11 elements necessary to measure BP accurately. Students, on average, performed just four of them correctly.

The elements of proper BP measurement include patients resting for 5 minutes before the measurement with legs uncrossed, feet on floor, and arm supported, not talking, reading, or using cell phone; BP taken in both arms with correct size of cuff placed over bare arm; and identifying BP from the arm with the higher reading as clinically more important and as the one to use for future readings.

Manual BP readings require an appropriately sized BP cuff, a sphygmomanometer, and a clinician skilled in using a stethoscope and auscultatory method. Meanwhile, automated readings require a clinician to place the cuff, but a digital device collects the measurement. Though preference depends on the setting and clinician, automated readings are more common. In Dr. Gulati’s study, automated BP assessment was used by 58% of respondents.

Depending on the BP device and technique, significant variations in readings can occur. In a 2021 study, Current Hypertension Reports found that automated readings may more closely reflect the patient’s baseline BP and produce results similar to ambulatory monitoring by a medical professional. An earlier JAMA Internal Medicine analysis found that clinicians’ manual readings reflect higher BP measurements than automated readings.

Though the AMA offers a free online series on BP measurement for students, making the training available to more health care team members can help prevent hypertension, said Kate Kirley, MD, director of the AMA’s chronic disease prevention and programs.

Concern over the lack of standardized BP techniques isn’t new. In 2019, the American Heart Association and the AMA created an online BP course for health care workers. Two years later, the AMA offered grants to five medical schools for training courses.

Most of the new training sessions already on the AMA website take students about 15 minutes to complete. Dr. Kirley says because equipment varies across settings, participants will learn how to conduct manual, semi-automated, and automated office BP readings and identify workarounds for less-than-ideal room setups that can skew results. They will also explore how to guide patients in performing BP readings at home.

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

A lack of standardized blood pressure training among doctors, physician assistants, nurses, and other health care professionals is preventing the country’s medical community from curbing hypertension, according to the American Medical Association. Hypertension affects about half of U.S. adults and is a leading contributor to cardiovascular disease.

First-year medical students typically read about BP measurement in a textbook and possibly attend a lecture before practicing using a manual cuff a few times on classmates, said Martha Gulati, MD, professor and director of preventive cardiology at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles.

The dearth of BP instruction is alarming because inaccurate readings contribute to under- and overtreatment of hypertension, she said in an interview.

The AMA hopes $100,000 in grants to five health education schools will help improve BP instruction. The group recently announced it would give $20,000 each to five schools that train health professionals, expanding on a 2021 program to improve BP measurement training.

The new grants for interactive lessons will benefit nearly 5,000 students from Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore; Nova Southeastern University, Fort Lauderdale, Fla.; University of Washington, Seattle; Stony Brook (N.Y.) University; and the University of Pittsburgh.

In a 2021 survey of 571 clinicians, most of whom were cardiologists, Dr. Gulati found that only 23% performed accurate BP measurements despite the majority saying they trusted BP readings taken in their clinic. Accurate readings were defined as routinely checking BP in both arms, checking BP at least twice each visit, and waiting 5 minutes before taking the reading.

Med students fare no better when it comes to BP skills. In a 2017 study of 159 students from medical schools in 37 states, only one student demonstrated proficiency in all 11 elements necessary to measure BP accurately. Students, on average, performed just four of them correctly.

The elements of proper BP measurement include patients resting for 5 minutes before the measurement with legs uncrossed, feet on floor, and arm supported, not talking, reading, or using cell phone; BP taken in both arms with correct size of cuff placed over bare arm; and identifying BP from the arm with the higher reading as clinically more important and as the one to use for future readings.

Manual BP readings require an appropriately sized BP cuff, a sphygmomanometer, and a clinician skilled in using a stethoscope and auscultatory method. Meanwhile, automated readings require a clinician to place the cuff, but a digital device collects the measurement. Though preference depends on the setting and clinician, automated readings are more common. In Dr. Gulati’s study, automated BP assessment was used by 58% of respondents.

Depending on the BP device and technique, significant variations in readings can occur. In a 2021 study, Current Hypertension Reports found that automated readings may more closely reflect the patient’s baseline BP and produce results similar to ambulatory monitoring by a medical professional. An earlier JAMA Internal Medicine analysis found that clinicians’ manual readings reflect higher BP measurements than automated readings.

Though the AMA offers a free online series on BP measurement for students, making the training available to more health care team members can help prevent hypertension, said Kate Kirley, MD, director of the AMA’s chronic disease prevention and programs.

Concern over the lack of standardized BP techniques isn’t new. In 2019, the American Heart Association and the AMA created an online BP course for health care workers. Two years later, the AMA offered grants to five medical schools for training courses.

Most of the new training sessions already on the AMA website take students about 15 minutes to complete. Dr. Kirley says because equipment varies across settings, participants will learn how to conduct manual, semi-automated, and automated office BP readings and identify workarounds for less-than-ideal room setups that can skew results. They will also explore how to guide patients in performing BP readings at home.

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

All pregnant women should undergo screening for hypertensive disorders, with evidence-based management for those screening positive, according to a new recommendation from the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force.

Hypertensive disorders of pregnancy in the United States increased from approximately 500 cases per 10,000 deliveries to 1,021 cases per 10,000 deliveries from 1993 to 2016-2017, and remain a leading cause of maternal morbidity and mortality, wrote Task Force Chair Michael J. Barry, MD, of Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, and colleagues in the final recommendation statement published in JAMA.

The USPSTF commissioned a systematic review to assess the risks and benefits of hypertensive screening for asymptomatic pregnant women. The resulting grade B recommendation indicates that screening for hypertensive disorders in pregnancy using blood pressure measurements yields a substantial net benefit.

The recommendation applies to “all pregnant women and pregnant persons of all genders without a known diagnosis of a hypertensive disorder of pregnancy or chronic hypertension,” the authors said.

The recommendation calls for the use of blood pressure measurements to evaluate hypertensive disorders, with measurements taken at each prenatal visit. A positive result for new-onset hypertension was defined as systolic blood pressure of 140 mm Hg or diastolic blood pressure 90 mm Hg in the absence of chronic hypertension, based on two measurements at least 4 hours apart. Regular review of blood pressure can help identify and manage potentially fatal conditions.

However, screening alone is insufficient to improve inequities in health outcomes associated with hypertensive disorders of pregnancy, the authors emphasized. Data from previous studies have shown that Black patients are at increased risk for hypertensive disorders of pregnancy and severe complications, and that Black and Hispanic patients have twice the risk of stroke with hypertensive disorders of pregnancy as White patients.

In the evidence report that supported the recommendation, Jillian T. Henderson, PhD, of Kaiser Permanente in Portland, Ore., and colleagues reviewed six studies including 10,165 individuals. The studies (five clinical trials and one nonrandomized study) compared changes in prenatal screening with usual care.

Overall, the review yielded no evidence that any other screening strategies were more useful than routine blood pressure measurement to identify hypertensive disorders of pregnancy in asymptomatic women.

The findings cited to support the recommendation were limited by several factors, including the lack of power to detect pregnancy health outcomes and potential harms of different screening programs, and the lack of power to evaluate outcomes for American Indian, Alaska Native, or Black individuals, who have disproportionately high rates of hypertensive disorders of pregnancy, the authors said.

More research is needed to identify which screening approaches may lead to improved disease detection and better health outcomes, but the results of the review support the grade B recommendation for hypertensive screening of all pregnant women, they concluded.
 

Early identification makes a difference

The new recommendation is important because it can help all moms and babies to be healthier, said Wanda Nicholson, MD, vice chair of the task force, in an interview.

“We are recommending that all pregnant persons have a blood pressure check at every visit throughout pregnancy,” said Dr. Nicholson, an ob.gyn. by training who also serves as professor of prevention and community health at George Washington University in Washington. “We know that there is a maternal health crisis in this country, and we know that hypertensive disorders of pregnancy are one of the key factors related to that,” she said.

Unfortunately, barriers to routine screening for hypertensive disorders of pregnancy persist, said Dr. Nicholson. The incidence of hypertensive disorders of pregnancy is higher in many of the same populations who also have challenges in accessing regular prenatal care, notably those who are Black, Native American, or Alaska Native, she noted.

The new recommendation also serves as an opportunity to call attention to the health care disparities for these populations, not only during pregnancy, but in general, she emphasized.

In clinical practice, the definition of hypertensive disorders of pregnancy involves three different diagnoses – gestational hypertension, preeclampsia, and eclampsia – that can be seen as points on a continuum, said Dr. Nicholson. The sooner patients are identified with hypertensive disorders of pregnancy, the sooner intervention and treatment can begin, she said. To that end, she added the clinical pearl of using a properly sized blood pressure cuff to obtain an accurate reading and avoid missed diagnoses.

The task force also outlined several key areas for additional research, said Dr. Nicholson. First, more research is needed on alternative screening strategies, such as at-home blood pressure monitoring for patients, as well as teleheath visits. Second, more studies are needed to address the disparities in prenatal care and include more diverse populations in clinical research. Third, future studies need to consider social determinants of health and other factors that might impact maternal health outcomes. “These steps will help achieve the larger goal of healthier mothers and babies,” Dr. Nicholson said.
 

Back to basics to improve women’s health

Some clinicians may be disappointed by the Evidence Report’s primary finding that no alternative screening strategies outperformed routine blood pressure measurement, wrote Anne E. Denoble, MD, and Christian M. Pettker, MD, both of Yale University, New Haven, Conn., in an accompanying editorial.

While potentially frustrating at first glance, the findings of the Evidence Report provide a foundation for improvement and reassurance that the best existing screening methods are basic and fundamental: regular prenatal visits with routine, in-office blood pressure measurements, and urine protein screening when clinically indicated, they said.

However, the USPSTF review also noted persistent research gaps that must be addressed to significantly improve maternal health outcomes, they said. Notable gaps include the disproportionately low numbers of Black patients in current studies, and the need for studies of alternate models of prenatal care, including the use of remote blood pressure monitoring, and the use of biomarkers to screen for and predict hypertensive disorders of pregnancy.

The most striking limitation may be the focus on prenatal care, with lack of attention to postpartum mortality risk, given that more than half of pregnancy-related deaths occur postpartum, the authors noted.

Although current screening tools may be used in practice “with skill and might,” more effort at multiple levels is needed to address the larger maternal health crisis in the United States, they said.
 

Expand screening, engage primary care for long-term benefits

Screening for hypertensive disorders of pregnancy “can and should be within the purview of internists,” wrote Srilakshmi Mitta, MD; Cary P. Gross, MD; Melissa A. Simon, MD, of Brown University, Yale University, and Northwestern University, respectively, in a separate editorial. The recommendation to extend screening beyond preeclampsia is timely, given the consistent increase in all hypertensive disorders of pregnancy since 1990, the authors said.

Pregnancy is not the only time for screening, counseling, and management of hypertensive disorders, they emphasized. “All persons who have reproductive capacity and/or are planning pregnancy, along with those who are post partum, should be screened for hypertensive disorders, aligning the USPSTF with guidelines from the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, the American College of Cardiology, and the American Heart Association,” they said, and all clinicians should be on board to identify and treat hypertensive disorders of pregnancy, especially in underserved racial and ethnic minorities for whom primary care may be their only source of health care.

“Pregnancy is a window of opportunity to influence current and future life course, not just of the individual, but also of the fetus(es),other children, and family,” and timely intervention has the potential for great public health impact, they said.

Dr. Denoble disclosed grants from the HealthPartners Institute for Education and Research and from the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute. Dr. Simon serves on the Advisory Committee for Research on Women’s Health for the National Institutes of Health Office of Research on Women’s Health and serves as a member of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Community Preventive Services Task Force; she was a member of the USPSTF from 2017 to 2020. Dr. Gross disclosed grants from Johnson and Johnson and the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (through a grant to the NCCN from AstraZeneca) and personal fees from Genentech.

All pregnant women should undergo screening for hypertensive disorders, with evidence-based management for those screening positive, according to a new recommendation from the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force.

Hypertensive disorders of pregnancy in the United States increased from approximately 500 cases per 10,000 deliveries to 1,021 cases per 10,000 deliveries from 1993 to 2016-2017, and remain a leading cause of maternal morbidity and mortality, wrote Task Force Chair Michael J. Barry, MD, of Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, and colleagues in the final recommendation statement published in JAMA.

The USPSTF commissioned a systematic review to assess the risks and benefits of hypertensive screening for asymptomatic pregnant women. The resulting grade B recommendation indicates that screening for hypertensive disorders in pregnancy using blood pressure measurements yields a substantial net benefit.

The recommendation applies to “all pregnant women and pregnant persons of all genders without a known diagnosis of a hypertensive disorder of pregnancy or chronic hypertension,” the authors said.

The recommendation calls for the use of blood pressure measurements to evaluate hypertensive disorders, with measurements taken at each prenatal visit. A positive result for new-onset hypertension was defined as systolic blood pressure of 140 mm Hg or diastolic blood pressure 90 mm Hg in the absence of chronic hypertension, based on two measurements at least 4 hours apart. Regular review of blood pressure can help identify and manage potentially fatal conditions.

However, screening alone is insufficient to improve inequities in health outcomes associated with hypertensive disorders of pregnancy, the authors emphasized. Data from previous studies have shown that Black patients are at increased risk for hypertensive disorders of pregnancy and severe complications, and that Black and Hispanic patients have twice the risk of stroke with hypertensive disorders of pregnancy as White patients.

In the evidence report that supported the recommendation, Jillian T. Henderson, PhD, of Kaiser Permanente in Portland, Ore., and colleagues reviewed six studies including 10,165 individuals. The studies (five clinical trials and one nonrandomized study) compared changes in prenatal screening with usual care.

Overall, the review yielded no evidence that any other screening strategies were more useful than routine blood pressure measurement to identify hypertensive disorders of pregnancy in asymptomatic women.

The findings cited to support the recommendation were limited by several factors, including the lack of power to detect pregnancy health outcomes and potential harms of different screening programs, and the lack of power to evaluate outcomes for American Indian, Alaska Native, or Black individuals, who have disproportionately high rates of hypertensive disorders of pregnancy, the authors said.

More research is needed to identify which screening approaches may lead to improved disease detection and better health outcomes, but the results of the review support the grade B recommendation for hypertensive screening of all pregnant women, they concluded.
 

Early identification makes a difference

The new recommendation is important because it can help all moms and babies to be healthier, said Wanda Nicholson, MD, vice chair of the task force, in an interview.

“We are recommending that all pregnant persons have a blood pressure check at every visit throughout pregnancy,” said Dr. Nicholson, an ob.gyn. by training who also serves as professor of prevention and community health at George Washington University in Washington. “We know that there is a maternal health crisis in this country, and we know that hypertensive disorders of pregnancy are one of the key factors related to that,” she said.

Unfortunately, barriers to routine screening for hypertensive disorders of pregnancy persist, said Dr. Nicholson. The incidence of hypertensive disorders of pregnancy is higher in many of the same populations who also have challenges in accessing regular prenatal care, notably those who are Black, Native American, or Alaska Native, she noted.

The new recommendation also serves as an opportunity to call attention to the health care disparities for these populations, not only during pregnancy, but in general, she emphasized.

In clinical practice, the definition of hypertensive disorders of pregnancy involves three different diagnoses – gestational hypertension, preeclampsia, and eclampsia – that can be seen as points on a continuum, said Dr. Nicholson. The sooner patients are identified with hypertensive disorders of pregnancy, the sooner intervention and treatment can begin, she said. To that end, she added the clinical pearl of using a properly sized blood pressure cuff to obtain an accurate reading and avoid missed diagnoses.

The task force also outlined several key areas for additional research, said Dr. Nicholson. First, more research is needed on alternative screening strategies, such as at-home blood pressure monitoring for patients, as well as teleheath visits. Second, more studies are needed to address the disparities in prenatal care and include more diverse populations in clinical research. Third, future studies need to consider social determinants of health and other factors that might impact maternal health outcomes. “These steps will help achieve the larger goal of healthier mothers and babies,” Dr. Nicholson said.
 

Back to basics to improve women’s health

Some clinicians may be disappointed by the Evidence Report’s primary finding that no alternative screening strategies outperformed routine blood pressure measurement, wrote Anne E. Denoble, MD, and Christian M. Pettker, MD, both of Yale University, New Haven, Conn., in an accompanying editorial.

While potentially frustrating at first glance, the findings of the Evidence Report provide a foundation for improvement and reassurance that the best existing screening methods are basic and fundamental: regular prenatal visits with routine, in-office blood pressure measurements, and urine protein screening when clinically indicated, they said.

However, the USPSTF review also noted persistent research gaps that must be addressed to significantly improve maternal health outcomes, they said. Notable gaps include the disproportionately low numbers of Black patients in current studies, and the need for studies of alternate models of prenatal care, including the use of remote blood pressure monitoring, and the use of biomarkers to screen for and predict hypertensive disorders of pregnancy.

The most striking limitation may be the focus on prenatal care, with lack of attention to postpartum mortality risk, given that more than half of pregnancy-related deaths occur postpartum, the authors noted.

Although current screening tools may be used in practice “with skill and might,” more effort at multiple levels is needed to address the larger maternal health crisis in the United States, they said.
 

Expand screening, engage primary care for long-term benefits

Screening for hypertensive disorders of pregnancy “can and should be within the purview of internists,” wrote Srilakshmi Mitta, MD; Cary P. Gross, MD; Melissa A. Simon, MD, of Brown University, Yale University, and Northwestern University, respectively, in a separate editorial. The recommendation to extend screening beyond preeclampsia is timely, given the consistent increase in all hypertensive disorders of pregnancy since 1990, the authors said.

Pregnancy is not the only time for screening, counseling, and management of hypertensive disorders, they emphasized. “All persons who have reproductive capacity and/or are planning pregnancy, along with those who are post partum, should be screened for hypertensive disorders, aligning the USPSTF with guidelines from the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, the American College of Cardiology, and the American Heart Association,” they said, and all clinicians should be on board to identify and treat hypertensive disorders of pregnancy, especially in underserved racial and ethnic minorities for whom primary care may be their only source of health care.

“Pregnancy is a window of opportunity to influence current and future life course, not just of the individual, but also of the fetus(es),other children, and family,” and timely intervention has the potential for great public health impact, they said.

Dr. Denoble disclosed grants from the HealthPartners Institute for Education and Research and from the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute. Dr. Simon serves on the Advisory Committee for Research on Women’s Health for the National Institutes of Health Office of Research on Women’s Health and serves as a member of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Community Preventive Services Task Force; she was a member of the USPSTF from 2017 to 2020. Dr. Gross disclosed grants from Johnson and Johnson and the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (through a grant to the NCCN from AstraZeneca) and personal fees from Genentech.

All pregnant women should undergo screening for hypertensive disorders, with evidence-based management for those screening positive, according to a new recommendation from the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force.

Hypertensive disorders of pregnancy in the United States increased from approximately 500 cases per 10,000 deliveries to 1,021 cases per 10,000 deliveries from 1993 to 2016-2017, and remain a leading cause of maternal morbidity and mortality, wrote Task Force Chair Michael J. Barry, MD, of Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, and colleagues in the final recommendation statement published in JAMA.

The USPSTF commissioned a systematic review to assess the risks and benefits of hypertensive screening for asymptomatic pregnant women. The resulting grade B recommendation indicates that screening for hypertensive disorders in pregnancy using blood pressure measurements yields a substantial net benefit.

The recommendation applies to “all pregnant women and pregnant persons of all genders without a known diagnosis of a hypertensive disorder of pregnancy or chronic hypertension,” the authors said.

The recommendation calls for the use of blood pressure measurements to evaluate hypertensive disorders, with measurements taken at each prenatal visit. A positive result for new-onset hypertension was defined as systolic blood pressure of 140 mm Hg or diastolic blood pressure 90 mm Hg in the absence of chronic hypertension, based on two measurements at least 4 hours apart. Regular review of blood pressure can help identify and manage potentially fatal conditions.

However, screening alone is insufficient to improve inequities in health outcomes associated with hypertensive disorders of pregnancy, the authors emphasized. Data from previous studies have shown that Black patients are at increased risk for hypertensive disorders of pregnancy and severe complications, and that Black and Hispanic patients have twice the risk of stroke with hypertensive disorders of pregnancy as White patients.

In the evidence report that supported the recommendation, Jillian T. Henderson, PhD, of Kaiser Permanente in Portland, Ore., and colleagues reviewed six studies including 10,165 individuals. The studies (five clinical trials and one nonrandomized study) compared changes in prenatal screening with usual care.

Overall, the review yielded no evidence that any other screening strategies were more useful than routine blood pressure measurement to identify hypertensive disorders of pregnancy in asymptomatic women.

The findings cited to support the recommendation were limited by several factors, including the lack of power to detect pregnancy health outcomes and potential harms of different screening programs, and the lack of power to evaluate outcomes for American Indian, Alaska Native, or Black individuals, who have disproportionately high rates of hypertensive disorders of pregnancy, the authors said.

More research is needed to identify which screening approaches may lead to improved disease detection and better health outcomes, but the results of the review support the grade B recommendation for hypertensive screening of all pregnant women, they concluded.
 

Early identification makes a difference

The new recommendation is important because it can help all moms and babies to be healthier, said Wanda Nicholson, MD, vice chair of the task force, in an interview.

“We are recommending that all pregnant persons have a blood pressure check at every visit throughout pregnancy,” said Dr. Nicholson, an ob.gyn. by training who also serves as professor of prevention and community health at George Washington University in Washington. “We know that there is a maternal health crisis in this country, and we know that hypertensive disorders of pregnancy are one of the key factors related to that,” she said.

Unfortunately, barriers to routine screening for hypertensive disorders of pregnancy persist, said Dr. Nicholson. The incidence of hypertensive disorders of pregnancy is higher in many of the same populations who also have challenges in accessing regular prenatal care, notably those who are Black, Native American, or Alaska Native, she noted.

The new recommendation also serves as an opportunity to call attention to the health care disparities for these populations, not only during pregnancy, but in general, she emphasized.

In clinical practice, the definition of hypertensive disorders of pregnancy involves three different diagnoses – gestational hypertension, preeclampsia, and eclampsia – that can be seen as points on a continuum, said Dr. Nicholson. The sooner patients are identified with hypertensive disorders of pregnancy, the sooner intervention and treatment can begin, she said. To that end, she added the clinical pearl of using a properly sized blood pressure cuff to obtain an accurate reading and avoid missed diagnoses.

The task force also outlined several key areas for additional research, said Dr. Nicholson. First, more research is needed on alternative screening strategies, such as at-home blood pressure monitoring for patients, as well as teleheath visits. Second, more studies are needed to address the disparities in prenatal care and include more diverse populations in clinical research. Third, future studies need to consider social determinants of health and other factors that might impact maternal health outcomes. “These steps will help achieve the larger goal of healthier mothers and babies,” Dr. Nicholson said.
 

Back to basics to improve women’s health

Some clinicians may be disappointed by the Evidence Report’s primary finding that no alternative screening strategies outperformed routine blood pressure measurement, wrote Anne E. Denoble, MD, and Christian M. Pettker, MD, both of Yale University, New Haven, Conn., in an accompanying editorial.

While potentially frustrating at first glance, the findings of the Evidence Report provide a foundation for improvement and reassurance that the best existing screening methods are basic and fundamental: regular prenatal visits with routine, in-office blood pressure measurements, and urine protein screening when clinically indicated, they said.

However, the USPSTF review also noted persistent research gaps that must be addressed to significantly improve maternal health outcomes, they said. Notable gaps include the disproportionately low numbers of Black patients in current studies, and the need for studies of alternate models of prenatal care, including the use of remote blood pressure monitoring, and the use of biomarkers to screen for and predict hypertensive disorders of pregnancy.

The most striking limitation may be the focus on prenatal care, with lack of attention to postpartum mortality risk, given that more than half of pregnancy-related deaths occur postpartum, the authors noted.

Although current screening tools may be used in practice “with skill and might,” more effort at multiple levels is needed to address the larger maternal health crisis in the United States, they said.
 

Expand screening, engage primary care for long-term benefits

Screening for hypertensive disorders of pregnancy “can and should be within the purview of internists,” wrote Srilakshmi Mitta, MD; Cary P. Gross, MD; Melissa A. Simon, MD, of Brown University, Yale University, and Northwestern University, respectively, in a separate editorial. The recommendation to extend screening beyond preeclampsia is timely, given the consistent increase in all hypertensive disorders of pregnancy since 1990, the authors said.

Pregnancy is not the only time for screening, counseling, and management of hypertensive disorders, they emphasized. “All persons who have reproductive capacity and/or are planning pregnancy, along with those who are post partum, should be screened for hypertensive disorders, aligning the USPSTF with guidelines from the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, the American College of Cardiology, and the American Heart Association,” they said, and all clinicians should be on board to identify and treat hypertensive disorders of pregnancy, especially in underserved racial and ethnic minorities for whom primary care may be their only source of health care.

“Pregnancy is a window of opportunity to influence current and future life course, not just of the individual, but also of the fetus(es),other children, and family,” and timely intervention has the potential for great public health impact, they said.

Dr. Denoble disclosed grants from the HealthPartners Institute for Education and Research and from the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute. Dr. Simon serves on the Advisory Committee for Research on Women’s Health for the National Institutes of Health Office of Research on Women’s Health and serves as a member of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Community Preventive Services Task Force; she was a member of the USPSTF from 2017 to 2020. Dr. Gross disclosed grants from Johnson and Johnson and the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (through a grant to the NCCN from AstraZeneca) and personal fees from Genentech.

Many labels on fish oil supplements make unsubstantiated health claims, and products contain variable daily doses of EPA plus DHA, a cross-sectional study suggests.

Overall, about 74% of more than 2,800 supplements that were examined had labels that made at least one health claim, and only 19% included a U.S. Food and Drug Administration–reviewed qualified health claim (QHC).

©Clayton Hansen/iStockphoto

‘Vague statements’

To evaluate health claims made on fish oil supplement labels in the United States and to examine doses of eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA) and docosahexaenoic acid (DHA) in commonly available formulations, the investigators analyzed labels on supplements obtained from the National Institutes of Health Dietary Supplement Label Database.

The main outcomes were the frequency and types of health claims made on the labels, including use of an FDA-reviewed QHC versus a structure/function claim and the organ system referenced, as well as the total daily doses in combined EPA and DHA supplements from leading manufacturers and retailers.

QHCs are statements regarding a supplement’s or food’s potential to treatment or prevent disease. Such claims undergo evidence review by the FDA and include qualifying language that reflects lack of scientific consensus or uncertainty.

An example: “Consuming EPA and DHA combined may reduce the risk of CHD [coronary heart disease] by lowering blood pressure. However, FDA has concluded that the evidence is inconsistent and inconclusive. One serving of [name of the food or dietary supplement] provides [ ] gram(s) of EPA and DHA.”

By contrast, structure/function claims “describe the role of a nutrient or dietary ingredient intended to affect the structure or function in humans” but do not state that the supplement prevents, treats, or cures any disease. Such a claim “does not require any mitigating language regarding potential scientific uncertainty of the statement.”

Structure/function claims commonly state that the supplement “maintains,” “supports,” or “promotes” the function of certain organs. Examples are “promotes heart health” and “supports heart, mind and mood.”

Among 2,819 fish oil supplements, 2,082 (73.9%) made at least one health claim. Of these, only 399 (19.2%) used a QHC; the rest made only structure/function claims. In addition to heart-health claims, many fish oil supplements also have labels that make claims implying benefit to other organ systems, such as brain/mental health, joint health, and eye health – despite a lack of data from randomized clinical trials that support benefit.

The dose analysis of 255 fish oil supplements across 16 major brands found “substantial variability” in the daily dose of EPA (median interquartile range, 340 [135-647] mg/d), DHA (median IQR, 270 [140-500] mg/d), and total EPA+DHA (median IQR, 600 [300-1,100] mg/d).

Twenty-four (9.4%) of the supplements contained a daily dose of 2 g or more EPA+DHA.

“Significant heterogeneity exists in the daily dose of EPA+DHA in available supplements, leading to potential variability in safety and efficacy between supplements,” the authors conclude. “Increasing regulation of dietary supplement labeling may be needed to prevent consumer misinformation.”

Dr. Navar added, “We now need to understand what consumers are taking away from vague statements like ‘promotes brain health’ or ‘supports joint function’ – and test what language we can use to accurately describe the state of the science around fish oil and heart health.”
 

Enthusiasm vs. evidence

“I agree with these concerns and think that the enthusiasm for these supplements outpaces the evidence from rigorous randomized clinical trials,” JoAnn E. Manson, MD, MPH, DrPH, chief of the Division of Preventive Medicine at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, said in an interview. “Results of the observational studies have tended to be much more favorable than the randomized clinical trials.

“The labels can be very misleading to the general public,” she noted. “People are confronted with a dizzying array of dietary supplements, many of which include structure/function claims that require minimal, if any, evidence of efficacy. Clinicians should emphasize with patients that a dietary supplement will never be a substitute for a heart-healthy diet and that many supplements are not helpful for people who already follow a healthy diet,” she said.

The VITAL trial, for which Dr. Manson was principal investigator, showed that supplementation with n-3 fatty acids did not lead to a lower incidence of major cardiovascular events or cancer, compared with placebo.

A subgroup analysis showed that 1 g/d conferred a 20% reduction in major events only for participants who ate less than 1.5 servings of fish per week, Dr. Manson said.

Regarding supplement labels, clinicians should recommend that patients look for a U.S. Pharmacopoeia seal or a seal from the National Science Foundation or ConsumerLab, she advised. These seals ensure that the product has been audited for purity and consistency of content and that the dose in the capsule is consistent with what is on the label.

Dr. Manson also would like to see labels explain that most of the products have not been reviewed by the FDA. “Many members of the general public are misled by these labels into thinking that they’re going to receive health benefits. They’re spending a lot of money on supplements that likely provide no benefit and may even be associated with increased risks.”

No funding for the study was reported. Dr. Navar has received grants from BMS, Esperion, Amgen, and Janssen and personal fees from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bayer, BMS, Esperion, Janssen, Eli Lilly, Merck, Silence Therapeutics, Novo Nordisk, Novartis, New Amsterdam, and Pfizer outside the submitted work and serves as deputy editor for equity, diversity, and inclusion at JAMA Cardiology.

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

Many labels on fish oil supplements make unsubstantiated health claims, and products contain variable daily doses of EPA plus DHA, a cross-sectional study suggests.

Overall, about 74% of more than 2,800 supplements that were examined had labels that made at least one health claim, and only 19% included a U.S. Food and Drug Administration–reviewed qualified health claim (QHC).

©Clayton Hansen/iStockphoto

‘Vague statements’

To evaluate health claims made on fish oil supplement labels in the United States and to examine doses of eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA) and docosahexaenoic acid (DHA) in commonly available formulations, the investigators analyzed labels on supplements obtained from the National Institutes of Health Dietary Supplement Label Database.

The main outcomes were the frequency and types of health claims made on the labels, including use of an FDA-reviewed QHC versus a structure/function claim and the organ system referenced, as well as the total daily doses in combined EPA and DHA supplements from leading manufacturers and retailers.

QHCs are statements regarding a supplement’s or food’s potential to treatment or prevent disease. Such claims undergo evidence review by the FDA and include qualifying language that reflects lack of scientific consensus or uncertainty.

An example: “Consuming EPA and DHA combined may reduce the risk of CHD [coronary heart disease] by lowering blood pressure. However, FDA has concluded that the evidence is inconsistent and inconclusive. One serving of [name of the food or dietary supplement] provides [ ] gram(s) of EPA and DHA.”

By contrast, structure/function claims “describe the role of a nutrient or dietary ingredient intended to affect the structure or function in humans” but do not state that the supplement prevents, treats, or cures any disease. Such a claim “does not require any mitigating language regarding potential scientific uncertainty of the statement.”

Structure/function claims commonly state that the supplement “maintains,” “supports,” or “promotes” the function of certain organs. Examples are “promotes heart health” and “supports heart, mind and mood.”

Among 2,819 fish oil supplements, 2,082 (73.9%) made at least one health claim. Of these, only 399 (19.2%) used a QHC; the rest made only structure/function claims. In addition to heart-health claims, many fish oil supplements also have labels that make claims implying benefit to other organ systems, such as brain/mental health, joint health, and eye health – despite a lack of data from randomized clinical trials that support benefit.

The dose analysis of 255 fish oil supplements across 16 major brands found “substantial variability” in the daily dose of EPA (median interquartile range, 340 [135-647] mg/d), DHA (median IQR, 270 [140-500] mg/d), and total EPA+DHA (median IQR, 600 [300-1,100] mg/d).

Twenty-four (9.4%) of the supplements contained a daily dose of 2 g or more EPA+DHA.

“Significant heterogeneity exists in the daily dose of EPA+DHA in available supplements, leading to potential variability in safety and efficacy between supplements,” the authors conclude. “Increasing regulation of dietary supplement labeling may be needed to prevent consumer misinformation.”

Dr. Navar added, “We now need to understand what consumers are taking away from vague statements like ‘promotes brain health’ or ‘supports joint function’ – and test what language we can use to accurately describe the state of the science around fish oil and heart health.”
 

Enthusiasm vs. evidence

“I agree with these concerns and think that the enthusiasm for these supplements outpaces the evidence from rigorous randomized clinical trials,” JoAnn E. Manson, MD, MPH, DrPH, chief of the Division of Preventive Medicine at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, said in an interview. “Results of the observational studies have tended to be much more favorable than the randomized clinical trials.

“The labels can be very misleading to the general public,” she noted. “People are confronted with a dizzying array of dietary supplements, many of which include structure/function claims that require minimal, if any, evidence of efficacy. Clinicians should emphasize with patients that a dietary supplement will never be a substitute for a heart-healthy diet and that many supplements are not helpful for people who already follow a healthy diet,” she said.

The VITAL trial, for which Dr. Manson was principal investigator, showed that supplementation with n-3 fatty acids did not lead to a lower incidence of major cardiovascular events or cancer, compared with placebo.

A subgroup analysis showed that 1 g/d conferred a 20% reduction in major events only for participants who ate less than 1.5 servings of fish per week, Dr. Manson said.

Regarding supplement labels, clinicians should recommend that patients look for a U.S. Pharmacopoeia seal or a seal from the National Science Foundation or ConsumerLab, she advised. These seals ensure that the product has been audited for purity and consistency of content and that the dose in the capsule is consistent with what is on the label.

Dr. Manson also would like to see labels explain that most of the products have not been reviewed by the FDA. “Many members of the general public are misled by these labels into thinking that they’re going to receive health benefits. They’re spending a lot of money on supplements that likely provide no benefit and may even be associated with increased risks.”

No funding for the study was reported. Dr. Navar has received grants from BMS, Esperion, Amgen, and Janssen and personal fees from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bayer, BMS, Esperion, Janssen, Eli Lilly, Merck, Silence Therapeutics, Novo Nordisk, Novartis, New Amsterdam, and Pfizer outside the submitted work and serves as deputy editor for equity, diversity, and inclusion at JAMA Cardiology.

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

Many labels on fish oil supplements make unsubstantiated health claims, and products contain variable daily doses of EPA plus DHA, a cross-sectional study suggests.

Overall, about 74% of more than 2,800 supplements that were examined had labels that made at least one health claim, and only 19% included a U.S. Food and Drug Administration–reviewed qualified health claim (QHC).

©Clayton Hansen/iStockphoto

‘Vague statements’

To evaluate health claims made on fish oil supplement labels in the United States and to examine doses of eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA) and docosahexaenoic acid (DHA) in commonly available formulations, the investigators analyzed labels on supplements obtained from the National Institutes of Health Dietary Supplement Label Database.

The main outcomes were the frequency and types of health claims made on the labels, including use of an FDA-reviewed QHC versus a structure/function claim and the organ system referenced, as well as the total daily doses in combined EPA and DHA supplements from leading manufacturers and retailers.

QHCs are statements regarding a supplement’s or food’s potential to treatment or prevent disease. Such claims undergo evidence review by the FDA and include qualifying language that reflects lack of scientific consensus or uncertainty.

An example: “Consuming EPA and DHA combined may reduce the risk of CHD [coronary heart disease] by lowering blood pressure. However, FDA has concluded that the evidence is inconsistent and inconclusive. One serving of [name of the food or dietary supplement] provides [ ] gram(s) of EPA and DHA.”

By contrast, structure/function claims “describe the role of a nutrient or dietary ingredient intended to affect the structure or function in humans” but do not state that the supplement prevents, treats, or cures any disease. Such a claim “does not require any mitigating language regarding potential scientific uncertainty of the statement.”

Structure/function claims commonly state that the supplement “maintains,” “supports,” or “promotes” the function of certain organs. Examples are “promotes heart health” and “supports heart, mind and mood.”

Among 2,819 fish oil supplements, 2,082 (73.9%) made at least one health claim. Of these, only 399 (19.2%) used a QHC; the rest made only structure/function claims. In addition to heart-health claims, many fish oil supplements also have labels that make claims implying benefit to other organ systems, such as brain/mental health, joint health, and eye health – despite a lack of data from randomized clinical trials that support benefit.

The dose analysis of 255 fish oil supplements across 16 major brands found “substantial variability” in the daily dose of EPA (median interquartile range, 340 [135-647] mg/d), DHA (median IQR, 270 [140-500] mg/d), and total EPA+DHA (median IQR, 600 [300-1,100] mg/d).

Twenty-four (9.4%) of the supplements contained a daily dose of 2 g or more EPA+DHA.

“Significant heterogeneity exists in the daily dose of EPA+DHA in available supplements, leading to potential variability in safety and efficacy between supplements,” the authors conclude. “Increasing regulation of dietary supplement labeling may be needed to prevent consumer misinformation.”

Dr. Navar added, “We now need to understand what consumers are taking away from vague statements like ‘promotes brain health’ or ‘supports joint function’ – and test what language we can use to accurately describe the state of the science around fish oil and heart health.”
 

Enthusiasm vs. evidence

“I agree with these concerns and think that the enthusiasm for these supplements outpaces the evidence from rigorous randomized clinical trials,” JoAnn E. Manson, MD, MPH, DrPH, chief of the Division of Preventive Medicine at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, said in an interview. “Results of the observational studies have tended to be much more favorable than the randomized clinical trials.

“The labels can be very misleading to the general public,” she noted. “People are confronted with a dizzying array of dietary supplements, many of which include structure/function claims that require minimal, if any, evidence of efficacy. Clinicians should emphasize with patients that a dietary supplement will never be a substitute for a heart-healthy diet and that many supplements are not helpful for people who already follow a healthy diet,” she said.

The VITAL trial, for which Dr. Manson was principal investigator, showed that supplementation with n-3 fatty acids did not lead to a lower incidence of major cardiovascular events or cancer, compared with placebo.

A subgroup analysis showed that 1 g/d conferred a 20% reduction in major events only for participants who ate less than 1.5 servings of fish per week, Dr. Manson said.

Regarding supplement labels, clinicians should recommend that patients look for a U.S. Pharmacopoeia seal or a seal from the National Science Foundation or ConsumerLab, she advised. These seals ensure that the product has been audited for purity and consistency of content and that the dose in the capsule is consistent with what is on the label.

Dr. Manson also would like to see labels explain that most of the products have not been reviewed by the FDA. “Many members of the general public are misled by these labels into thinking that they’re going to receive health benefits. They’re spending a lot of money on supplements that likely provide no benefit and may even be associated with increased risks.”

No funding for the study was reported. Dr. Navar has received grants from BMS, Esperion, Amgen, and Janssen and personal fees from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bayer, BMS, Esperion, Janssen, Eli Lilly, Merck, Silence Therapeutics, Novo Nordisk, Novartis, New Amsterdam, and Pfizer outside the submitted work and serves as deputy editor for equity, diversity, and inclusion at JAMA Cardiology.

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

Taking a patient’s blood pressure while the patient is lying down may yield more information about their cardiovascular risk than taking the reading while the patient is sitting upright, new preliminary research suggests.

An analysis of data from a long-running Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities (ARIC) study of more than 11,000 adults showed that those who had hypertension while supine were at elevated risk for cardiovascular disease (CVD) independently of their having hypertension while seated.

“If blood pressure is only measured while people are seated upright, cardiovascular disease risk may be missed if not measured also while they are lying supine on their backs,” lead investigator Duc M. Giao, a researcher and a fourth-year medical student at Harvard Medical School, Boston, said in a news release.

Mr. Giao presented the findings at the Hypertension Scientific Sessions.
 

Take seated and supine BP in clinic?

Hypertension while asleep is strongly associated with CVD and death, but whether hypertension detected in clinic while the patient is lying flat is a risk factor for CVD independently of the patient’s BP while seated remains unclear.

To investigate, Mr. Giao and colleagues reviewed health data for 11,369 adults (mean age, 54 years; 56% women; 25% Black persons) from the longitudinal ARIC study. None had a history of coronary heart disease (CHD), heart failure (HF), or stroke at baseline.

As part of the study, data on supine and seated BP were obtained during the enrollment period at ARIC visit 1, which took place between 1987 and 1989. Both seated and supine hypertension were defined as systolic BP ≥ 130 mm Hg or diastolic BP ≥ 80 mm Hg.

The data revealed that 16% of those without seated hypertension had supine hypertension, while 74% of those with seated hypertension had supine hypertension.

Despite adjusting for seated hypertension, during a median follow-up of 25-28 years, supine hypertension was associated with an increased risk for incident CHD (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.60; 95% confidence interval, 1.45-1.76), HF (aHR, 1.83; 95% CI, 1.68-2.01), stroke (aHR, 1.86; 95% CI, 1.63-2.13), fatal CHD (aHR, 2.18; 95% CI, 1.84-2.59), and all-cause mortality (aHR, 1.43; 95% CI, 1.35-1.52).

The results did not differ by antihypertensive medication use (P > .05).

For patients who had hypertension while supine but not while seated, elevations in risk were similar to those of peers who had hypertension while both seated and supine.

“Our findings suggest people with known risk factors for heart disease and stroke may benefit from having their blood pressure checked while lying flat on their backs,” Mr. Giao said in the conference news release.

“Efforts to manage blood pressure during daily life may help lower blood pressure while sleeping. Future research should compare supine blood pressure measurements in the clinic with overnight measurements,” Mr. Giao added.
 

Busy clinical practice

In a comment, Wanpen Vongpatanasin, MD, clinical chair for the conference, sponsored by the American Heart Association, said, “This finding highlights the importance of sustained control of BP in all body positions.”

She noted that many population-based studies have shown that nighttime BP independently predicts CV outcomes. “It’s unclear whether the timing of BP measurement (night vs. day) or the position (as most people sleep in supine position at night) explains this phenomenon.”

The study by Mr. Giao and colleagues suggests that “supine BP may be one explanation, as it has as much impact on long-term CV outcome as seated BP,” said Dr. Vongpatanasin, professor of internal medicine and director of the hypertension section, cardiology division, UT Southwestern Medical Center in Dallas.

However, “in busy clinical practice, it is impossible to do both seated and supine, as well as standing BP,” said Dr. Vongpatanasin.

“Additional studies are needed to determine what is considered to be the cutoff for normal supine BP and how to incorporate it in management of hypertension,” she added.

The study had no commercial funding. Mr. Giao and Dr. Vongpatanasin have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Taking a patient’s blood pressure while the patient is lying down may yield more information about their cardiovascular risk than taking the reading while the patient is sitting upright, new preliminary research suggests.

An analysis of data from a long-running Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities (ARIC) study of more than 11,000 adults showed that those who had hypertension while supine were at elevated risk for cardiovascular disease (CVD) independently of their having hypertension while seated.

“If blood pressure is only measured while people are seated upright, cardiovascular disease risk may be missed if not measured also while they are lying supine on their backs,” lead investigator Duc M. Giao, a researcher and a fourth-year medical student at Harvard Medical School, Boston, said in a news release.

Mr. Giao presented the findings at the Hypertension Scientific Sessions.
 

Take seated and supine BP in clinic?

Hypertension while asleep is strongly associated with CVD and death, but whether hypertension detected in clinic while the patient is lying flat is a risk factor for CVD independently of the patient’s BP while seated remains unclear.

To investigate, Mr. Giao and colleagues reviewed health data for 11,369 adults (mean age, 54 years; 56% women; 25% Black persons) from the longitudinal ARIC study. None had a history of coronary heart disease (CHD), heart failure (HF), or stroke at baseline.

As part of the study, data on supine and seated BP were obtained during the enrollment period at ARIC visit 1, which took place between 1987 and 1989. Both seated and supine hypertension were defined as systolic BP ≥ 130 mm Hg or diastolic BP ≥ 80 mm Hg.

The data revealed that 16% of those without seated hypertension had supine hypertension, while 74% of those with seated hypertension had supine hypertension.

Despite adjusting for seated hypertension, during a median follow-up of 25-28 years, supine hypertension was associated with an increased risk for incident CHD (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.60; 95% confidence interval, 1.45-1.76), HF (aHR, 1.83; 95% CI, 1.68-2.01), stroke (aHR, 1.86; 95% CI, 1.63-2.13), fatal CHD (aHR, 2.18; 95% CI, 1.84-2.59), and all-cause mortality (aHR, 1.43; 95% CI, 1.35-1.52).

The results did not differ by antihypertensive medication use (P > .05).

For patients who had hypertension while supine but not while seated, elevations in risk were similar to those of peers who had hypertension while both seated and supine.

“Our findings suggest people with known risk factors for heart disease and stroke may benefit from having their blood pressure checked while lying flat on their backs,” Mr. Giao said in the conference news release.

“Efforts to manage blood pressure during daily life may help lower blood pressure while sleeping. Future research should compare supine blood pressure measurements in the clinic with overnight measurements,” Mr. Giao added.
 

Busy clinical practice

In a comment, Wanpen Vongpatanasin, MD, clinical chair for the conference, sponsored by the American Heart Association, said, “This finding highlights the importance of sustained control of BP in all body positions.”

She noted that many population-based studies have shown that nighttime BP independently predicts CV outcomes. “It’s unclear whether the timing of BP measurement (night vs. day) or the position (as most people sleep in supine position at night) explains this phenomenon.”

The study by Mr. Giao and colleagues suggests that “supine BP may be one explanation, as it has as much impact on long-term CV outcome as seated BP,” said Dr. Vongpatanasin, professor of internal medicine and director of the hypertension section, cardiology division, UT Southwestern Medical Center in Dallas.

However, “in busy clinical practice, it is impossible to do both seated and supine, as well as standing BP,” said Dr. Vongpatanasin.

“Additional studies are needed to determine what is considered to be the cutoff for normal supine BP and how to incorporate it in management of hypertension,” she added.

The study had no commercial funding. Mr. Giao and Dr. Vongpatanasin have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Taking a patient’s blood pressure while the patient is lying down may yield more information about their cardiovascular risk than taking the reading while the patient is sitting upright, new preliminary research suggests.

An analysis of data from a long-running Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities (ARIC) study of more than 11,000 adults showed that those who had hypertension while supine were at elevated risk for cardiovascular disease (CVD) independently of their having hypertension while seated.

“If blood pressure is only measured while people are seated upright, cardiovascular disease risk may be missed if not measured also while they are lying supine on their backs,” lead investigator Duc M. Giao, a researcher and a fourth-year medical student at Harvard Medical School, Boston, said in a news release.

Mr. Giao presented the findings at the Hypertension Scientific Sessions.
 

Take seated and supine BP in clinic?

Hypertension while asleep is strongly associated with CVD and death, but whether hypertension detected in clinic while the patient is lying flat is a risk factor for CVD independently of the patient’s BP while seated remains unclear.

To investigate, Mr. Giao and colleagues reviewed health data for 11,369 adults (mean age, 54 years; 56% women; 25% Black persons) from the longitudinal ARIC study. None had a history of coronary heart disease (CHD), heart failure (HF), or stroke at baseline.

As part of the study, data on supine and seated BP were obtained during the enrollment period at ARIC visit 1, which took place between 1987 and 1989. Both seated and supine hypertension were defined as systolic BP ≥ 130 mm Hg or diastolic BP ≥ 80 mm Hg.

The data revealed that 16% of those without seated hypertension had supine hypertension, while 74% of those with seated hypertension had supine hypertension.

Despite adjusting for seated hypertension, during a median follow-up of 25-28 years, supine hypertension was associated with an increased risk for incident CHD (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.60; 95% confidence interval, 1.45-1.76), HF (aHR, 1.83; 95% CI, 1.68-2.01), stroke (aHR, 1.86; 95% CI, 1.63-2.13), fatal CHD (aHR, 2.18; 95% CI, 1.84-2.59), and all-cause mortality (aHR, 1.43; 95% CI, 1.35-1.52).

The results did not differ by antihypertensive medication use (P > .05).

For patients who had hypertension while supine but not while seated, elevations in risk were similar to those of peers who had hypertension while both seated and supine.

“Our findings suggest people with known risk factors for heart disease and stroke may benefit from having their blood pressure checked while lying flat on their backs,” Mr. Giao said in the conference news release.

“Efforts to manage blood pressure during daily life may help lower blood pressure while sleeping. Future research should compare supine blood pressure measurements in the clinic with overnight measurements,” Mr. Giao added.
 

Busy clinical practice

In a comment, Wanpen Vongpatanasin, MD, clinical chair for the conference, sponsored by the American Heart Association, said, “This finding highlights the importance of sustained control of BP in all body positions.”

She noted that many population-based studies have shown that nighttime BP independently predicts CV outcomes. “It’s unclear whether the timing of BP measurement (night vs. day) or the position (as most people sleep in supine position at night) explains this phenomenon.”

The study by Mr. Giao and colleagues suggests that “supine BP may be one explanation, as it has as much impact on long-term CV outcome as seated BP,” said Dr. Vongpatanasin, professor of internal medicine and director of the hypertension section, cardiology division, UT Southwestern Medical Center in Dallas.

However, “in busy clinical practice, it is impossible to do both seated and supine, as well as standing BP,” said Dr. Vongpatanasin.

“Additional studies are needed to determine what is considered to be the cutoff for normal supine BP and how to incorporate it in management of hypertension,” she added.

The study had no commercial funding. Mr. Giao and Dr. Vongpatanasin have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

TOPLINE:

Globally, lead exposure is linked to more than 5.5 million adult cardiovascular deaths in 2019, as well as loss of 765 million intelligence quotient (IQ) points in children younger than 5 years, which cost U.S. $6 trillion in lost productivity, new research suggests.

METHODOLOGY:

• Global lead exposure has declined substantially since leaded gasoline was phased out, but several sources of lead remain, resulting in adverse health and economic effects, particularly in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs).
• Estimates of cardiovascular disease (CVD) deaths from lead exposure have been limited to effects of increased blood pressure, but studies show that lead exposure has cardiovascular impacts through mechanisms other than hypertension.
• Drawing from various sources and studies, researchers estimated global blood lead levels and the impact of lead exposure on CVD mortality in 2019 among adults aged 25 years or older, IQ loss in children younger than 5 years, and the related economic costs.

TAKEAWAY:

• Researchers estimated that there were 5,545,000 (95% confidence interval, 2,305,000-8,271,000) cardiovascular deaths in adults from lead exposure in 2019, with as many as 90.2% of these deaths in LMICs; however, this estimate may be incomplete because it does not include the effect of lead exposure on CVD mortality mediated through hypertension.
• The estimated global IQ loss in children younger than 5 years due to lead exposure was 765 million (95% CI, 443 million-1,098 million) IQ points in 2019, 95.3% of which occurred in LMICs.
• These estimates place lead exposure on a par with ambient particulate matter and household air pollution combined, and ahead of unsafe household drinking water, sanitation, and handwashing, as an environmental risk factor.
• The estimated global cost of lead exposure from CVD mortality and IQ loss combined is U.S. $6.0 trillion (range, $2.6 trillion-9.0 trillion) in 2019, equivalent to 6.9% of the 2019 global gross domestic product.

IN PRACTICE:

Given the magnitude of the estimated health effects of lead exposure, particularly in LMICs, “it is imperative that nationally representative periodic blood lead level measurements be institutionalized,” write the authors, adding that these measurements could be incorporated into existing household surveys.

STUDY DETAILS:

The study was conducted by Bjorn Larsen, PhD, environmental economist and consultant to the World Bank, and Ernesto Sánchez-Triana. It was published online in The Lancet Planetary Health.

LIMITATIONS:

• Global blood lead level estimates may be inaccurate, given that measurements are absent for many countries.
• Certain income projections and income losses are uncertain.
• Because the study does not capture the detrimental effects of lead exposure other than IQ loss and CVD mortality, the estimates of global costs are conservative.

DISCLOSURES:

The study received support from the Korea Green Growth Trust Fund and the World Bank’s Pollution Management and Environmental Health Program. The authors have no relevant conflicts of interest.

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

TOPLINE:

Globally, lead exposure is linked to more than 5.5 million adult cardiovascular deaths in 2019, as well as loss of 765 million intelligence quotient (IQ) points in children younger than 5 years, which cost U.S. $6 trillion in lost productivity, new research suggests.

METHODOLOGY:

• Global lead exposure has declined substantially since leaded gasoline was phased out, but several sources of lead remain, resulting in adverse health and economic effects, particularly in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs).
• Estimates of cardiovascular disease (CVD) deaths from lead exposure have been limited to effects of increased blood pressure, but studies show that lead exposure has cardiovascular impacts through mechanisms other than hypertension.
• Drawing from various sources and studies, researchers estimated global blood lead levels and the impact of lead exposure on CVD mortality in 2019 among adults aged 25 years or older, IQ loss in children younger than 5 years, and the related economic costs.

TAKEAWAY:

• Researchers estimated that there were 5,545,000 (95% confidence interval, 2,305,000-8,271,000) cardiovascular deaths in adults from lead exposure in 2019, with as many as 90.2% of these deaths in LMICs; however, this estimate may be incomplete because it does not include the effect of lead exposure on CVD mortality mediated through hypertension.
• The estimated global IQ loss in children younger than 5 years due to lead exposure was 765 million (95% CI, 443 million-1,098 million) IQ points in 2019, 95.3% of which occurred in LMICs.
• These estimates place lead exposure on a par with ambient particulate matter and household air pollution combined, and ahead of unsafe household drinking water, sanitation, and handwashing, as an environmental risk factor.
• The estimated global cost of lead exposure from CVD mortality and IQ loss combined is U.S. $6.0 trillion (range, $2.6 trillion-9.0 trillion) in 2019, equivalent to 6.9% of the 2019 global gross domestic product.

IN PRACTICE:

Given the magnitude of the estimated health effects of lead exposure, particularly in LMICs, “it is imperative that nationally representative periodic blood lead level measurements be institutionalized,” write the authors, adding that these measurements could be incorporated into existing household surveys.

STUDY DETAILS:

The study was conducted by Bjorn Larsen, PhD, environmental economist and consultant to the World Bank, and Ernesto Sánchez-Triana. It was published online in The Lancet Planetary Health.

LIMITATIONS:

• Global blood lead level estimates may be inaccurate, given that measurements are absent for many countries.
• Certain income projections and income losses are uncertain.
• Because the study does not capture the detrimental effects of lead exposure other than IQ loss and CVD mortality, the estimates of global costs are conservative.

DISCLOSURES:

The study received support from the Korea Green Growth Trust Fund and the World Bank’s Pollution Management and Environmental Health Program. The authors have no relevant conflicts of interest.

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

TOPLINE:

Globally, lead exposure is linked to more than 5.5 million adult cardiovascular deaths in 2019, as well as loss of 765 million intelligence quotient (IQ) points in children younger than 5 years, which cost U.S. $6 trillion in lost productivity, new research suggests.

METHODOLOGY:

• Global lead exposure has declined substantially since leaded gasoline was phased out, but several sources of lead remain, resulting in adverse health and economic effects, particularly in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs).
• Estimates of cardiovascular disease (CVD) deaths from lead exposure have been limited to effects of increased blood pressure, but studies show that lead exposure has cardiovascular impacts through mechanisms other than hypertension.
• Drawing from various sources and studies, researchers estimated global blood lead levels and the impact of lead exposure on CVD mortality in 2019 among adults aged 25 years or older, IQ loss in children younger than 5 years, and the related economic costs.

TAKEAWAY:

• Researchers estimated that there were 5,545,000 (95% confidence interval, 2,305,000-8,271,000) cardiovascular deaths in adults from lead exposure in 2019, with as many as 90.2% of these deaths in LMICs; however, this estimate may be incomplete because it does not include the effect of lead exposure on CVD mortality mediated through hypertension.
• The estimated global IQ loss in children younger than 5 years due to lead exposure was 765 million (95% CI, 443 million-1,098 million) IQ points in 2019, 95.3% of which occurred in LMICs.
• These estimates place lead exposure on a par with ambient particulate matter and household air pollution combined, and ahead of unsafe household drinking water, sanitation, and handwashing, as an environmental risk factor.
• The estimated global cost of lead exposure from CVD mortality and IQ loss combined is U.S. $6.0 trillion (range, $2.6 trillion-9.0 trillion) in 2019, equivalent to 6.9% of the 2019 global gross domestic product.

IN PRACTICE:

Given the magnitude of the estimated health effects of lead exposure, particularly in LMICs, “it is imperative that nationally representative periodic blood lead level measurements be institutionalized,” write the authors, adding that these measurements could be incorporated into existing household surveys.

STUDY DETAILS:

The study was conducted by Bjorn Larsen, PhD, environmental economist and consultant to the World Bank, and Ernesto Sánchez-Triana. It was published online in The Lancet Planetary Health.

LIMITATIONS:

• Global blood lead level estimates may be inaccurate, given that measurements are absent for many countries.
• Certain income projections and income losses are uncertain.
• Because the study does not capture the detrimental effects of lead exposure other than IQ loss and CVD mortality, the estimates of global costs are conservative.

DISCLOSURES:

The study received support from the Korea Green Growth Trust Fund and the World Bank’s Pollution Management and Environmental Health Program. The authors have no relevant conflicts of interest.

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

Adults with hypertension may have a harder time keeping their blood pressure in check during the winter months, a new study suggests.

A review of electronic health records of more than 60,000 U.S. adults being treated for hypertension found that on average, systolic BP rose by up to 1.7 mm Hg in the cold winter months, compared with the hot summer months.

On a population level, BP control rates decreased by up to 5% during the cold winter months, compared with control rates in the warm summer months.

“Some patients may benefit from increased pharmacological intervention to keep blood pressure controlled during the winter,” Robert Barrett, with the American Medical Association, Greenville, S.C., told this news organization.

“Individuals with hypertension or values near the range of hypertension may benefit from periodic blood pressure monitoring and improvements in physical activity and nutritional patterns during winter months to offset adverse effects from seasonal blood pressure changes,” Mr. Barrett added in a news release.

Mr. Barrett presented the study findings at the American Heart Association Hypertension Scientific Sessions 2023 in Boston.
 

Supportive data

Mr. Barrett explained that seasonal variation in BP has been previously documented, and as part of the evaluation for the AMA MAP Hypertension program, he and colleagues were interested in the effect of this variation on population control rates under standard metrics (visits with BP < 140/90 mm Hg).

They analyzed data from 60,676 men and women (mean age, 62 years) with hypertension from six health care organizations in the southeastern and midwestern United States that were participating in the quality improvement program.

During the roughly 5-year assessment period, none of the patients had changes in their antihypertensive medication, and all had at least one visit in each temperate season. The researchers estimated the seasonal effect on average systolic BP and BP control (defined as < 140/90 mm Hg).

Across a total of 453,787 visits, systolic BP during the winter averaged 0.47 mm Hg higher (95% confidence interval, 0.364-0.573) than the yearly average, with a significantly lower odds ratio for BP control (OR, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.91-0.94), the researchers report.

In contrast, average systolic BP was 0.92 mm Hg lower during the summer, with a higher likelihood of BP control (OR ,1.10; 95% CI, 1.07-1.12).

“Seasonal variation in blood pressure has a substantial effect on hypertension control, often defined as blood pressure < 140/90,” Barrett told this news organization.

“Patients with hypertension are less likely to have their blood pressure controlled during winter than summer months. If the blood pressure is very well controlled, for example to < 130/80, then seasonal variation will have little effect on control to < 140/90,” Mr. Barrett noted.

“However, if blood pressure is not well controlled, then patients near the 140/90 level could benefit from monitoring their blood pressure regularly, closer medical follow-up, and avoiding decreased physical activity and increased weight toward year end,” he added.

Wanpen Vongpatanasin, MD, clinical chair for the conference, said that it’s “well known that BP tends to lower during summer months and patients may be susceptible to dehydration and acute kidney injury when BP is too low, particularly when treated with certain medication such as diuretics.”

On the flip side, “cold weather predisposes to vasoconstriction as our blood vessel constrict to maintain core temperature and it could be challenging to manage BP. That’s why it is important for high BP patients to monitor home BP regularly,” said Dr. Vongpatanasin, professor of internal medicine and director of the hypertension section, cardiology division, UT Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas.

The study had no commercial funding. Mr. Barrett and Dr. Vongpatanasin have no relevant disclosures.

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

Adults with hypertension may have a harder time keeping their blood pressure in check during the winter months, a new study suggests.

A review of electronic health records of more than 60,000 U.S. adults being treated for hypertension found that on average, systolic BP rose by up to 1.7 mm Hg in the cold winter months, compared with the hot summer months.

On a population level, BP control rates decreased by up to 5% during the cold winter months, compared with control rates in the warm summer months.

“Some patients may benefit from increased pharmacological intervention to keep blood pressure controlled during the winter,” Robert Barrett, with the American Medical Association, Greenville, S.C., told this news organization.

“Individuals with hypertension or values near the range of hypertension may benefit from periodic blood pressure monitoring and improvements in physical activity and nutritional patterns during winter months to offset adverse effects from seasonal blood pressure changes,” Mr. Barrett added in a news release.

Mr. Barrett presented the study findings at the American Heart Association Hypertension Scientific Sessions 2023 in Boston.
 

Supportive data

Mr. Barrett explained that seasonal variation in BP has been previously documented, and as part of the evaluation for the AMA MAP Hypertension program, he and colleagues were interested in the effect of this variation on population control rates under standard metrics (visits with BP < 140/90 mm Hg).

They analyzed data from 60,676 men and women (mean age, 62 years) with hypertension from six health care organizations in the southeastern and midwestern United States that were participating in the quality improvement program.

During the roughly 5-year assessment period, none of the patients had changes in their antihypertensive medication, and all had at least one visit in each temperate season. The researchers estimated the seasonal effect on average systolic BP and BP control (defined as < 140/90 mm Hg).

Across a total of 453,787 visits, systolic BP during the winter averaged 0.47 mm Hg higher (95% confidence interval, 0.364-0.573) than the yearly average, with a significantly lower odds ratio for BP control (OR, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.91-0.94), the researchers report.

In contrast, average systolic BP was 0.92 mm Hg lower during the summer, with a higher likelihood of BP control (OR ,1.10; 95% CI, 1.07-1.12).

“Seasonal variation in blood pressure has a substantial effect on hypertension control, often defined as blood pressure < 140/90,” Barrett told this news organization.

“Patients with hypertension are less likely to have their blood pressure controlled during winter than summer months. If the blood pressure is very well controlled, for example to < 130/80, then seasonal variation will have little effect on control to < 140/90,” Mr. Barrett noted.

“However, if blood pressure is not well controlled, then patients near the 140/90 level could benefit from monitoring their blood pressure regularly, closer medical follow-up, and avoiding decreased physical activity and increased weight toward year end,” he added.

Wanpen Vongpatanasin, MD, clinical chair for the conference, said that it’s “well known that BP tends to lower during summer months and patients may be susceptible to dehydration and acute kidney injury when BP is too low, particularly when treated with certain medication such as diuretics.”

On the flip side, “cold weather predisposes to vasoconstriction as our blood vessel constrict to maintain core temperature and it could be challenging to manage BP. That’s why it is important for high BP patients to monitor home BP regularly,” said Dr. Vongpatanasin, professor of internal medicine and director of the hypertension section, cardiology division, UT Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas.

The study had no commercial funding. Mr. Barrett and Dr. Vongpatanasin have no relevant disclosures.

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

Adults with hypertension may have a harder time keeping their blood pressure in check during the winter months, a new study suggests.

A review of electronic health records of more than 60,000 U.S. adults being treated for hypertension found that on average, systolic BP rose by up to 1.7 mm Hg in the cold winter months, compared with the hot summer months.

On a population level, BP control rates decreased by up to 5% during the cold winter months, compared with control rates in the warm summer months.

“Some patients may benefit from increased pharmacological intervention to keep blood pressure controlled during the winter,” Robert Barrett, with the American Medical Association, Greenville, S.C., told this news organization.

“Individuals with hypertension or values near the range of hypertension may benefit from periodic blood pressure monitoring and improvements in physical activity and nutritional patterns during winter months to offset adverse effects from seasonal blood pressure changes,” Mr. Barrett added in a news release.

Mr. Barrett presented the study findings at the American Heart Association Hypertension Scientific Sessions 2023 in Boston.
 

Supportive data

Mr. Barrett explained that seasonal variation in BP has been previously documented, and as part of the evaluation for the AMA MAP Hypertension program, he and colleagues were interested in the effect of this variation on population control rates under standard metrics (visits with BP < 140/90 mm Hg).

They analyzed data from 60,676 men and women (mean age, 62 years) with hypertension from six health care organizations in the southeastern and midwestern United States that were participating in the quality improvement program.

During the roughly 5-year assessment period, none of the patients had changes in their antihypertensive medication, and all had at least one visit in each temperate season. The researchers estimated the seasonal effect on average systolic BP and BP control (defined as < 140/90 mm Hg).

Across a total of 453,787 visits, systolic BP during the winter averaged 0.47 mm Hg higher (95% confidence interval, 0.364-0.573) than the yearly average, with a significantly lower odds ratio for BP control (OR, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.91-0.94), the researchers report.

In contrast, average systolic BP was 0.92 mm Hg lower during the summer, with a higher likelihood of BP control (OR ,1.10; 95% CI, 1.07-1.12).

“Seasonal variation in blood pressure has a substantial effect on hypertension control, often defined as blood pressure < 140/90,” Barrett told this news organization.

“Patients with hypertension are less likely to have their blood pressure controlled during winter than summer months. If the blood pressure is very well controlled, for example to < 130/80, then seasonal variation will have little effect on control to < 140/90,” Mr. Barrett noted.

“However, if blood pressure is not well controlled, then patients near the 140/90 level could benefit from monitoring their blood pressure regularly, closer medical follow-up, and avoiding decreased physical activity and increased weight toward year end,” he added.

Wanpen Vongpatanasin, MD, clinical chair for the conference, said that it’s “well known that BP tends to lower during summer months and patients may be susceptible to dehydration and acute kidney injury when BP is too low, particularly when treated with certain medication such as diuretics.”

On the flip side, “cold weather predisposes to vasoconstriction as our blood vessel constrict to maintain core temperature and it could be challenging to manage BP. That’s why it is important for high BP patients to monitor home BP regularly,” said Dr. Vongpatanasin, professor of internal medicine and director of the hypertension section, cardiology division, UT Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas.

The study had no commercial funding. Mr. Barrett and Dr. Vongpatanasin have no relevant disclosures.

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

Once-daily treatment with the selective aldosterone synthase inhibitor lorundrostat (Mineralys Therapeutics) safely and significantly reduced blood pressure in adults with uncontrolled hypertension in a phase 2, randomized, controlled trial.

Eight weeks after adding lorundrostat (50 mg or 100 mg once daily) or placebo to background therapy, the medication lowered seated automated office systolic BP significantly more than placebo (−9.6 mm Hg with 50 mg; −7.8 mm Hg with 100 mg), with the greatest effects seen in adults with obesity.

“We need new drugs for treatment-resistant hypertension,” study investigator Steven Nissen, MD, chief academic officer at the Heart Vascular & Thoracic Institute at the Cleveland Clinic, said in an interview. Lorundrostat represents a “new class” of antihypertensive that “looks to be safe and we’re seeing very large reductions in blood pressure.”

Results of the Target-HTN trial were published online in JAMA to coincide with presentation at the Hypertension Scientific Sessions, sponsored by the American Heart Association.
 

Aldosterone’s contribution ‘vastly underappreciated’

Excess aldosterone production contributes to uncontrolled BP in patients with obesity and other associated diseases, such as obstructive sleep apnea and metabolic syndrome. 

“Aldosterone’s contribution to uncontrolled hypertension is vastly underappreciated,” first author and study presenter Luke Laffin, MD, also with the Cleveland Clinic, said in an interview.

Aldosterone synthase inhibitors are a novel class of BP-lowering medications that decrease aldosterone production. Lorundrostat is one of two such agents in advanced clinical development. The other is baxdrostat (CinCor Pharma/AstraZeneca).

The Target-HTN randomized, placebo-controlled, dose-ranging trial enrolled 200 adults (mean age, 66 years; 60% women) with uncontrolled hypertension while taking two or more antihypertensive medications; 42% of participants were taking three or more antihypertensive medications, 48% were obese and 40% had diabetes.

The study population was divided into two cohorts: an initial cohort of 163 adults with suppressed plasma renin activity at baseline (PRA ≤ 1.0 ng/mL per hour) and elevated plasma aldosterone (≥ 1.0 ng/dL) and a second cohort of 37 adults with PRA greater than 1.0 ng/mL per hour.

Participants were randomly assigned to placebo or one of five doses of lorundrostat in the initial cohort (12.5 mg, 50 mg, or 100 mg once daily or 12.5 mg or 25 mg twice daily).

In the second cohort, participants were randomly assigned (1:6) to placebo or lorundrostat 100 mg once daily. The primary endpoint was change in automated office systolic BP from baseline to week 8.

Among participants with suppressed PRA, following 8 weeks of treatment, changes in office systolic BP of −14.1, −13.2, and −6.9 mm Hg were observed with 100 mg, 50 mg, and 12.5 mg once-daily lorundrostat, respectively, compared with a change of −4.1 mm Hg with placebo.

Reductions in systolic BP in individuals receiving twice-daily doses of 25 mg and 12.5 mg of lorundrostat were −10.1 and −13.8 mm Hg, respectively.

Among participants without suppressed PRA, lorundrostat 100 mg once daily decreased systolic BP by 11.4 mm Hg, similar to BP reduction in those with suppressed PRA receiving the same dose.

A prespecified subgroup analysis showed that participants with obesity demonstrated greater BP lowering in response to lorundrostat. 

No instances of cortisol insufficiency occurred. Six participants had increases in serum potassium above 6.0 mEq/L (6.0 mmol/L) that corrected with dose reduction or drug discontinuation.

The increase in serum potassium is “expected and manageable,” Dr. Laffin said in an interview. “Anytime you disrupt aldosterone production, you’re going to have to have an increase in serum potassium, but it’s very manageable and not something that is worrisome.”

A phase 2 trial in 300 adults with uncontrolled hypertension is currently underway. The trial will evaluate the BP-lowering effects of lorundrostat, administered on a background of a standardized antihypertensive medication regimen. A larger phase 3 study will start before the end of the year.
 

‘New dawn’ for therapies targeting aldosterone

The author of an editorial in JAMA noted that more 70 years after the first isolation of aldosterone, then called electrocortin, “there is a new dawn for therapies targeting aldosterone.”

“There is now real potential to provide better-targeted treatment for patients in whom aldosterone excess is known to contribute to their clinical condition and influence their clinical outcome, notably those with difficult-to-control hypertension, obesity, heart failure, chronic kidney disease, and the many with yet-to-be-diagnosed primary aldosteronism,” said Bryan Williams, MD, University College London.

The trial was funded by Mineralys Therapeutics, which is developing lorundrostat. Dr. Laffin reported that the Cleveland Clinic, his employer, was a study site for the Target-HTN trial and that C5Research, the academic research organization of the Cleveland Clinic, receives payment for services related to other Mineralys clinical trials. Dr. Laffin also reported receipt of personal fees from Medtronic, Lilly, and Crispr Therapeutics, grants from AstraZeneca, and stock options for LucidAct Health and Gordy Health. Dr. Nissen reported receipt of grants from Mineralys during the conduct of the study and grants from AbbVie, AstraZeneca, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Lilly, Esperion Therapeutics, Medtronic, grants from MyoKardia, New Amsterdam Pharmaceuticals, Novartis, and Silence Therapeutics. Dr. Williams reported being the unremunerated chair of the steering committee designing a phase 3 trial of the aldosterone synthase inhibitor baxdrostat for AstraZeneca.

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

Once-daily treatment with the selective aldosterone synthase inhibitor lorundrostat (Mineralys Therapeutics) safely and significantly reduced blood pressure in adults with uncontrolled hypertension in a phase 2, randomized, controlled trial.

Eight weeks after adding lorundrostat (50 mg or 100 mg once daily) or placebo to background therapy, the medication lowered seated automated office systolic BP significantly more than placebo (−9.6 mm Hg with 50 mg; −7.8 mm Hg with 100 mg), with the greatest effects seen in adults with obesity.

“We need new drugs for treatment-resistant hypertension,” study investigator Steven Nissen, MD, chief academic officer at the Heart Vascular & Thoracic Institute at the Cleveland Clinic, said in an interview. Lorundrostat represents a “new class” of antihypertensive that “looks to be safe and we’re seeing very large reductions in blood pressure.”

Results of the Target-HTN trial were published online in JAMA to coincide with presentation at the Hypertension Scientific Sessions, sponsored by the American Heart Association.
 

Aldosterone’s contribution ‘vastly underappreciated’

Excess aldosterone production contributes to uncontrolled BP in patients with obesity and other associated diseases, such as obstructive sleep apnea and metabolic syndrome. 

“Aldosterone’s contribution to uncontrolled hypertension is vastly underappreciated,” first author and study presenter Luke Laffin, MD, also with the Cleveland Clinic, said in an interview.

Aldosterone synthase inhibitors are a novel class of BP-lowering medications that decrease aldosterone production. Lorundrostat is one of two such agents in advanced clinical development. The other is baxdrostat (CinCor Pharma/AstraZeneca).

The Target-HTN randomized, placebo-controlled, dose-ranging trial enrolled 200 adults (mean age, 66 years; 60% women) with uncontrolled hypertension while taking two or more antihypertensive medications; 42% of participants were taking three or more antihypertensive medications, 48% were obese and 40% had diabetes.

The study population was divided into two cohorts: an initial cohort of 163 adults with suppressed plasma renin activity at baseline (PRA ≤ 1.0 ng/mL per hour) and elevated plasma aldosterone (≥ 1.0 ng/dL) and a second cohort of 37 adults with PRA greater than 1.0 ng/mL per hour.

Participants were randomly assigned to placebo or one of five doses of lorundrostat in the initial cohort (12.5 mg, 50 mg, or 100 mg once daily or 12.5 mg or 25 mg twice daily).

In the second cohort, participants were randomly assigned (1:6) to placebo or lorundrostat 100 mg once daily. The primary endpoint was change in automated office systolic BP from baseline to week 8.

Among participants with suppressed PRA, following 8 weeks of treatment, changes in office systolic BP of −14.1, −13.2, and −6.9 mm Hg were observed with 100 mg, 50 mg, and 12.5 mg once-daily lorundrostat, respectively, compared with a change of −4.1 mm Hg with placebo.

Reductions in systolic BP in individuals receiving twice-daily doses of 25 mg and 12.5 mg of lorundrostat were −10.1 and −13.8 mm Hg, respectively.

Among participants without suppressed PRA, lorundrostat 100 mg once daily decreased systolic BP by 11.4 mm Hg, similar to BP reduction in those with suppressed PRA receiving the same dose.

A prespecified subgroup analysis showed that participants with obesity demonstrated greater BP lowering in response to lorundrostat. 

No instances of cortisol insufficiency occurred. Six participants had increases in serum potassium above 6.0 mEq/L (6.0 mmol/L) that corrected with dose reduction or drug discontinuation.

The increase in serum potassium is “expected and manageable,” Dr. Laffin said in an interview. “Anytime you disrupt aldosterone production, you’re going to have to have an increase in serum potassium, but it’s very manageable and not something that is worrisome.”

A phase 2 trial in 300 adults with uncontrolled hypertension is currently underway. The trial will evaluate the BP-lowering effects of lorundrostat, administered on a background of a standardized antihypertensive medication regimen. A larger phase 3 study will start before the end of the year.
 

‘New dawn’ for therapies targeting aldosterone

The author of an editorial in JAMA noted that more 70 years after the first isolation of aldosterone, then called electrocortin, “there is a new dawn for therapies targeting aldosterone.”

“There is now real potential to provide better-targeted treatment for patients in whom aldosterone excess is known to contribute to their clinical condition and influence their clinical outcome, notably those with difficult-to-control hypertension, obesity, heart failure, chronic kidney disease, and the many with yet-to-be-diagnosed primary aldosteronism,” said Bryan Williams, MD, University College London.

The trial was funded by Mineralys Therapeutics, which is developing lorundrostat. Dr. Laffin reported that the Cleveland Clinic, his employer, was a study site for the Target-HTN trial and that C5Research, the academic research organization of the Cleveland Clinic, receives payment for services related to other Mineralys clinical trials. Dr. Laffin also reported receipt of personal fees from Medtronic, Lilly, and Crispr Therapeutics, grants from AstraZeneca, and stock options for LucidAct Health and Gordy Health. Dr. Nissen reported receipt of grants from Mineralys during the conduct of the study and grants from AbbVie, AstraZeneca, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Lilly, Esperion Therapeutics, Medtronic, grants from MyoKardia, New Amsterdam Pharmaceuticals, Novartis, and Silence Therapeutics. Dr. Williams reported being the unremunerated chair of the steering committee designing a phase 3 trial of the aldosterone synthase inhibitor baxdrostat for AstraZeneca.

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

Once-daily treatment with the selective aldosterone synthase inhibitor lorundrostat (Mineralys Therapeutics) safely and significantly reduced blood pressure in adults with uncontrolled hypertension in a phase 2, randomized, controlled trial.

Eight weeks after adding lorundrostat (50 mg or 100 mg once daily) or placebo to background therapy, the medication lowered seated automated office systolic BP significantly more than placebo (−9.6 mm Hg with 50 mg; −7.8 mm Hg with 100 mg), with the greatest effects seen in adults with obesity.

“We need new drugs for treatment-resistant hypertension,” study investigator Steven Nissen, MD, chief academic officer at the Heart Vascular & Thoracic Institute at the Cleveland Clinic, said in an interview. Lorundrostat represents a “new class” of antihypertensive that “looks to be safe and we’re seeing very large reductions in blood pressure.”

Results of the Target-HTN trial were published online in JAMA to coincide with presentation at the Hypertension Scientific Sessions, sponsored by the American Heart Association.
 

Aldosterone’s contribution ‘vastly underappreciated’

Excess aldosterone production contributes to uncontrolled BP in patients with obesity and other associated diseases, such as obstructive sleep apnea and metabolic syndrome. 

“Aldosterone’s contribution to uncontrolled hypertension is vastly underappreciated,” first author and study presenter Luke Laffin, MD, also with the Cleveland Clinic, said in an interview.

Aldosterone synthase inhibitors are a novel class of BP-lowering medications that decrease aldosterone production. Lorundrostat is one of two such agents in advanced clinical development. The other is baxdrostat (CinCor Pharma/AstraZeneca).

The Target-HTN randomized, placebo-controlled, dose-ranging trial enrolled 200 adults (mean age, 66 years; 60% women) with uncontrolled hypertension while taking two or more antihypertensive medications; 42% of participants were taking three or more antihypertensive medications, 48% were obese and 40% had diabetes.

The study population was divided into two cohorts: an initial cohort of 163 adults with suppressed plasma renin activity at baseline (PRA ≤ 1.0 ng/mL per hour) and elevated plasma aldosterone (≥ 1.0 ng/dL) and a second cohort of 37 adults with PRA greater than 1.0 ng/mL per hour.

Participants were randomly assigned to placebo or one of five doses of lorundrostat in the initial cohort (12.5 mg, 50 mg, or 100 mg once daily or 12.5 mg or 25 mg twice daily).

In the second cohort, participants were randomly assigned (1:6) to placebo or lorundrostat 100 mg once daily. The primary endpoint was change in automated office systolic BP from baseline to week 8.

Among participants with suppressed PRA, following 8 weeks of treatment, changes in office systolic BP of −14.1, −13.2, and −6.9 mm Hg were observed with 100 mg, 50 mg, and 12.5 mg once-daily lorundrostat, respectively, compared with a change of −4.1 mm Hg with placebo.

Reductions in systolic BP in individuals receiving twice-daily doses of 25 mg and 12.5 mg of lorundrostat were −10.1 and −13.8 mm Hg, respectively.

Among participants without suppressed PRA, lorundrostat 100 mg once daily decreased systolic BP by 11.4 mm Hg, similar to BP reduction in those with suppressed PRA receiving the same dose.

A prespecified subgroup analysis showed that participants with obesity demonstrated greater BP lowering in response to lorundrostat. 

No instances of cortisol insufficiency occurred. Six participants had increases in serum potassium above 6.0 mEq/L (6.0 mmol/L) that corrected with dose reduction or drug discontinuation.

The increase in serum potassium is “expected and manageable,” Dr. Laffin said in an interview. “Anytime you disrupt aldosterone production, you’re going to have to have an increase in serum potassium, but it’s very manageable and not something that is worrisome.”

A phase 2 trial in 300 adults with uncontrolled hypertension is currently underway. The trial will evaluate the BP-lowering effects of lorundrostat, administered on a background of a standardized antihypertensive medication regimen. A larger phase 3 study will start before the end of the year.
 

‘New dawn’ for therapies targeting aldosterone

The author of an editorial in JAMA noted that more 70 years after the first isolation of aldosterone, then called electrocortin, “there is a new dawn for therapies targeting aldosterone.”

“There is now real potential to provide better-targeted treatment for patients in whom aldosterone excess is known to contribute to their clinical condition and influence their clinical outcome, notably those with difficult-to-control hypertension, obesity, heart failure, chronic kidney disease, and the many with yet-to-be-diagnosed primary aldosteronism,” said Bryan Williams, MD, University College London.

The trial was funded by Mineralys Therapeutics, which is developing lorundrostat. Dr. Laffin reported that the Cleveland Clinic, his employer, was a study site for the Target-HTN trial and that C5Research, the academic research organization of the Cleveland Clinic, receives payment for services related to other Mineralys clinical trials. Dr. Laffin also reported receipt of personal fees from Medtronic, Lilly, and Crispr Therapeutics, grants from AstraZeneca, and stock options for LucidAct Health and Gordy Health. Dr. Nissen reported receipt of grants from Mineralys during the conduct of the study and grants from AbbVie, AstraZeneca, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Lilly, Esperion Therapeutics, Medtronic, grants from MyoKardia, New Amsterdam Pharmaceuticals, Novartis, and Silence Therapeutics. Dr. Williams reported being the unremunerated chair of the steering committee designing a phase 3 trial of the aldosterone synthase inhibitor baxdrostat for AstraZeneca.

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

Chronic cough took center stage at the European Respiratory Society Congress session titled “Conditions We Are Just Dealing With the Tip of the Iceberg in Primary Care: Frequently Mismanaged Conditions in Primary Health Care.”

“When it comes to chronic cough, general practitioners often feel lost,” Miguel Román Rodríguez, family doctor and an associate professor of family medicine at the University of the Balearic Islands, Palma, Mallorca, Spain, and one of the chairs of the session, said to this news organization.

“GPs are central in diagnosing conditions like chronic cough. We bring something that the specialists don’t bring: the knowledge of the context, of the family, the longitudinal history,” echoed the second chair of the session, Hilary Pinnock, family physician and professor of primary care respiratory medicine at the University of Edinburgh.
 

Understanding the multifaceted nature of chronic cough

Imran Satia, an assistant professor at McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont., guided attendees at the Milan, Italy, meeting through a comprehensive exploration of chronic cough. The first issue he addressed was the definition of the condition, emphasizing that it is defined by its duration, with chronic cough typically lasting for more than 8 weeks. Prof. Satia pointed out common associations of chronic cough, including asthma, nasal disease, and reflux disease.

Delving into epidemiology, he cited a meta-analysis indicating a global prevalence of approximately 10% in the adult population, with significant regional variability: from 18.1% in Australia to 2.3% in Africa. Notably, the Canadian Longitudinal Study on Aging found an overall prevalence of 16% at baseline. “The most common risk factor was smoke, but even in nonsmokers the prevalence reached 10%,” Prof. Satia added, highlighting that it increased with age and changed depending on location. “The most common associated comorbidities were heart failure and hypertension, but also conditions related to chronic pain, mood, and anxiety,” he explained.

Mental health was identified as a crucial factor in chronic cough, with psychological distress and depressive symptoms emerging as risk factors for developing chronic cough over the next 3 years, contributing to a 20% increased risk.
 

Effective management strategies

Prof. Satia proposed the use of algorithms to aid in the management of patients with chronic cough in primary care. He introduced a Canadian algorithm that offers specific recommendations for both primary and secondary care.

The algorithm’s primary care assessment, step 1, includes a comprehensive evaluation of the cough history (duration, severity, triggers, nature, location); cardiorespiratory, gastrointestinal, and nasal symptoms; and use of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors and smoking status. Essential diagnostic tests, such as chest radiography (to check for structural disease), complete blood cell count, and spirometry (with or without bronchodilator reversibility), were emphasized. Urgent referral criteria encompassed symptoms like hemoptysis, weight loss, fever, or abnormal chest radiography findings.

“When checking for cough history, GPs should always consider factors like the presence of dry or productive cough, mental health, presence of chronic pain, stroke, and swallowing,” said Prof. Satia, stressing the importance of documenting the impact of chronic cough on quality of life, work life, social life, and family life. “This is something that doctors sometimes do not ask about. They may think that these are not major problems, but acknowledging their importance can help the patient,” he added.

Step 2 of the algorithm focuses on treatment options tailored to specific diagnoses, such as asthma or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Prof. Satia urged caution, emphasizing that treatment should only be initiated when evidence of these conditions is present. Additionally, he encouraged early consideration of cough hypersensitivity syndrome when patients exhibit coughing in response to low levels of mechanical stimulation.
 

Current treatments and future prospects

Prof. Satia presented an overview of existing treatments for chronic cough, outlining their respective advantages and disadvantages. For instance, speech therapy is a patient-led approach with no side effects but entails challenges related to access, costs, and patient motivation. On the other hand, low-dose morphine offers rapid relief but is associated with issues like nausea, stigma, and constipation.

Looking ahead, Prof. Satia shared the results of COUGH-1 and COUGH-2, pivotal phase 3 trials evaluating the oral, peripherally acting P2X3-receptor antagonist gefapixant. This drug, currently approved in Switzerland and Japan, demonstrated a significant reduction in cough frequency, compared with placebo, with rapid and sustained effects. “The estimated relative reduction for 45 mg was 18.45% in COUGH-1 (12 weeks) and 14.64% in COUGH-2 (24 weeks). Of note, cough reduction is very quick and sustained with gefapixant, but a 40% reduction is observed in the placebo arm,” commented Prof. Satia.

Experts unanimously stressed the importance for specialists and GPs of effective communication in managing chronic cough, involving both patients and their families.

“As GPs, we are crucial to manage the common problems, but we are also crucial to spot the needle in the haystack: this is extremely difficult and challenging, and we need support from our colleagues,” Dr. Pinnock concluded.

Prof. Satia reported funding from Merck MSD, AstraZeneca, and GSK; consulting fees from Merck MSD, Genentech, and Respiplus; and speaker fees from AstraZeneca, GSK, and Merck MSD.

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

Chronic cough took center stage at the European Respiratory Society Congress session titled “Conditions We Are Just Dealing With the Tip of the Iceberg in Primary Care: Frequently Mismanaged Conditions in Primary Health Care.”

“When it comes to chronic cough, general practitioners often feel lost,” Miguel Román Rodríguez, family doctor and an associate professor of family medicine at the University of the Balearic Islands, Palma, Mallorca, Spain, and one of the chairs of the session, said to this news organization.

“GPs are central in diagnosing conditions like chronic cough. We bring something that the specialists don’t bring: the knowledge of the context, of the family, the longitudinal history,” echoed the second chair of the session, Hilary Pinnock, family physician and professor of primary care respiratory medicine at the University of Edinburgh.
 

Understanding the multifaceted nature of chronic cough

Imran Satia, an assistant professor at McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont., guided attendees at the Milan, Italy, meeting through a comprehensive exploration of chronic cough. The first issue he addressed was the definition of the condition, emphasizing that it is defined by its duration, with chronic cough typically lasting for more than 8 weeks. Prof. Satia pointed out common associations of chronic cough, including asthma, nasal disease, and reflux disease.

Delving into epidemiology, he cited a meta-analysis indicating a global prevalence of approximately 10% in the adult population, with significant regional variability: from 18.1% in Australia to 2.3% in Africa. Notably, the Canadian Longitudinal Study on Aging found an overall prevalence of 16% at baseline. “The most common risk factor was smoke, but even in nonsmokers the prevalence reached 10%,” Prof. Satia added, highlighting that it increased with age and changed depending on location. “The most common associated comorbidities were heart failure and hypertension, but also conditions related to chronic pain, mood, and anxiety,” he explained.

Mental health was identified as a crucial factor in chronic cough, with psychological distress and depressive symptoms emerging as risk factors for developing chronic cough over the next 3 years, contributing to a 20% increased risk.
 

Effective management strategies

Prof. Satia proposed the use of algorithms to aid in the management of patients with chronic cough in primary care. He introduced a Canadian algorithm that offers specific recommendations for both primary and secondary care.

The algorithm’s primary care assessment, step 1, includes a comprehensive evaluation of the cough history (duration, severity, triggers, nature, location); cardiorespiratory, gastrointestinal, and nasal symptoms; and use of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors and smoking status. Essential diagnostic tests, such as chest radiography (to check for structural disease), complete blood cell count, and spirometry (with or without bronchodilator reversibility), were emphasized. Urgent referral criteria encompassed symptoms like hemoptysis, weight loss, fever, or abnormal chest radiography findings.

“When checking for cough history, GPs should always consider factors like the presence of dry or productive cough, mental health, presence of chronic pain, stroke, and swallowing,” said Prof. Satia, stressing the importance of documenting the impact of chronic cough on quality of life, work life, social life, and family life. “This is something that doctors sometimes do not ask about. They may think that these are not major problems, but acknowledging their importance can help the patient,” he added.

Step 2 of the algorithm focuses on treatment options tailored to specific diagnoses, such as asthma or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Prof. Satia urged caution, emphasizing that treatment should only be initiated when evidence of these conditions is present. Additionally, he encouraged early consideration of cough hypersensitivity syndrome when patients exhibit coughing in response to low levels of mechanical stimulation.
 

Current treatments and future prospects

Prof. Satia presented an overview of existing treatments for chronic cough, outlining their respective advantages and disadvantages. For instance, speech therapy is a patient-led approach with no side effects but entails challenges related to access, costs, and patient motivation. On the other hand, low-dose morphine offers rapid relief but is associated with issues like nausea, stigma, and constipation.

Looking ahead, Prof. Satia shared the results of COUGH-1 and COUGH-2, pivotal phase 3 trials evaluating the oral, peripherally acting P2X3-receptor antagonist gefapixant. This drug, currently approved in Switzerland and Japan, demonstrated a significant reduction in cough frequency, compared with placebo, with rapid and sustained effects. “The estimated relative reduction for 45 mg was 18.45% in COUGH-1 (12 weeks) and 14.64% in COUGH-2 (24 weeks). Of note, cough reduction is very quick and sustained with gefapixant, but a 40% reduction is observed in the placebo arm,” commented Prof. Satia.

Experts unanimously stressed the importance for specialists and GPs of effective communication in managing chronic cough, involving both patients and their families.

“As GPs, we are crucial to manage the common problems, but we are also crucial to spot the needle in the haystack: this is extremely difficult and challenging, and we need support from our colleagues,” Dr. Pinnock concluded.

Prof. Satia reported funding from Merck MSD, AstraZeneca, and GSK; consulting fees from Merck MSD, Genentech, and Respiplus; and speaker fees from AstraZeneca, GSK, and Merck MSD.

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

Chronic cough took center stage at the European Respiratory Society Congress session titled “Conditions We Are Just Dealing With the Tip of the Iceberg in Primary Care: Frequently Mismanaged Conditions in Primary Health Care.”

“When it comes to chronic cough, general practitioners often feel lost,” Miguel Román Rodríguez, family doctor and an associate professor of family medicine at the University of the Balearic Islands, Palma, Mallorca, Spain, and one of the chairs of the session, said to this news organization.

“GPs are central in diagnosing conditions like chronic cough. We bring something that the specialists don’t bring: the knowledge of the context, of the family, the longitudinal history,” echoed the second chair of the session, Hilary Pinnock, family physician and professor of primary care respiratory medicine at the University of Edinburgh.
 

Understanding the multifaceted nature of chronic cough

Imran Satia, an assistant professor at McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont., guided attendees at the Milan, Italy, meeting through a comprehensive exploration of chronic cough. The first issue he addressed was the definition of the condition, emphasizing that it is defined by its duration, with chronic cough typically lasting for more than 8 weeks. Prof. Satia pointed out common associations of chronic cough, including asthma, nasal disease, and reflux disease.

Delving into epidemiology, he cited a meta-analysis indicating a global prevalence of approximately 10% in the adult population, with significant regional variability: from 18.1% in Australia to 2.3% in Africa. Notably, the Canadian Longitudinal Study on Aging found an overall prevalence of 16% at baseline. “The most common risk factor was smoke, but even in nonsmokers the prevalence reached 10%,” Prof. Satia added, highlighting that it increased with age and changed depending on location. “The most common associated comorbidities were heart failure and hypertension, but also conditions related to chronic pain, mood, and anxiety,” he explained.

Mental health was identified as a crucial factor in chronic cough, with psychological distress and depressive symptoms emerging as risk factors for developing chronic cough over the next 3 years, contributing to a 20% increased risk.
 

Effective management strategies

Prof. Satia proposed the use of algorithms to aid in the management of patients with chronic cough in primary care. He introduced a Canadian algorithm that offers specific recommendations for both primary and secondary care.

The algorithm’s primary care assessment, step 1, includes a comprehensive evaluation of the cough history (duration, severity, triggers, nature, location); cardiorespiratory, gastrointestinal, and nasal symptoms; and use of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors and smoking status. Essential diagnostic tests, such as chest radiography (to check for structural disease), complete blood cell count, and spirometry (with or without bronchodilator reversibility), were emphasized. Urgent referral criteria encompassed symptoms like hemoptysis, weight loss, fever, or abnormal chest radiography findings.

“When checking for cough history, GPs should always consider factors like the presence of dry or productive cough, mental health, presence of chronic pain, stroke, and swallowing,” said Prof. Satia, stressing the importance of documenting the impact of chronic cough on quality of life, work life, social life, and family life. “This is something that doctors sometimes do not ask about. They may think that these are not major problems, but acknowledging their importance can help the patient,” he added.

Step 2 of the algorithm focuses on treatment options tailored to specific diagnoses, such as asthma or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Prof. Satia urged caution, emphasizing that treatment should only be initiated when evidence of these conditions is present. Additionally, he encouraged early consideration of cough hypersensitivity syndrome when patients exhibit coughing in response to low levels of mechanical stimulation.
 

Current treatments and future prospects

Prof. Satia presented an overview of existing treatments for chronic cough, outlining their respective advantages and disadvantages. For instance, speech therapy is a patient-led approach with no side effects but entails challenges related to access, costs, and patient motivation. On the other hand, low-dose morphine offers rapid relief but is associated with issues like nausea, stigma, and constipation.

Looking ahead, Prof. Satia shared the results of COUGH-1 and COUGH-2, pivotal phase 3 trials evaluating the oral, peripherally acting P2X3-receptor antagonist gefapixant. This drug, currently approved in Switzerland and Japan, demonstrated a significant reduction in cough frequency, compared with placebo, with rapid and sustained effects. “The estimated relative reduction for 45 mg was 18.45% in COUGH-1 (12 weeks) and 14.64% in COUGH-2 (24 weeks). Of note, cough reduction is very quick and sustained with gefapixant, but a 40% reduction is observed in the placebo arm,” commented Prof. Satia.

Experts unanimously stressed the importance for specialists and GPs of effective communication in managing chronic cough, involving both patients and their families.

“As GPs, we are crucial to manage the common problems, but we are also crucial to spot the needle in the haystack: this is extremely difficult and challenging, and we need support from our colleagues,” Dr. Pinnock concluded.

Prof. Satia reported funding from Merck MSD, AstraZeneca, and GSK; consulting fees from Merck MSD, Genentech, and Respiplus; and speaker fees from AstraZeneca, GSK, and Merck MSD.

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

Zilebesiran (Alnylam Pharmaceuticals), an investigational, subcutaneously administered small-interfering RNA (siRNA) therapeutic in development for the treatment of hypertension, met the primary and secondary endpoints, with an “encouraging” safety profile in the phase 2 KARDIA-1 study, the company announced.

KARDIA-1 is a phase 2 randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, dose-ranging study evaluating the efficacy and safety of zilebesiran as monotherapy in 394 adults with mild to moderate untreated hypertension or on stable therapy with one or more antihypertensive drugs.

Patients were randomly assigned to one of five treatment arms during a 12-month double-blind period and double-blind extension period: 150 mg or 300 mg zilebesiran subcutaneously once every 6 months, 300 mg or 600 mg zilebesiran subcutaneously once every 3 months, or placebo. Patients taking placebo were randomly assigned to one of the four initial zilebesiran dose regimens beginning at month 6.

The primary endpoint was change from baseline in systolic blood pressure (SBP) at 3 months assessed by 24-hour ambulatory blood pressure monitoring.

Topline data show a dose-dependent, clinically significant reduction in 24-hour mean SBP, with a placebo-subtracted reduction greater than 15 mm Hg (P < .0001) with both the 300 mg and 600 mg doses.

The study also met key secondary endpoints, showing “consistent and sustained reductions” in SBP at 6 months, which supports quarterly or biannual dosing, the company said.

There was one death due to cardiopulmonary arrest in a zilebesiran-treated patient that was considered unrelated to the drug. Serious adverse events were reported in 3.6% of zilebesiran-treated patients and 6.7% of placebo-treated patients. None was considered related to the study drug.

Adverse events occurring in 5% or more of zilebesiran-treated patients in any dose arm included COVID-19, injection-site reaction, hyperkalemia, hypertension, upper respiratory tract infection, arthralgia, and headache.

“As a physician, I believe these KARDIA-1 results, which demonstrate clinically significant reductions in systolic blood pressure of greater than 15 mm Hg, along with the ability to achieve durable tonic blood pressure control, provide hope that we may one day have access to a novel therapy with the potential to address the significant unmet needs of patients with uncontrolled hypertension who are at high risk of future cardiovascular events,” study investigator George L. Bakris, MD, director, American Heart Association Comprehensive Hypertension Center, University of Chicago Medicine, said in a statement.

The phase 2 results “further validate” the phase 1 results, published in the New England Journal of Medicine, Simon Fox, PhD, vice president, zilebesiran program lead at Alnylam, said in the statement.

The full KARDIA-1 results will be reported at an upcoming scientific conference, the statement notes. Topline results from the KARDIA-2 phase 2 study of zilebesiran in combination with one of three standard classes of antihypertensive medications in patients with mild to moderate hypertension are expected in early 2024.

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

Zilebesiran (Alnylam Pharmaceuticals), an investigational, subcutaneously administered small-interfering RNA (siRNA) therapeutic in development for the treatment of hypertension, met the primary and secondary endpoints, with an “encouraging” safety profile in the phase 2 KARDIA-1 study, the company announced.

KARDIA-1 is a phase 2 randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, dose-ranging study evaluating the efficacy and safety of zilebesiran as monotherapy in 394 adults with mild to moderate untreated hypertension or on stable therapy with one or more antihypertensive drugs.

Patients were randomly assigned to one of five treatment arms during a 12-month double-blind period and double-blind extension period: 150 mg or 300 mg zilebesiran subcutaneously once every 6 months, 300 mg or 600 mg zilebesiran subcutaneously once every 3 months, or placebo. Patients taking placebo were randomly assigned to one of the four initial zilebesiran dose regimens beginning at month 6.

The primary endpoint was change from baseline in systolic blood pressure (SBP) at 3 months assessed by 24-hour ambulatory blood pressure monitoring.

Topline data show a dose-dependent, clinically significant reduction in 24-hour mean SBP, with a placebo-subtracted reduction greater than 15 mm Hg (P < .0001) with both the 300 mg and 600 mg doses.

The study also met key secondary endpoints, showing “consistent and sustained reductions” in SBP at 6 months, which supports quarterly or biannual dosing, the company said.

There was one death due to cardiopulmonary arrest in a zilebesiran-treated patient that was considered unrelated to the drug. Serious adverse events were reported in 3.6% of zilebesiran-treated patients and 6.7% of placebo-treated patients. None was considered related to the study drug.

Adverse events occurring in 5% or more of zilebesiran-treated patients in any dose arm included COVID-19, injection-site reaction, hyperkalemia, hypertension, upper respiratory tract infection, arthralgia, and headache.

“As a physician, I believe these KARDIA-1 results, which demonstrate clinically significant reductions in systolic blood pressure of greater than 15 mm Hg, along with the ability to achieve durable tonic blood pressure control, provide hope that we may one day have access to a novel therapy with the potential to address the significant unmet needs of patients with uncontrolled hypertension who are at high risk of future cardiovascular events,” study investigator George L. Bakris, MD, director, American Heart Association Comprehensive Hypertension Center, University of Chicago Medicine, said in a statement.

The phase 2 results “further validate” the phase 1 results, published in the New England Journal of Medicine, Simon Fox, PhD, vice president, zilebesiran program lead at Alnylam, said in the statement.

The full KARDIA-1 results will be reported at an upcoming scientific conference, the statement notes. Topline results from the KARDIA-2 phase 2 study of zilebesiran in combination with one of three standard classes of antihypertensive medications in patients with mild to moderate hypertension are expected in early 2024.

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

Zilebesiran (Alnylam Pharmaceuticals), an investigational, subcutaneously administered small-interfering RNA (siRNA) therapeutic in development for the treatment of hypertension, met the primary and secondary endpoints, with an “encouraging” safety profile in the phase 2 KARDIA-1 study, the company announced.

KARDIA-1 is a phase 2 randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, dose-ranging study evaluating the efficacy and safety of zilebesiran as monotherapy in 394 adults with mild to moderate untreated hypertension or on stable therapy with one or more antihypertensive drugs.

Patients were randomly assigned to one of five treatment arms during a 12-month double-blind period and double-blind extension period: 150 mg or 300 mg zilebesiran subcutaneously once every 6 months, 300 mg or 600 mg zilebesiran subcutaneously once every 3 months, or placebo. Patients taking placebo were randomly assigned to one of the four initial zilebesiran dose regimens beginning at month 6.

The primary endpoint was change from baseline in systolic blood pressure (SBP) at 3 months assessed by 24-hour ambulatory blood pressure monitoring.

Topline data show a dose-dependent, clinically significant reduction in 24-hour mean SBP, with a placebo-subtracted reduction greater than 15 mm Hg (P < .0001) with both the 300 mg and 600 mg doses.

The study also met key secondary endpoints, showing “consistent and sustained reductions” in SBP at 6 months, which supports quarterly or biannual dosing, the company said.

There was one death due to cardiopulmonary arrest in a zilebesiran-treated patient that was considered unrelated to the drug. Serious adverse events were reported in 3.6% of zilebesiran-treated patients and 6.7% of placebo-treated patients. None was considered related to the study drug.

Adverse events occurring in 5% or more of zilebesiran-treated patients in any dose arm included COVID-19, injection-site reaction, hyperkalemia, hypertension, upper respiratory tract infection, arthralgia, and headache.

“As a physician, I believe these KARDIA-1 results, which demonstrate clinically significant reductions in systolic blood pressure of greater than 15 mm Hg, along with the ability to achieve durable tonic blood pressure control, provide hope that we may one day have access to a novel therapy with the potential to address the significant unmet needs of patients with uncontrolled hypertension who are at high risk of future cardiovascular events,” study investigator George L. Bakris, MD, director, American Heart Association Comprehensive Hypertension Center, University of Chicago Medicine, said in a statement.

The phase 2 results “further validate” the phase 1 results, published in the New England Journal of Medicine, Simon Fox, PhD, vice president, zilebesiran program lead at Alnylam, said in the statement.

The full KARDIA-1 results will be reported at an upcoming scientific conference, the statement notes. Topline results from the KARDIA-2 phase 2 study of zilebesiran in combination with one of three standard classes of antihypertensive medications in patients with mild to moderate hypertension are expected in early 2024.

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

To avoid cardiovascular disease, the American Heart Association (AHA) recommends performing at least 150 minutes of moderate-intensity aerobic activity every week, 75 minutes of intense aerobic activity every week, or a combination of both, preferably spread out throughout the week. But how knowledgeable are physicians when it comes to prescribing exercise, and how should patients be assessed so that appropriate physical activity can be recommended?

In a presentation titled, “Patient Evaluation and Exercise Prescription in Primary Prevention,” Thelma Sánchez Grillo, MD, a cardiologist at the Clínica Bíblica Hospital in San José, Costa Rica, explained the benefits and risks of exercise and gave recommendations for proper patient assessment before prescribing physical activity.

“Exercise has cardioprotective, emotional, antiarrhythmic, and antithrombotic benefits, and it reduces stress,” she explained.

She also noted that the risk regarding cardiopulmonary and musculoskeletal components must be evaluated, because exercise can itself trigger coronary events, and the last thing intended when prescribing exercise is to cause complications. “We must recommend exercise progressively. We can’t suggest a high-intensity regimen to a patient if they haven’t had any preconditioning where collateral circulation could be developed and lung and cardiac capacity could be improved.”

Dr. Sánchez went on to say that, according to the AHA, patients should be classified as follows: those who exercise and those who don’t, those with a history of cardiovascular, metabolic, or renal disease, and those with symptomatic and asymptomatic diseases, in order to consider the parameters when recommending exercise.

“If the patient has symptoms and is doing light physical activity, like walking, they can keep doing this exercise and don’t need further assessments. But if they have a symptomatic disease and are not exercising, they need to be evaluated after exercise has been prescribed, and not just clinically, either. Some sort of diagnostic method should be considered. Also, for patients who are physically active and who desire to increase the intensity of their exercise, the recommendation is to perform a detailed clinical examination and, if necessary, perform additional imaging studies.”

Warning signs

• Dizziness.
• Orthopnea.
• Abnormal heart rate.
• Edema in the lower extremities.
• Chest pain, especially when occurring with exercise.
• Intermittent claudication.
• Heart murmurs.
• Dyspnea.
• Reduced output.
• Fatigue.

Calibrating exercise parameters

The parameters of frequency (number of sessions per week), intensity (perceived exertion measured by heart rate reached), time, and type (aerobic exercise vs. strength training) should be considered when forming an appropriate prescription for exercise, explained Dr. Sánchez.

“The big problem is that most physicians don’t know how to prescribe it properly. And beyond knowing how, the important thing is that, when we’re with the patient during the consultation, we ought to be doing more than just establishing a routine. We need to be motivators and we need to be identifying obstacles and the patient’s interest in exercise, because it’s clear that incorporating physical activity into our daily lives helps improve the quality and length of life,” the specialist added.

The recommendations are straightforward: for individuals aged 18-64 years, 150 minutes of moderate-intensity activity per week, whether aerobic, strength training, or mixed, should be prescribed. “We need to encourage moving more and sitting less, and recommend comprehensive programs that include coordination, balance, and muscle strengthening. If a sedentary lifestyle is a risk factor, we need to encourage patients to start performing physical activity for 1-2 minutes every hour, because any exercise must be gradual and progressive to avoid complications,” she noted.
 

Evaluate, then recommend

The specialist emphasized the importance of making personalized prescriptions, exercising caution, and performing adequate assessments to know which exercise routine to recommend. “The patient should also be involved in their self-care and must have an adequate diet and hydration, and we need to remind them that they shouldn’t be exercising if they have an infection, due to the risk of myocarditis and sudden death,” she added.

Rafaelina Concepción, MD, cardiologist from the Dominican Republic and vice president of the Inter-American Society of Cardiology for Central America and the Caribbean, agreed with the importance of assessing risk and risk factors for patients who request an exercise routine. “For example, in patients with prediabetes, it has been shown that exercising can slow the progression to diabetes. The essential thing is to use stratification and know what kind of exercise to recommend, whether aerobic, strength training, or a combination of the two, to improve functional capacity without reaching the threshold heart rate while reducing the risk of other comorbidities like hypertension, obesity, and high lipids, and achieving lifestyle changes.”

Carlos Franco, MD, a cardiologist in El Salvador, emphasized that there is no such thing as zero risk when evaluating a patient. “Of course, there’s a difference between an athlete and someone who isn’t physically active, but we need to profile all patients correctly, evaluate risk factors in detail, not overlook subclinical cardiovascular disease, and check whether they need stress testing or additional imaging to assess cardiac functional capacity. Also, exercise must be prescribed gradually, and the patient’s nutritional status must be assessed.”

Dr. Franco ended by explaining that physicians must understand how to prescribe the basics of exercise and make small interventions of reasonable intensity, provide practical advice, and, to the extent possible, rely on specialists such as physiatrists, sports specialists, and physical therapists.

This article was translated from the Medscape Spanish Edition. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

To avoid cardiovascular disease, the American Heart Association (AHA) recommends performing at least 150 minutes of moderate-intensity aerobic activity every week, 75 minutes of intense aerobic activity every week, or a combination of both, preferably spread out throughout the week. But how knowledgeable are physicians when it comes to prescribing exercise, and how should patients be assessed so that appropriate physical activity can be recommended?

In a presentation titled, “Patient Evaluation and Exercise Prescription in Primary Prevention,” Thelma Sánchez Grillo, MD, a cardiologist at the Clínica Bíblica Hospital in San José, Costa Rica, explained the benefits and risks of exercise and gave recommendations for proper patient assessment before prescribing physical activity.

“Exercise has cardioprotective, emotional, antiarrhythmic, and antithrombotic benefits, and it reduces stress,” she explained.

She also noted that the risk regarding cardiopulmonary and musculoskeletal components must be evaluated, because exercise can itself trigger coronary events, and the last thing intended when prescribing exercise is to cause complications. “We must recommend exercise progressively. We can’t suggest a high-intensity regimen to a patient if they haven’t had any preconditioning where collateral circulation could be developed and lung and cardiac capacity could be improved.”

Dr. Sánchez went on to say that, according to the AHA, patients should be classified as follows: those who exercise and those who don’t, those with a history of cardiovascular, metabolic, or renal disease, and those with symptomatic and asymptomatic diseases, in order to consider the parameters when recommending exercise.

“If the patient has symptoms and is doing light physical activity, like walking, they can keep doing this exercise and don’t need further assessments. But if they have a symptomatic disease and are not exercising, they need to be evaluated after exercise has been prescribed, and not just clinically, either. Some sort of diagnostic method should be considered. Also, for patients who are physically active and who desire to increase the intensity of their exercise, the recommendation is to perform a detailed clinical examination and, if necessary, perform additional imaging studies.”

Warning signs

• Dizziness.
• Orthopnea.
• Abnormal heart rate.
• Edema in the lower extremities.
• Chest pain, especially when occurring with exercise.
• Intermittent claudication.
• Heart murmurs.
• Dyspnea.
• Reduced output.
• Fatigue.

Calibrating exercise parameters

The parameters of frequency (number of sessions per week), intensity (perceived exertion measured by heart rate reached), time, and type (aerobic exercise vs. strength training) should be considered when forming an appropriate prescription for exercise, explained Dr. Sánchez.

“The big problem is that most physicians don’t know how to prescribe it properly. And beyond knowing how, the important thing is that, when we’re with the patient during the consultation, we ought to be doing more than just establishing a routine. We need to be motivators and we need to be identifying obstacles and the patient’s interest in exercise, because it’s clear that incorporating physical activity into our daily lives helps improve the quality and length of life,” the specialist added.

The recommendations are straightforward: for individuals aged 18-64 years, 150 minutes of moderate-intensity activity per week, whether aerobic, strength training, or mixed, should be prescribed. “We need to encourage moving more and sitting less, and recommend comprehensive programs that include coordination, balance, and muscle strengthening. If a sedentary lifestyle is a risk factor, we need to encourage patients to start performing physical activity for 1-2 minutes every hour, because any exercise must be gradual and progressive to avoid complications,” she noted.
 

Evaluate, then recommend

The specialist emphasized the importance of making personalized prescriptions, exercising caution, and performing adequate assessments to know which exercise routine to recommend. “The patient should also be involved in their self-care and must have an adequate diet and hydration, and we need to remind them that they shouldn’t be exercising if they have an infection, due to the risk of myocarditis and sudden death,” she added.

Rafaelina Concepción, MD, cardiologist from the Dominican Republic and vice president of the Inter-American Society of Cardiology for Central America and the Caribbean, agreed with the importance of assessing risk and risk factors for patients who request an exercise routine. “For example, in patients with prediabetes, it has been shown that exercising can slow the progression to diabetes. The essential thing is to use stratification and know what kind of exercise to recommend, whether aerobic, strength training, or a combination of the two, to improve functional capacity without reaching the threshold heart rate while reducing the risk of other comorbidities like hypertension, obesity, and high lipids, and achieving lifestyle changes.”

Carlos Franco, MD, a cardiologist in El Salvador, emphasized that there is no such thing as zero risk when evaluating a patient. “Of course, there’s a difference between an athlete and someone who isn’t physically active, but we need to profile all patients correctly, evaluate risk factors in detail, not overlook subclinical cardiovascular disease, and check whether they need stress testing or additional imaging to assess cardiac functional capacity. Also, exercise must be prescribed gradually, and the patient’s nutritional status must be assessed.”

Dr. Franco ended by explaining that physicians must understand how to prescribe the basics of exercise and make small interventions of reasonable intensity, provide practical advice, and, to the extent possible, rely on specialists such as physiatrists, sports specialists, and physical therapists.

This article was translated from the Medscape Spanish Edition. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

To avoid cardiovascular disease, the American Heart Association (AHA) recommends performing at least 150 minutes of moderate-intensity aerobic activity every week, 75 minutes of intense aerobic activity every week, or a combination of both, preferably spread out throughout the week. But how knowledgeable are physicians when it comes to prescribing exercise, and how should patients be assessed so that appropriate physical activity can be recommended?

In a presentation titled, “Patient Evaluation and Exercise Prescription in Primary Prevention,” Thelma Sánchez Grillo, MD, a cardiologist at the Clínica Bíblica Hospital in San José, Costa Rica, explained the benefits and risks of exercise and gave recommendations for proper patient assessment before prescribing physical activity.

“Exercise has cardioprotective, emotional, antiarrhythmic, and antithrombotic benefits, and it reduces stress,” she explained.

She also noted that the risk regarding cardiopulmonary and musculoskeletal components must be evaluated, because exercise can itself trigger coronary events, and the last thing intended when prescribing exercise is to cause complications. “We must recommend exercise progressively. We can’t suggest a high-intensity regimen to a patient if they haven’t had any preconditioning where collateral circulation could be developed and lung and cardiac capacity could be improved.”

Dr. Sánchez went on to say that, according to the AHA, patients should be classified as follows: those who exercise and those who don’t, those with a history of cardiovascular, metabolic, or renal disease, and those with symptomatic and asymptomatic diseases, in order to consider the parameters when recommending exercise.

“If the patient has symptoms and is doing light physical activity, like walking, they can keep doing this exercise and don’t need further assessments. But if they have a symptomatic disease and are not exercising, they need to be evaluated after exercise has been prescribed, and not just clinically, either. Some sort of diagnostic method should be considered. Also, for patients who are physically active and who desire to increase the intensity of their exercise, the recommendation is to perform a detailed clinical examination and, if necessary, perform additional imaging studies.”

Warning signs

• Dizziness.
• Orthopnea.
• Abnormal heart rate.
• Edema in the lower extremities.
• Chest pain, especially when occurring with exercise.
• Intermittent claudication.
• Heart murmurs.
• Dyspnea.
• Reduced output.
• Fatigue.

Calibrating exercise parameters

The parameters of frequency (number of sessions per week), intensity (perceived exertion measured by heart rate reached), time, and type (aerobic exercise vs. strength training) should be considered when forming an appropriate prescription for exercise, explained Dr. Sánchez.

“The big problem is that most physicians don’t know how to prescribe it properly. And beyond knowing how, the important thing is that, when we’re with the patient during the consultation, we ought to be doing more than just establishing a routine. We need to be motivators and we need to be identifying obstacles and the patient’s interest in exercise, because it’s clear that incorporating physical activity into our daily lives helps improve the quality and length of life,” the specialist added.

The recommendations are straightforward: for individuals aged 18-64 years, 150 minutes of moderate-intensity activity per week, whether aerobic, strength training, or mixed, should be prescribed. “We need to encourage moving more and sitting less, and recommend comprehensive programs that include coordination, balance, and muscle strengthening. If a sedentary lifestyle is a risk factor, we need to encourage patients to start performing physical activity for 1-2 minutes every hour, because any exercise must be gradual and progressive to avoid complications,” she noted.
 

Evaluate, then recommend

The specialist emphasized the importance of making personalized prescriptions, exercising caution, and performing adequate assessments to know which exercise routine to recommend. “The patient should also be involved in their self-care and must have an adequate diet and hydration, and we need to remind them that they shouldn’t be exercising if they have an infection, due to the risk of myocarditis and sudden death,” she added.

Rafaelina Concepción, MD, cardiologist from the Dominican Republic and vice president of the Inter-American Society of Cardiology for Central America and the Caribbean, agreed with the importance of assessing risk and risk factors for patients who request an exercise routine. “For example, in patients with prediabetes, it has been shown that exercising can slow the progression to diabetes. The essential thing is to use stratification and know what kind of exercise to recommend, whether aerobic, strength training, or a combination of the two, to improve functional capacity without reaching the threshold heart rate while reducing the risk of other comorbidities like hypertension, obesity, and high lipids, and achieving lifestyle changes.”

Carlos Franco, MD, a cardiologist in El Salvador, emphasized that there is no such thing as zero risk when evaluating a patient. “Of course, there’s a difference between an athlete and someone who isn’t physically active, but we need to profile all patients correctly, evaluate risk factors in detail, not overlook subclinical cardiovascular disease, and check whether they need stress testing or additional imaging to assess cardiac functional capacity. Also, exercise must be prescribed gradually, and the patient’s nutritional status must be assessed.”

Dr. Franco ended by explaining that physicians must understand how to prescribe the basics of exercise and make small interventions of reasonable intensity, provide practical advice, and, to the extent possible, rely on specialists such as physiatrists, sports specialists, and physical therapists.

This article was translated from the Medscape Spanish Edition. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.