SAN ANTONIO – The evidence that statin therapy reduces the risk of developing hepatocellular carcinoma, while not rising to the highest-level 1A strata, is nonetheless sufficiently persuasive at this point that consideration should be given to prescribing a statin in all patients with risk factors for the malignancy, regardless of their cardiovascular risk profile, Muhammad Talal Sarmini, MD, asserted at the annual meeting of the American College of Gastroenterology.

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

This includes individuals with hepatitis B or C virus infection as well as those with cirrhosis. The jury is still out as to whether nonalcoholic steatohepatitis is a risk factor for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), observed Dr. Sarmini of the Cleveland Clinic.

He presented a new meta-analysis, which concluded that patients on statin therapy had a 43% lower risk of new-onset HCC than persons not taking a statin. This meta-analysis – the largest ever addressing the issue – included 20 studies totaling more than 2.6 million patients and 24,341 cases of new-onset HCC. There were 11 retrospective case-control studies, 6 cohort studies, and 3 randomized trials. Five studies were from the United States, nine from Asia, and six were European.

In subgroup analyses aimed at assessing the consistency of the study results across various domains, there was a 45% reduction in the risk of HCC in association with statin therapy in the three studies of patients with hepatitis B virus, and significant reductions as well in Asia, Europe, and the United States when those participants were evaluated separately. The reduction was significant in both the case-control and cohort studies, but not when the three randomized, controlled trials (RCTs) were analyzed collectively. However, Dr. Sarmini shrugged off the neutral RCT results.

“It’s worth noting that the RCTs reported data from patients who were on statins with 4-5 years of follow-up. They were not at high risk for HCC. Given the nature of the disease and the relatively short period of follow-up, these studies only reported 81 cases of HCC. So they were very limited,” he said.

Audience members were eager to learn if Dr. Sarmini had found a differential preventive effect for lipophilic statins, such as atorvastatin or simvastatin, versus hydrophilic statins. He replied that, unfortunately, the published study results don’t allow for such an analysis. However, a large, propensity-matched cohort study published too recently for inclusion in his meta-analysis shed light on this matter. This Swedish national registry study included 16,668 propensity score–matched adults with chronic hepatitis B or C infection, of whom 6,554 initiated lipophilic statin therapy, 1,780 began treatment with a hydrophilic statin, and the rest were statin nonusers. The lipophilic statin users had an adjusted 44% reduction in 10-year HCC risk, compared with nonusers, while hydrophilic statins weren’t associated with a significant preventive effect (Ann Intern Med. 2019 Sep 3;171[5]:318-27).

Dr. Sarmini said that the meta-analysis results, together with the Swedish registry findings, highlight the need for additional well-designed cohort studies and RCTs of statins in populations at high risk for HCC in order to verify the existence of an HCC preventive effect and pinpoint which statins are effective at what dosages.

HCC is the fourth-leading cause of cancer-related mortality globally, accounting for 800,000 deaths annually. And the incidence is rising on a year-by-year basis.

Dr. Sarmini reported having no financial conflicts regarding his study, which was conducted free of commercial support.

bjancin@mdedge.com

SAN ANTONIO – The evidence that statin therapy reduces the risk of developing hepatocellular carcinoma, while not rising to the highest-level 1A strata, is nonetheless sufficiently persuasive at this point that consideration should be given to prescribing a statin in all patients with risk factors for the malignancy, regardless of their cardiovascular risk profile, Muhammad Talal Sarmini, MD, asserted at the annual meeting of the American College of Gastroenterology.

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

This includes individuals with hepatitis B or C virus infection as well as those with cirrhosis. The jury is still out as to whether nonalcoholic steatohepatitis is a risk factor for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), observed Dr. Sarmini of the Cleveland Clinic.

He presented a new meta-analysis, which concluded that patients on statin therapy had a 43% lower risk of new-onset HCC than persons not taking a statin. This meta-analysis – the largest ever addressing the issue – included 20 studies totaling more than 2.6 million patients and 24,341 cases of new-onset HCC. There were 11 retrospective case-control studies, 6 cohort studies, and 3 randomized trials. Five studies were from the United States, nine from Asia, and six were European.

In subgroup analyses aimed at assessing the consistency of the study results across various domains, there was a 45% reduction in the risk of HCC in association with statin therapy in the three studies of patients with hepatitis B virus, and significant reductions as well in Asia, Europe, and the United States when those participants were evaluated separately. The reduction was significant in both the case-control and cohort studies, but not when the three randomized, controlled trials (RCTs) were analyzed collectively. However, Dr. Sarmini shrugged off the neutral RCT results.

“It’s worth noting that the RCTs reported data from patients who were on statins with 4-5 years of follow-up. They were not at high risk for HCC. Given the nature of the disease and the relatively short period of follow-up, these studies only reported 81 cases of HCC. So they were very limited,” he said.

Audience members were eager to learn if Dr. Sarmini had found a differential preventive effect for lipophilic statins, such as atorvastatin or simvastatin, versus hydrophilic statins. He replied that, unfortunately, the published study results don’t allow for such an analysis. However, a large, propensity-matched cohort study published too recently for inclusion in his meta-analysis shed light on this matter. This Swedish national registry study included 16,668 propensity score–matched adults with chronic hepatitis B or C infection, of whom 6,554 initiated lipophilic statin therapy, 1,780 began treatment with a hydrophilic statin, and the rest were statin nonusers. The lipophilic statin users had an adjusted 44% reduction in 10-year HCC risk, compared with nonusers, while hydrophilic statins weren’t associated with a significant preventive effect (Ann Intern Med. 2019 Sep 3;171[5]:318-27).

Dr. Sarmini said that the meta-analysis results, together with the Swedish registry findings, highlight the need for additional well-designed cohort studies and RCTs of statins in populations at high risk for HCC in order to verify the existence of an HCC preventive effect and pinpoint which statins are effective at what dosages.

HCC is the fourth-leading cause of cancer-related mortality globally, accounting for 800,000 deaths annually. And the incidence is rising on a year-by-year basis.

Dr. Sarmini reported having no financial conflicts regarding his study, which was conducted free of commercial support.

bjancin@mdedge.com

SAN ANTONIO – The evidence that statin therapy reduces the risk of developing hepatocellular carcinoma, while not rising to the highest-level 1A strata, is nonetheless sufficiently persuasive at this point that consideration should be given to prescribing a statin in all patients with risk factors for the malignancy, regardless of their cardiovascular risk profile, Muhammad Talal Sarmini, MD, asserted at the annual meeting of the American College of Gastroenterology.

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

This includes individuals with hepatitis B or C virus infection as well as those with cirrhosis. The jury is still out as to whether nonalcoholic steatohepatitis is a risk factor for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), observed Dr. Sarmini of the Cleveland Clinic.

He presented a new meta-analysis, which concluded that patients on statin therapy had a 43% lower risk of new-onset HCC than persons not taking a statin. This meta-analysis – the largest ever addressing the issue – included 20 studies totaling more than 2.6 million patients and 24,341 cases of new-onset HCC. There were 11 retrospective case-control studies, 6 cohort studies, and 3 randomized trials. Five studies were from the United States, nine from Asia, and six were European.

In subgroup analyses aimed at assessing the consistency of the study results across various domains, there was a 45% reduction in the risk of HCC in association with statin therapy in the three studies of patients with hepatitis B virus, and significant reductions as well in Asia, Europe, and the United States when those participants were evaluated separately. The reduction was significant in both the case-control and cohort studies, but not when the three randomized, controlled trials (RCTs) were analyzed collectively. However, Dr. Sarmini shrugged off the neutral RCT results.

“It’s worth noting that the RCTs reported data from patients who were on statins with 4-5 years of follow-up. They were not at high risk for HCC. Given the nature of the disease and the relatively short period of follow-up, these studies only reported 81 cases of HCC. So they were very limited,” he said.

Audience members were eager to learn if Dr. Sarmini had found a differential preventive effect for lipophilic statins, such as atorvastatin or simvastatin, versus hydrophilic statins. He replied that, unfortunately, the published study results don’t allow for such an analysis. However, a large, propensity-matched cohort study published too recently for inclusion in his meta-analysis shed light on this matter. This Swedish national registry study included 16,668 propensity score–matched adults with chronic hepatitis B or C infection, of whom 6,554 initiated lipophilic statin therapy, 1,780 began treatment with a hydrophilic statin, and the rest were statin nonusers. The lipophilic statin users had an adjusted 44% reduction in 10-year HCC risk, compared with nonusers, while hydrophilic statins weren’t associated with a significant preventive effect (Ann Intern Med. 2019 Sep 3;171[5]:318-27).

Dr. Sarmini said that the meta-analysis results, together with the Swedish registry findings, highlight the need for additional well-designed cohort studies and RCTs of statins in populations at high risk for HCC in order to verify the existence of an HCC preventive effect and pinpoint which statins are effective at what dosages.

HCC is the fourth-leading cause of cancer-related mortality globally, accounting for 800,000 deaths annually. And the incidence is rising on a year-by-year basis.

Dr. Sarmini reported having no financial conflicts regarding his study, which was conducted free of commercial support.

bjancin@mdedge.com

Background: Patients with left-sided infective endocarditis often are treated with prolonged courses of intravenous (IV) antibiotics. The safety of switching from IV to oral antibiotics is unknown.

Dr. Phillips is a hospitalist at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center and instructor in medicine at Harvard Medical School.

Background: Patients with left-sided infective endocarditis often are treated with prolonged courses of intravenous (IV) antibiotics. The safety of switching from IV to oral antibiotics is unknown.

Dr. Phillips is a hospitalist at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center and instructor in medicine at Harvard Medical School.

Background: Patients with left-sided infective endocarditis often are treated with prolonged courses of intravenous (IV) antibiotics. The safety of switching from IV to oral antibiotics is unknown.

Dr. Phillips is a hospitalist at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center and instructor in medicine at Harvard Medical School.

Postmenopausal women who received a probiotic treatment of three Lactobacillus strains had significantly less lumbar spine bone loss, compared with women in a placebo group, according to recent research published in The Lancet Rheumatology.

CharlieAJA/Thinkstock

“The menopausal and early postmenopausal lumbar spine bone loss is substantial in women, and by using a prevention therapy with bacteria naturally occurring in the human gut microbiota we observed a close to complete protection against lumbar spine bone loss in healthy postmenopausal women,” Per-Anders Jansson, MD, chief physician at the University of Gothenburg (Sweden), and colleagues wrote in their study.

Dr. Jansson and colleagues performed a double-blind trial at four centers in Sweden in which 249 postmenopausal women were randomized during April-November 2016 to receive probiotics consisting of three Lactobacillus strains or placebo once per day for 12 months. Participants were healthy women, neither underweight nor overweight, and were postmenopausal, which was defined as being 2-12 years or less from last menstruation. The Lactobacillus strains, L. paracasei 8700:2 (DSM 13434), L. plantarum Heal 9 (DSM 15312), and L. plantarum Heal 19 (DSM 15313), were equally represented in a capsule at a dose of 1 x 10¹⁰ colony-forming unit per capsule. The researchers measured the lumbar spine bone mineral density (LS-BMD) at baseline and at 12 months, and also evaluated the safety profile of participants in both the probiotic and placebo groups.

Overall, 234 participants (94%) had data available for analysis at the end of the study. There was a significant reduction in LS-BMD loss for participants who received the probiotic treatment, compared with women in the control group (mean difference, 0.71%; 95% confidence interval, 0.06%-1.35%), while there was a significant loss in LS-BMD for participants in the placebo group (percentage change, –0.72%; 95% CI, –1.22% to –0.22%) compared with loss in the probiotic group (percentage change, –0.01%; 95% CI, –0.50% to 0.48%). Using analysis of covariance, the researchers found the probiotic group had reduced LS-BMD loss after adjustment for factors such as study site, age at baseline, BMD at baseline, and number of years from menopause (mean difference, 7.44 mg/cm²; 95% CI, 0.38 to 14.50).

In a subgroup analysis of women above and below the median time since menopause at baseline (6 years), participants in the probiotic group who were below the median time saw a significant protective effect of Lactobacillus treatment (mean difference, 1.08%; 95% CI, 0.20%-1.96%), compared with women above the median time (mean difference, 0.31%; 95% CI, –0.62% to 1.23%).

Researchers also examined the effects of probiotic treatment on total hip and femoral neck BMD as secondary endpoints. Lactobacillus treatment did not appear to affect total hip (–1.01%; 95% CI, –1.65% to –0.37%) or trochanter BMD (–1.13%; 95% CI, –2.27% to 0.20%), but femoral neck BMD was reduced in the probiotic group (–1.34%; 95% CI, –2.09% to –0.58%), compared with the placebo group (–0.88%; 95% CI, –1.64% to –0.13%).

Limitations of the study included examining only one dose of Lactobacillus treatment and no analysis of the effect of short-chain fatty acids on LS-BMD. The researchers noted that “recent studies have shown that short-chain fatty acids, which are generated by fermentation of complex carbohydrates by the gut microbiota, are important regulators of both bone formation and resorption.”

The researchers also acknowledged that the LS-BMD effect size for the probiotic treatment over the 12 months was a lower magnitude, compared with first-line treatments for osteoporosis in postmenopausal women using bisphosphonates. “Further long-term studies should be done to evaluate if the bone-protective effect becomes more pronounced with prolonged treatment with the Lactobacillus strains used in the present study,” they said.

In a related editorial, Shivani Sahni, PhD, of Harvard Medical School, Boston, and Connie M. Weaver, PhD, of Purdue University, West Lafayette, Ind., reiterated that the effect size of probiotics is “of far less magnitude” than such treatments as bisphosphonates and expressed concern about the reduction of femoral neck BMD in the probiotic group, which was not explained in the study (Lancet Rheumatol. 2019 Nov;1[3]:e135-e137. doi: 10.1016/S2665-9913(19)30073-6). There is a need to learn the optimum dose of probiotics as well as which Lactobacillus strains should be used in future studies, as the strains chosen by Jansson et al. were based on results in mice.

In the meantime, patients might be better off choosing dietary interventions with proven bone protection and no documented negative effects on the hip, such as prebiotics like soluble corn fiber and dried prunes, in tandem with drug therapies, Dr. Sahni and Dr. Weaver said.

“Although Jansson and colleagues’ results are important, more work is needed before such probiotics are ready for consumers,” they concluded.

This study was funded by Probi, which employs two of the study’s authors. Three authors reported being coinventors of a patent involving the effects of probiotics in osteoporosis treatment, and one author is listed as an inventor on a pending patent application on probiotic compositions and uses. Dr. Sahni reported receiving grants from Dairy Management. Dr. Weaver reported no relevant conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Jansson P-A et al. Lancet Rheumatol. 2019 Nov;1(3):e154-e162. doi: 10.1016/S2665-9913(19)30068-2

Postmenopausal women who received a probiotic treatment of three Lactobacillus strains had significantly less lumbar spine bone loss, compared with women in a placebo group, according to recent research published in The Lancet Rheumatology.

CharlieAJA/Thinkstock

“The menopausal and early postmenopausal lumbar spine bone loss is substantial in women, and by using a prevention therapy with bacteria naturally occurring in the human gut microbiota we observed a close to complete protection against lumbar spine bone loss in healthy postmenopausal women,” Per-Anders Jansson, MD, chief physician at the University of Gothenburg (Sweden), and colleagues wrote in their study.

Dr. Jansson and colleagues performed a double-blind trial at four centers in Sweden in which 249 postmenopausal women were randomized during April-November 2016 to receive probiotics consisting of three Lactobacillus strains or placebo once per day for 12 months. Participants were healthy women, neither underweight nor overweight, and were postmenopausal, which was defined as being 2-12 years or less from last menstruation. The Lactobacillus strains, L. paracasei 8700:2 (DSM 13434), L. plantarum Heal 9 (DSM 15312), and L. plantarum Heal 19 (DSM 15313), were equally represented in a capsule at a dose of 1 x 10¹⁰ colony-forming unit per capsule. The researchers measured the lumbar spine bone mineral density (LS-BMD) at baseline and at 12 months, and also evaluated the safety profile of participants in both the probiotic and placebo groups.

Overall, 234 participants (94%) had data available for analysis at the end of the study. There was a significant reduction in LS-BMD loss for participants who received the probiotic treatment, compared with women in the control group (mean difference, 0.71%; 95% confidence interval, 0.06%-1.35%), while there was a significant loss in LS-BMD for participants in the placebo group (percentage change, –0.72%; 95% CI, –1.22% to –0.22%) compared with loss in the probiotic group (percentage change, –0.01%; 95% CI, –0.50% to 0.48%). Using analysis of covariance, the researchers found the probiotic group had reduced LS-BMD loss after adjustment for factors such as study site, age at baseline, BMD at baseline, and number of years from menopause (mean difference, 7.44 mg/cm²; 95% CI, 0.38 to 14.50).

In a subgroup analysis of women above and below the median time since menopause at baseline (6 years), participants in the probiotic group who were below the median time saw a significant protective effect of Lactobacillus treatment (mean difference, 1.08%; 95% CI, 0.20%-1.96%), compared with women above the median time (mean difference, 0.31%; 95% CI, –0.62% to 1.23%).

Researchers also examined the effects of probiotic treatment on total hip and femoral neck BMD as secondary endpoints. Lactobacillus treatment did not appear to affect total hip (–1.01%; 95% CI, –1.65% to –0.37%) or trochanter BMD (–1.13%; 95% CI, –2.27% to 0.20%), but femoral neck BMD was reduced in the probiotic group (–1.34%; 95% CI, –2.09% to –0.58%), compared with the placebo group (–0.88%; 95% CI, –1.64% to –0.13%).

Limitations of the study included examining only one dose of Lactobacillus treatment and no analysis of the effect of short-chain fatty acids on LS-BMD. The researchers noted that “recent studies have shown that short-chain fatty acids, which are generated by fermentation of complex carbohydrates by the gut microbiota, are important regulators of both bone formation and resorption.”

The researchers also acknowledged that the LS-BMD effect size for the probiotic treatment over the 12 months was a lower magnitude, compared with first-line treatments for osteoporosis in postmenopausal women using bisphosphonates. “Further long-term studies should be done to evaluate if the bone-protective effect becomes more pronounced with prolonged treatment with the Lactobacillus strains used in the present study,” they said.

In a related editorial, Shivani Sahni, PhD, of Harvard Medical School, Boston, and Connie M. Weaver, PhD, of Purdue University, West Lafayette, Ind., reiterated that the effect size of probiotics is “of far less magnitude” than such treatments as bisphosphonates and expressed concern about the reduction of femoral neck BMD in the probiotic group, which was not explained in the study (Lancet Rheumatol. 2019 Nov;1[3]:e135-e137. doi: 10.1016/S2665-9913(19)30073-6). There is a need to learn the optimum dose of probiotics as well as which Lactobacillus strains should be used in future studies, as the strains chosen by Jansson et al. were based on results in mice.

In the meantime, patients might be better off choosing dietary interventions with proven bone protection and no documented negative effects on the hip, such as prebiotics like soluble corn fiber and dried prunes, in tandem with drug therapies, Dr. Sahni and Dr. Weaver said.

“Although Jansson and colleagues’ results are important, more work is needed before such probiotics are ready for consumers,” they concluded.

This study was funded by Probi, which employs two of the study’s authors. Three authors reported being coinventors of a patent involving the effects of probiotics in osteoporosis treatment, and one author is listed as an inventor on a pending patent application on probiotic compositions and uses. Dr. Sahni reported receiving grants from Dairy Management. Dr. Weaver reported no relevant conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Jansson P-A et al. Lancet Rheumatol. 2019 Nov;1(3):e154-e162. doi: 10.1016/S2665-9913(19)30068-2

Postmenopausal women who received a probiotic treatment of three Lactobacillus strains had significantly less lumbar spine bone loss, compared with women in a placebo group, according to recent research published in The Lancet Rheumatology.

CharlieAJA/Thinkstock

“The menopausal and early postmenopausal lumbar spine bone loss is substantial in women, and by using a prevention therapy with bacteria naturally occurring in the human gut microbiota we observed a close to complete protection against lumbar spine bone loss in healthy postmenopausal women,” Per-Anders Jansson, MD, chief physician at the University of Gothenburg (Sweden), and colleagues wrote in their study.

Dr. Jansson and colleagues performed a double-blind trial at four centers in Sweden in which 249 postmenopausal women were randomized during April-November 2016 to receive probiotics consisting of three Lactobacillus strains or placebo once per day for 12 months. Participants were healthy women, neither underweight nor overweight, and were postmenopausal, which was defined as being 2-12 years or less from last menstruation. The Lactobacillus strains, L. paracasei 8700:2 (DSM 13434), L. plantarum Heal 9 (DSM 15312), and L. plantarum Heal 19 (DSM 15313), were equally represented in a capsule at a dose of 1 x 10¹⁰ colony-forming unit per capsule. The researchers measured the lumbar spine bone mineral density (LS-BMD) at baseline and at 12 months, and also evaluated the safety profile of participants in both the probiotic and placebo groups.

Overall, 234 participants (94%) had data available for analysis at the end of the study. There was a significant reduction in LS-BMD loss for participants who received the probiotic treatment, compared with women in the control group (mean difference, 0.71%; 95% confidence interval, 0.06%-1.35%), while there was a significant loss in LS-BMD for participants in the placebo group (percentage change, –0.72%; 95% CI, –1.22% to –0.22%) compared with loss in the probiotic group (percentage change, –0.01%; 95% CI, –0.50% to 0.48%). Using analysis of covariance, the researchers found the probiotic group had reduced LS-BMD loss after adjustment for factors such as study site, age at baseline, BMD at baseline, and number of years from menopause (mean difference, 7.44 mg/cm²; 95% CI, 0.38 to 14.50).

In a subgroup analysis of women above and below the median time since menopause at baseline (6 years), participants in the probiotic group who were below the median time saw a significant protective effect of Lactobacillus treatment (mean difference, 1.08%; 95% CI, 0.20%-1.96%), compared with women above the median time (mean difference, 0.31%; 95% CI, –0.62% to 1.23%).

Researchers also examined the effects of probiotic treatment on total hip and femoral neck BMD as secondary endpoints. Lactobacillus treatment did not appear to affect total hip (–1.01%; 95% CI, –1.65% to –0.37%) or trochanter BMD (–1.13%; 95% CI, –2.27% to 0.20%), but femoral neck BMD was reduced in the probiotic group (–1.34%; 95% CI, –2.09% to –0.58%), compared with the placebo group (–0.88%; 95% CI, –1.64% to –0.13%).

Limitations of the study included examining only one dose of Lactobacillus treatment and no analysis of the effect of short-chain fatty acids on LS-BMD. The researchers noted that “recent studies have shown that short-chain fatty acids, which are generated by fermentation of complex carbohydrates by the gut microbiota, are important regulators of both bone formation and resorption.”

The researchers also acknowledged that the LS-BMD effect size for the probiotic treatment over the 12 months was a lower magnitude, compared with first-line treatments for osteoporosis in postmenopausal women using bisphosphonates. “Further long-term studies should be done to evaluate if the bone-protective effect becomes more pronounced with prolonged treatment with the Lactobacillus strains used in the present study,” they said.

In a related editorial, Shivani Sahni, PhD, of Harvard Medical School, Boston, and Connie M. Weaver, PhD, of Purdue University, West Lafayette, Ind., reiterated that the effect size of probiotics is “of far less magnitude” than such treatments as bisphosphonates and expressed concern about the reduction of femoral neck BMD in the probiotic group, which was not explained in the study (Lancet Rheumatol. 2019 Nov;1[3]:e135-e137. doi: 10.1016/S2665-9913(19)30073-6). There is a need to learn the optimum dose of probiotics as well as which Lactobacillus strains should be used in future studies, as the strains chosen by Jansson et al. were based on results in mice.

In the meantime, patients might be better off choosing dietary interventions with proven bone protection and no documented negative effects on the hip, such as prebiotics like soluble corn fiber and dried prunes, in tandem with drug therapies, Dr. Sahni and Dr. Weaver said.

“Although Jansson and colleagues’ results are important, more work is needed before such probiotics are ready for consumers,” they concluded.

This study was funded by Probi, which employs two of the study’s authors. Three authors reported being coinventors of a patent involving the effects of probiotics in osteoporosis treatment, and one author is listed as an inventor on a pending patent application on probiotic compositions and uses. Dr. Sahni reported receiving grants from Dairy Management. Dr. Weaver reported no relevant conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Jansson P-A et al. Lancet Rheumatol. 2019 Nov;1(3):e154-e162. doi: 10.1016/S2665-9913(19)30068-2

Patients with ankylosing spondylitis who are male, have evidence of spinal damage, or have higher levels of inflammatory markers may be at higher risk of disease progression, a study has found.

“Assessment of AS-related structural changes longitudinally is essential for understanding the natural course of progression and its underlying factors,” Ismail Sari, MD, of the University of Toronto and coauthors wrote in Arthritis Care & Research. “This could help identify the mechanisms responsible for progression and thereby personalizing treatment.”

The researchers found that nearly one-quarter (24.3%) of 350 individuals with ankylosing spondylitis in a longitudinal cohort study showed radiographic evidence of progression, defined as a change of 2 units on the modified Stoke Ankylosing Spondylitis Spinal Score (mSASSS) in 2 years. Overall, 76% of the group were males, and the group had a mean age of about 38 years with a mean symptom duration of nearly 15 years.

Over the 6-year follow-up, the mean mSASSS increased from 9.3 units at baseline to 17.7 units, with more progression seen in the cervical spine than the lumbar segments. During the first 2 years, the total mSASSS increased by a mean of 1.23 units; in years 2-4, it increased by a mean of 1.47 units, and from 4 to 6 years, it increased by a mean of 1.52 units.

Male sex was associated with more than double the risk of radiographic progression (hazard ratio, 2.46; 95% confidence interval, 1.05-5.76), while individuals with radiographic evidence of spinal damage at baseline had a nearly eightfold higher risk of progression (HR, 7.98; 95% CI, 3.98-16). The risk for disease progression also increased with higher levels of C-reactive protein.

The investigators also found that patients who had used tumor necrosis factor inhibitor therapy for at least 1 year had an 18% reduction in the rate of spinal progression.

However, other factors including symptom duration, presence of HLA-B27, smoking status, presence of radiographic hip disease, or use of disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs or NSAIDs did not appear to influence the risk of disease progression.

No funding or conflicts of interest were declared.

SOURCE: Sari I et al. Arthritis Care Res. 2019 Nov 1. doi: 10.1002/acr.24104.

Patients with ankylosing spondylitis who are male, have evidence of spinal damage, or have higher levels of inflammatory markers may be at higher risk of disease progression, a study has found.

“Assessment of AS-related structural changes longitudinally is essential for understanding the natural course of progression and its underlying factors,” Ismail Sari, MD, of the University of Toronto and coauthors wrote in Arthritis Care & Research. “This could help identify the mechanisms responsible for progression and thereby personalizing treatment.”

The researchers found that nearly one-quarter (24.3%) of 350 individuals with ankylosing spondylitis in a longitudinal cohort study showed radiographic evidence of progression, defined as a change of 2 units on the modified Stoke Ankylosing Spondylitis Spinal Score (mSASSS) in 2 years. Overall, 76% of the group were males, and the group had a mean age of about 38 years with a mean symptom duration of nearly 15 years.

Over the 6-year follow-up, the mean mSASSS increased from 9.3 units at baseline to 17.7 units, with more progression seen in the cervical spine than the lumbar segments. During the first 2 years, the total mSASSS increased by a mean of 1.23 units; in years 2-4, it increased by a mean of 1.47 units, and from 4 to 6 years, it increased by a mean of 1.52 units.

Male sex was associated with more than double the risk of radiographic progression (hazard ratio, 2.46; 95% confidence interval, 1.05-5.76), while individuals with radiographic evidence of spinal damage at baseline had a nearly eightfold higher risk of progression (HR, 7.98; 95% CI, 3.98-16). The risk for disease progression also increased with higher levels of C-reactive protein.

The investigators also found that patients who had used tumor necrosis factor inhibitor therapy for at least 1 year had an 18% reduction in the rate of spinal progression.

However, other factors including symptom duration, presence of HLA-B27, smoking status, presence of radiographic hip disease, or use of disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs or NSAIDs did not appear to influence the risk of disease progression.

No funding or conflicts of interest were declared.

SOURCE: Sari I et al. Arthritis Care Res. 2019 Nov 1. doi: 10.1002/acr.24104.

Patients with ankylosing spondylitis who are male, have evidence of spinal damage, or have higher levels of inflammatory markers may be at higher risk of disease progression, a study has found.

“Assessment of AS-related structural changes longitudinally is essential for understanding the natural course of progression and its underlying factors,” Ismail Sari, MD, of the University of Toronto and coauthors wrote in Arthritis Care & Research. “This could help identify the mechanisms responsible for progression and thereby personalizing treatment.”

The researchers found that nearly one-quarter (24.3%) of 350 individuals with ankylosing spondylitis in a longitudinal cohort study showed radiographic evidence of progression, defined as a change of 2 units on the modified Stoke Ankylosing Spondylitis Spinal Score (mSASSS) in 2 years. Overall, 76% of the group were males, and the group had a mean age of about 38 years with a mean symptom duration of nearly 15 years.

Over the 6-year follow-up, the mean mSASSS increased from 9.3 units at baseline to 17.7 units, with more progression seen in the cervical spine than the lumbar segments. During the first 2 years, the total mSASSS increased by a mean of 1.23 units; in years 2-4, it increased by a mean of 1.47 units, and from 4 to 6 years, it increased by a mean of 1.52 units.

Male sex was associated with more than double the risk of radiographic progression (hazard ratio, 2.46; 95% confidence interval, 1.05-5.76), while individuals with radiographic evidence of spinal damage at baseline had a nearly eightfold higher risk of progression (HR, 7.98; 95% CI, 3.98-16). The risk for disease progression also increased with higher levels of C-reactive protein.

The investigators also found that patients who had used tumor necrosis factor inhibitor therapy for at least 1 year had an 18% reduction in the rate of spinal progression.

However, other factors including symptom duration, presence of HLA-B27, smoking status, presence of radiographic hip disease, or use of disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs or NSAIDs did not appear to influence the risk of disease progression.

No funding or conflicts of interest were declared.

SOURCE: Sari I et al. Arthritis Care Res. 2019 Nov 1. doi: 10.1002/acr.24104.

A toll-like receptor 9 (TLR9) antagonist may eventually be used to combat brain edema in acute liver failure, according to investigators.

This prediction is based on results of a recent study involving mouse models, which showed that ODN2088, a TLR9 antagonist, could stop ammonia-induced colocalization of DNA with TLR9 in innate immune cells, thereby blocking cytokine production and ensuant brain edema, reported lead author Godhev Kumar Manakkat Vijay of King’s College London and colleagues.

“Ammonia plays a pivotal role in the development of hepatic encephalopathy and brain edema in acute liver failure,” the investigators explained in Cellular and Molecular Gastroenterology and Hepatology. “A robust systemic inflammatory response and susceptibility to developing infection are common in acute liver failure, exacerbate the development of ammonia-induced brain edema and are major prognosticators. Experimental models have unequivocally associated ammonia exposure with astrocyte swelling and brain edema, potentiated by proinflammatory cytokines.”

The investigators added that, “although the evidence base supporting the relationship between ammonia, inflammation, and brain edema is robust in acute liver failure, there is a paucity of data characterizing the specific pathogenic mechanisms entailed.” Previous research suggested that TLR9 plays a key role in acetaminophen-induced liver inflammation, they noted, and that ammonia, in combination with DNA, triggers TLR9 expression in neutrophils, which brought TLR9 into focus for the present study.

Along with wild-type mice, the investigators relied upon two knockout models: TLR9–/– mice, in which TLR9 is entirely absent, and LysM-Cre TLR9fl/fl mice, in which TLR9 is absent from lysozyme-expressing cells (predominantly neutrophils and macrophages). Comparing against controls, the investigators assessed cytokine production and brain edema in each type of mouse when intraperitoneally injected with ammonium acetate (4 mmol/kg). Specifically, 6 hours after injection, they measured intracellular cytokines in splenic macrophages, CD8+ T cells, and CD4+ T cells. In addition, they recorded total plasma DNA and brain water, a measure of brain edema.

Following ammonium acetate injection, wild-type mice developed brain edema and liver enlargement, while TLR9–/– mice and control-injected mice did not. After injection, total plasma DNA levels rose by comparable magnitudes in both wild-type mice and TLR9–/– mice, but did not change in control-injected mice, suggesting that ammonium-acetate injection was causing a release of DNA, which was binding with TLR9, resulting in activation of the innate immune system.

This hypothesis was supported by measurements of cytokines in T cells and splenic macrophages, which showed that wild-type mice had elevations of cytokines, whereas knockout mice did not. Further experiments showed that LysM-Cre TLR9fl/fl mice had similar outcomes as TLR9–/– mice, highlighting that macrophages and neutrophils are the key immune cells linking TLR9 activation with cytokine release, and therefore brain edema.

To ensure that brain edema was not directly caused by the acetate component of ammonium acetate, or acetate’s potential to increase pH, a different set of wild-type mice were injected with sodium acetate adjusted to the same pH as ammonium acetate. This had no impact on cytokine production, brain-water content, or liver-to-body weight ratio, confirming that acetate was not responsible for brain edema while providing further support for the role of TLR9.

Finally, the investigators treated wild-type mice immediately after ammonium acetate injection with the TLR9 antagonist ODN2088 (50 mcg/mouse). This treatment halted cytokine production, inflammation, and brain edema, strongly supporting the link between these ammonia-induced processes and TLR9 activation.

“These data are well supported by the findings of Imaeda et al. (J Clin Invest. 2009 Feb 2. doi: 10.1172/JCI35958), who in an acetaminophen-induced hepatotoxicity model established that inhibition of TLR9 using ODN2088 and IRS954, a TLR7/9 antagonist, down-regulated proinflammatory cytokine release and reduced mortality,” the investigators wrote. “The amelioration of brain edema and cytokine production by ODN2088 supports exploration of TLR9 antagonism as a therapeutic modality in early acute liver failure to prevent the development of brain edema and intracranial hypertension.”

The study was funded by the U.K. Institute of Liver Studies Charitable Fund and the National Institutes of Health. The investigators reported no conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Vijay GKM et al. Cell Mol Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2019 Aug 8. doi: 10.1016/j.jcmgh.2019.08.002.

A toll-like receptor 9 (TLR9) antagonist may eventually be used to combat brain edema in acute liver failure, according to investigators.

This prediction is based on results of a recent study involving mouse models, which showed that ODN2088, a TLR9 antagonist, could stop ammonia-induced colocalization of DNA with TLR9 in innate immune cells, thereby blocking cytokine production and ensuant brain edema, reported lead author Godhev Kumar Manakkat Vijay of King’s College London and colleagues.

“Ammonia plays a pivotal role in the development of hepatic encephalopathy and brain edema in acute liver failure,” the investigators explained in Cellular and Molecular Gastroenterology and Hepatology. “A robust systemic inflammatory response and susceptibility to developing infection are common in acute liver failure, exacerbate the development of ammonia-induced brain edema and are major prognosticators. Experimental models have unequivocally associated ammonia exposure with astrocyte swelling and brain edema, potentiated by proinflammatory cytokines.”

The investigators added that, “although the evidence base supporting the relationship between ammonia, inflammation, and brain edema is robust in acute liver failure, there is a paucity of data characterizing the specific pathogenic mechanisms entailed.” Previous research suggested that TLR9 plays a key role in acetaminophen-induced liver inflammation, they noted, and that ammonia, in combination with DNA, triggers TLR9 expression in neutrophils, which brought TLR9 into focus for the present study.

Along with wild-type mice, the investigators relied upon two knockout models: TLR9–/– mice, in which TLR9 is entirely absent, and LysM-Cre TLR9fl/fl mice, in which TLR9 is absent from lysozyme-expressing cells (predominantly neutrophils and macrophages). Comparing against controls, the investigators assessed cytokine production and brain edema in each type of mouse when intraperitoneally injected with ammonium acetate (4 mmol/kg). Specifically, 6 hours after injection, they measured intracellular cytokines in splenic macrophages, CD8+ T cells, and CD4+ T cells. In addition, they recorded total plasma DNA and brain water, a measure of brain edema.

Following ammonium acetate injection, wild-type mice developed brain edema and liver enlargement, while TLR9–/– mice and control-injected mice did not. After injection, total plasma DNA levels rose by comparable magnitudes in both wild-type mice and TLR9–/– mice, but did not change in control-injected mice, suggesting that ammonium-acetate injection was causing a release of DNA, which was binding with TLR9, resulting in activation of the innate immune system.

This hypothesis was supported by measurements of cytokines in T cells and splenic macrophages, which showed that wild-type mice had elevations of cytokines, whereas knockout mice did not. Further experiments showed that LysM-Cre TLR9fl/fl mice had similar outcomes as TLR9–/– mice, highlighting that macrophages and neutrophils are the key immune cells linking TLR9 activation with cytokine release, and therefore brain edema.

To ensure that brain edema was not directly caused by the acetate component of ammonium acetate, or acetate’s potential to increase pH, a different set of wild-type mice were injected with sodium acetate adjusted to the same pH as ammonium acetate. This had no impact on cytokine production, brain-water content, or liver-to-body weight ratio, confirming that acetate was not responsible for brain edema while providing further support for the role of TLR9.

Finally, the investigators treated wild-type mice immediately after ammonium acetate injection with the TLR9 antagonist ODN2088 (50 mcg/mouse). This treatment halted cytokine production, inflammation, and brain edema, strongly supporting the link between these ammonia-induced processes and TLR9 activation.

“These data are well supported by the findings of Imaeda et al. (J Clin Invest. 2009 Feb 2. doi: 10.1172/JCI35958), who in an acetaminophen-induced hepatotoxicity model established that inhibition of TLR9 using ODN2088 and IRS954, a TLR7/9 antagonist, down-regulated proinflammatory cytokine release and reduced mortality,” the investigators wrote. “The amelioration of brain edema and cytokine production by ODN2088 supports exploration of TLR9 antagonism as a therapeutic modality in early acute liver failure to prevent the development of brain edema and intracranial hypertension.”

The study was funded by the U.K. Institute of Liver Studies Charitable Fund and the National Institutes of Health. The investigators reported no conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Vijay GKM et al. Cell Mol Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2019 Aug 8. doi: 10.1016/j.jcmgh.2019.08.002.

A toll-like receptor 9 (TLR9) antagonist may eventually be used to combat brain edema in acute liver failure, according to investigators.

This prediction is based on results of a recent study involving mouse models, which showed that ODN2088, a TLR9 antagonist, could stop ammonia-induced colocalization of DNA with TLR9 in innate immune cells, thereby blocking cytokine production and ensuant brain edema, reported lead author Godhev Kumar Manakkat Vijay of King’s College London and colleagues.

“Ammonia plays a pivotal role in the development of hepatic encephalopathy and brain edema in acute liver failure,” the investigators explained in Cellular and Molecular Gastroenterology and Hepatology. “A robust systemic inflammatory response and susceptibility to developing infection are common in acute liver failure, exacerbate the development of ammonia-induced brain edema and are major prognosticators. Experimental models have unequivocally associated ammonia exposure with astrocyte swelling and brain edema, potentiated by proinflammatory cytokines.”

The investigators added that, “although the evidence base supporting the relationship between ammonia, inflammation, and brain edema is robust in acute liver failure, there is a paucity of data characterizing the specific pathogenic mechanisms entailed.” Previous research suggested that TLR9 plays a key role in acetaminophen-induced liver inflammation, they noted, and that ammonia, in combination with DNA, triggers TLR9 expression in neutrophils, which brought TLR9 into focus for the present study.

Along with wild-type mice, the investigators relied upon two knockout models: TLR9–/– mice, in which TLR9 is entirely absent, and LysM-Cre TLR9fl/fl mice, in which TLR9 is absent from lysozyme-expressing cells (predominantly neutrophils and macrophages). Comparing against controls, the investigators assessed cytokine production and brain edema in each type of mouse when intraperitoneally injected with ammonium acetate (4 mmol/kg). Specifically, 6 hours after injection, they measured intracellular cytokines in splenic macrophages, CD8+ T cells, and CD4+ T cells. In addition, they recorded total plasma DNA and brain water, a measure of brain edema.

Following ammonium acetate injection, wild-type mice developed brain edema and liver enlargement, while TLR9–/– mice and control-injected mice did not. After injection, total plasma DNA levels rose by comparable magnitudes in both wild-type mice and TLR9–/– mice, but did not change in control-injected mice, suggesting that ammonium-acetate injection was causing a release of DNA, which was binding with TLR9, resulting in activation of the innate immune system.

This hypothesis was supported by measurements of cytokines in T cells and splenic macrophages, which showed that wild-type mice had elevations of cytokines, whereas knockout mice did not. Further experiments showed that LysM-Cre TLR9fl/fl mice had similar outcomes as TLR9–/– mice, highlighting that macrophages and neutrophils are the key immune cells linking TLR9 activation with cytokine release, and therefore brain edema.

To ensure that brain edema was not directly caused by the acetate component of ammonium acetate, or acetate’s potential to increase pH, a different set of wild-type mice were injected with sodium acetate adjusted to the same pH as ammonium acetate. This had no impact on cytokine production, brain-water content, or liver-to-body weight ratio, confirming that acetate was not responsible for brain edema while providing further support for the role of TLR9.

Finally, the investigators treated wild-type mice immediately after ammonium acetate injection with the TLR9 antagonist ODN2088 (50 mcg/mouse). This treatment halted cytokine production, inflammation, and brain edema, strongly supporting the link between these ammonia-induced processes and TLR9 activation.

“These data are well supported by the findings of Imaeda et al. (J Clin Invest. 2009 Feb 2. doi: 10.1172/JCI35958), who in an acetaminophen-induced hepatotoxicity model established that inhibition of TLR9 using ODN2088 and IRS954, a TLR7/9 antagonist, down-regulated proinflammatory cytokine release and reduced mortality,” the investigators wrote. “The amelioration of brain edema and cytokine production by ODN2088 supports exploration of TLR9 antagonism as a therapeutic modality in early acute liver failure to prevent the development of brain edema and intracranial hypertension.”

The study was funded by the U.K. Institute of Liver Studies Charitable Fund and the National Institutes of Health. The investigators reported no conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Vijay GKM et al. Cell Mol Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2019 Aug 8. doi: 10.1016/j.jcmgh.2019.08.002.

The association between type 2 diabetes (T2D) and cardiovascular (CV) disease is well-established:

• Type 2 diabetes approximately doubles the risk of coronary artery disease, stroke, and peripheral arterial disease, independent of conventional risk factors¹
• CV disease is the leading cause of morbidity and mortality in patients with T2D
• CV disease is the largest contributor to direct and indirect costs of the health care of patients who have T2D.²

In recent years, new classes of agents for treating T2D have been introduced (TABLE 1). Prior to 2008, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved drugs in those new classes based simply on their effectiveness in reducing the blood glucose level. Concerns about the CV safety of specific drugs (eg, rosiglitazone, muraglitazar) emerged from a number of trials, suggesting that these agents might increase the risk of CV events.^3,4

All glucose-lowering medications used to treat type 2 diabetes are not equally effective in reducing CV complications.

Consequently, in 2008, the FDA issued guidance to the pharmaceutical industry: Preapproval and postapproval trials of all new antidiabetic drugs must now assess potential excess CV risk.⁵ CV outcomes trials (CVOTs), performed in accordance with FDA guidelines, have therefore become the focus of evaluating novel treatment options. In most CVOTs, combined primary CV endpoints have included CV mortality, nonfatal myocardial infarction (MI), and nonfatal stroke—taken together, what is known as the composite of these 3 major adverse CV events, or MACE-3.

To date, 15 CVOTs have been completed, assessing 3 novel classes of antihyperglycemic agents:

• dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors
• glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists
• sodium–glucose cotransporter-2 (SGLT-2) inhibitors.

None of these trials identified any increased incidence of MACE; 7 found CV benefit. This review summarizes what the CVOTs revealed about these antihyperglycemic agents and their ability to yield a reduction in MACE and a decrease in all-cause mortality in patients with T2D and elevated CV disease risk. Armed with this information, you will have the tools you need to offer patients with T2D CV benefit while managing their primary disease.

Cardiovascular outcomes trials: DPP-4 inhibitors

Four trials. Trials of DPP-4 inhibitors that have been completed and reported are of saxagliptin (SAVOR-TIMI 53⁶), alogliptin (EXAMINE⁷), sitagliptin (TECOS⁸), and linagliptin (CARMELINA⁹); others are in progress. In general, researchers enrolled patients at high risk of CV events, although inclusion criteria varied substantially. Consistently, these studies demonstrated that DPP-4 inhibition neither increased nor decreased (ie, were noninferior) the 3-point MACE (SAVOR-TIMI 53 noninferiority, P < .001; EXAMINE, P < .001; TECOS, P < .001).

Continue to: Rather than improve...

Rather than improve CV outcomes, there was some evidence that DPP-4 inhibitors might be associated with an increased risk of hospitalization for heart failure (HHF). In the SAVOR-TIMI 53 trial, patients randomized to saxagliptin had a 0.7% absolute increase in risk of HHF (P = .98).⁶ In the EXAMINE trial, patients treated with alogliptin showed a nonsignificant trend for HHF.¹⁰ In both the TECOS and CARMELINA trials, no difference was recorded in the rate of HHF.^8,9,11 Subsequent meta-analysis that summarized the risk of HHF in CVOTs with DPP-4 inhibitors indicated a nonsignificant trend to increased risk.¹²

It’s likely that the CV benefits result from mechanisms other than a reduction in the serum glucose level, given the short time frame of the studies and the magnitude of the CV benefit.

From these trials alone, it appears that DPP-4 inhibitors are unlikely to provide CV benefit. Data from additional trials are needed to evaluate the possible association between these medications and heart failure (HF). However, largely as a result of the findings from SAVOR-TIMI 53 and EXAMINE, the FDA issued a Drug Safety Communication in April 2016, adding warnings about HF to the labeling of saxagliptin and alogliptin.¹³

CARMELINA was designed to also evaluate kidney outcomes in patients with T2D. As with other DPP-4 inhibitor trials, the primary aim was to establish noninferiority, compared with placebo, for time to MACE-3 (P < .001). Secondary outcomes were defined as time to first occurrence of end-stage renal disease, death due to renal failure, and sustained decrease from baseline of ≥ 40% in the estimated glomerular filtration rate. The incidence of the secondary kidney composite results was not significantly different between groups randomized to linagliptin or placebo.⁹

Cardiovascular outcomes trials: GLP-1 receptor agonists

ELIXA. The CV safety of GLP-1 receptor agonists has been evaluated in several randomized clinical trials. The Evaluation of Lixisenatide in Acute Coronary Syndrome (ELIXA) trial was the first¹⁴: Lixisenatide was studied in 6068 patients with recent hospitalization for acute coronary syndrome. Lixisenatide therapy was neutral with regard to CV outcomes, which met the primary endpoint: noninferiority to placebo (P < .001). There was no increase in either HF or HHF.

Continue to: LEADER

LEADER. The Liraglutide Effect and Action in Diabetes: Evaluation of Cardiovascular Outcome Results trial (LEADER) evaluated long-term effects of liraglutide, compared to placebo, on CV events in patients with T2D.¹⁵ It was a multicenter, double-blind, placebocontrolled study that followed 9340 participants, most (81%) of whom had established CV disease, over 5 years. LEADER is considered a landmark study because it was the first large CVOT to show significant benefit for a GLP-1 receptor agonist.

Liraglutide demonstrated reductions in first occurrence of death from CV causes, nonfatal MI or nonfatal stroke, overall CV mortality, and all-cause mortality. The composite MACE-3 showed a relative risk reduction (RRR) of 13%, equivalent to an absolute risk reduction (ARR) of 1.9% (noninferiority, P < .001; superiority, P < .01). The RRR was 22% for death from CV causes, with an ARR of 1.3% (P = .007); the RRR for death from any cause was 15%, with an ARR of 1.4% (P = .02).

In addition, there was a lower rate of nephropathy (1.5 events for every 100 patient–years in the liraglutide group [P = .003], compared with 1.9 events every 100 patient–years in the placebo group).¹⁵

Results clearly demonstrated benefit. No significant difference was seen in the liraglutide rate of HHF, compared to the rate in the placebo group.

SUSTAIN-6. Evidence for the CV benefit of GLP-1 receptor agonists was also demonstrated in the phase 3 Trial to Evaluate Cardiovascular and Other Long-term Outcomes With Semaglutide in Subjects With Type 2 Diabetes (SUSTAIN-6).¹⁶ This was a study of 3297 patients with T2D at high risk of CV disease and with a mean hemoglobin A_1c (HbA_1c) value of 8.7%, 83% of whom had established CV disease. Patients were randomized to semaglutide or placebo. Note: SUSTAIN-6 was a noninferiority safety study; as such, it was not actually designed to assess or establish superiority.

Continue to: The incidence of MACE-3...

The incidence of MACE-3 was significantly reduced among patients treated with semaglutide (P = .02) after median followup of 2.1 years. The expanded composite outcome (death from CV causes, nonfatal MI, nonfatal stroke, coronary revascularization, or hospitalization for unstable angina or HF), also showed a significant reduction with semaglutide (P = .002), compared with placebo. There was no difference in the overall hospitalization rate or rate of death from any cause.

EXSCEL. The Exenatide Study of Cardiovascular Event Lowering trial (EXSCEL)^17,18 was a phase III/IV, double-blind, pragmatic placebo-controlled study of 14,752 patients at any level of CV risk, for a median 3.2 years. The study population was intentionally more diverse than in earlier GLP-1 receptor agonist studies. The researchers hypothesized that patients at increased risk of MACE would experience a comparatively greater relative treatment benefit with exenatide than those at lower risk. That did not prove to be the case.

EXSCEL did confirm noninferiority compared with placebo (P < .001), but once-weekly exenatide resulted in a nonsignificant reduction in major adverse CV events, and a trend for RRR in all-cause mortality (RRR = 14%; ARR = 1% [P = .06]).

HARMONY OUTCOMES. The Albiglutide and Cardiovascular Outcomes in Patients With Type 2 Diabetes and Cardiovascular Disease study (HARMONY OUTCOMES)¹⁹ was a double-blind, randomized, placebocontrolled trial conducted at 610 sites across 28 countries. The study investigated albiglutide, 30 to 50 mg once weekly, compared with placebo. It included 9463 patients ages ≥ 40 years with T2D who had an HbA_1c > 7% (median value, 8.7%) and established CV disease. Patients were evaluated for a median 1.6 years.

Albiglutide reduced the risk of CV causes of death, nonfatal MI, and nonfatal stroke by an RRR of 22%, (ARR, 2%) (noninferiority, P < .0001; superiority, P < .0006).

Continue to: REWIND

REWIND. The Researching Cardiovascular Events with a Weekly INcretin in Diabetes trial (REWIND),²⁰ the most recently completed GLP-1 receptor agonist CVOT (presented at the 2019 American Diabetes Association [ADA] Conference in June and published simultaneously in The Lancet), was a multicenter, randomized, double-blind placebo-controlled trial designed to assess the effect of weekly dulaglutide, 1.5 mg, compared with placebo, in 9901 participants enrolled at 371 sites in 24 countries. Mean patient age was 66.2 years, with women constituting 4589 (46.3%) of participants.

REWIND was distinct from other CVOTs in several ways:

• Other CVOTs were designed to show noninferiority compared with placebo regarding CV events; REWIND was designed to establish superiority
• In contrast to trials of other GLP-1 receptor agonists, in which most patients had established CV disease, only 31% of REWIND participants had a history of CV disease or a prior CV event (although 69% did have CV risk factors without underlying disease)
• REWIND was much longer (median follow-up, 5.4 years) than other GLP-1 receptor agonist trials (median follow-up, 1.5 to 3.8 years).

In REWIND, the primary composite outcome of MACE-3 occurred in 12% of participants assigned to dulaglutide, compared with 13.1% assigned to placebo (P = .026). This equated to 2.4 events for every 100 person– years on dulaglutide, compared with 2.7 events for every 100 person–years on placebo. There was a consistent effect on all MACE-3 components, although the greatest reductions were observed in nonfatal stroke (P = .017). Overall risk reduction was the same for primary and secondary prevention cohorts (P = .97), as well as in patients with either an HbA_1c value < 7.2% or ≥ 7.2% (P = .75). Risk reduction was consistent across age, sex, duration of T2D, and body mass index.

Dulaglutide did not significantly affect the incidence of all-cause mortality, heart failure, revascularization, or hospital admission. Forty-seven percent of patients taking dulaglutide reported gastrointestinal adverse effects (P = .0001).

Cases of bullous pemphigoid have been reported after initiation of DPP-4 inhibitor therapy.

In a separate analysis of secondary outcomes, ²¹ dulaglutide reduced the composite renal outcomes of new-onset macroalbuminuria (P = .0001); decline of ≥ 30% in the estimated glomerular filtration rate (P = .066); and chronic renal replacement therapy (P = .39). Investigators estimated that 1 composite renal outcome event would be prevented for every 31 patients treated with dulaglutide for a median 5.4 years.

Continue to: Cardiovascular outcomes trials...

Cardiovascular outcomes trials: SGLT-2 inhibitors

EMPA-REG OUTCOME. The Empagliflozin, Cardiovascular Outcomes, and Mortality in Type 2 Diabetes trial (EMPA-REG OUTCOME) was also a landmark study because it was the first dedicated CVOT to show that an antihyperglycemic agent 1) decreased CV mortality and all-cause mortality, and 2) reduced HHF in patients with T2D and established CV disease.22 In this trial, 7020 patients with T2D who were at high risk of CV events were randomized and treated with empagliflozin, 10 or 25 mg, or placebo, in addition to standard care, and were followed for a median 2.6 years.

In October, the FDA approved dapaglifozin to reduce the risk of hospitalization for heart failure in adults with T2D and established CV disease.

Compared with placebo, empagliflozin resulted in an RRR of 14% (ARR, 1.6%) in the primary endpoint of CV death, nonfatal MI, and stroke, confirming study drug superiority (P = .04). When compared with placebo, the empagliflozin group had an RRR of 38% in CV mortality, (ARR < 2.2%) (P < .001); an RRR of 35% in HHF (ARR, 1.4%) (P = .002); and an RRR of 32% (ARR, 2.6%) in death from any cause (P < .001).

CANVAS. The Canagliflozin Cardiovascular Assessment Study (CANVAS) integrated 2 multicenter, placebo-controlled, randomized trials with 10,142 participants and a mean follow-up of 3.6 years.²³ Patients were randomized to receive canagliflozin (100-300 mg/d) or placebo. Approximately two-thirds of patients had a history of CV disease (therefore representing secondary prevention); one-third had CV risk factors only (primary prevention).

In CANVAS, patients receiving canagliflozin had a risk reduction in MACE-3, establishing superiority compared with placebo (P < .001). There was also a significant reduction in progression of albuminuria (P < .05). Superiority was not shown for the secondary outcome of death from any cause. Canagliflozin had no effect on the primary endpoint (MACE-3) in the subgroup of participants who did not have a history of CV disease. Similar to what was found with empagliflozin in EMPA-REG OUTCOME, CANVAS participants had a reduced risk of HHF.

Continue to: Patients on canagliflozin...

Patients on canagliflozin unexpectedly had an increased incidence of amputations (6.3 participants, compared with 3.4 participants, for every 1000 patient–years). This finding led to a black box warning for canagliflozin about the risk of lower-limb amputation.

DECLARE-TIMI 58. The Dapagliflozin Effect of Cardiovascular Events-Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction 58 trial (DECLARETIMI 58) was the largest SGLT-2 inhibitor outcomes trial to date, enrolling 17,160 patients with T2D who also had established CV disease or multiple risk factors for atherosclerotic CV disease. The trial compared dapagliflozin, 10 mg/d, and placebo, following patients for a median 4.2 years.²⁴ Unlike CANVAS and EMPA-REG OUTCOME, DECLARE-TIMI 58 included CV death and HHF as primary outcomes, in addition to MACE-3.

Dapagliflozin was noninferior to placebo with regard to MACE-3. However, its use did result in a lower rate of CV death and HHF by an RRR of 17% (ARR, 1.9%). Risk reduction was greatest in patients with HF who had a reduced ejection fraction (ARR = 9.2%).²⁵

In October, the FDA approved dapagliflozin to reduce the risk of HHF in adults with T2D and established CV disease or multiple CV risk factors. Before initiating the drug, physicians should evaluate the patient's renal function and monitor periodically.

Meta-analyses of SGLT-2 inhibitors

Systematic review. Usman et al released a meta-analysis in 2018 that included 35 randomized, placebo-controlled trials (including EMPA-REG OUTCOME, CANVAS, and DECLARE-TIMI 58) that had assessed the use of SGLT-2 inhibitors in nearly 35,000 patients with T2D.²⁶ This review concluded that, as a class, SGLT-2 inhibitors reduce all-cause mortality, major adverse cardiac events, nonfatal MI, and HF and HHF, compared with placebo.

Continue to: CVD-REAL

CVD-REAL. A separate study, Comparative Effectiveness of Cardiovascular Outcomes in New Users of SGLT-2 Inhibitors (CVD-REAL), of 154,528 patients who were treated with canagliflozin, dapagliflozin, or empagliflozin, showed that initiation of SGLT-2 inhibitors, compared with other glucose- lowering therapies, was associated with a 39% reduction in HHF; a 51% reduction in death from any cause; and a 46% reduction in the composite of HHF or death (P < .001).²⁷

CVD-REAL was unique because it was the largest real-world study to assess the effectiveness of SGLT-2 inhibitors on HHF and mortality. The study utilized data from patients in the United States, Norway, Denmark, Sweden, Germany, and the United Kingdom, based on information obtained from medical claims, primary care and hospital records, and national registries that compared patients who were either newly started on an SGLT-2 inhibitor or another glucose-lowering drug. The drug used by most patients in the trial was canagliflozin (53%), followed by dapagliflozin (42%), and empagliflozin (5%).

In this meta-analysis, similar therapeutic effects were seen across countries, regardless of geographic differences, in the use of specific SGLT-2 inhibitors, suggesting a class effect. Of particular significance was that most (87%) patients enrolled in CVD-REAL did not have prior CV disease. Despite this, results for examined outcomes in CVD-REAL were similar to what was seen in other SGLT-2 inhibitor trials that were designed to study patients with established CV disease.

Risk of adverse effects of newer antidiabetic agents

DPP-4 inhibitors. Alogliptin and sitagliptin carry a black-box warning about potential risk of HF. In SAVOR-TIMI, a 27% increase was detected in the rate of HHF after approximately 2 years of saxagliptin therapy.⁶ Although HF should not be considered a class effect for DPP-4 inhibitors, patients who have risk factors for HF should be monitored for signs and symptoms of HF.

Continue to: Cases of acute pancreatitis...

Cases of acute pancreatitis have been reported in association with all DPP-4 inhibitors available in the United States. A combined analysis of DDP-4 inhibitor trials suggested an increased relative risk of 79% and an absolute risk of 0.13%, which translates to 1 or 2 additional cases of acute pancreatitis for every 1000 patients treated for 2 years.²⁸

There have been numerous postmarketing reports of severe joint pain in patients taking a DPP-4 inhibitor. Most recently, cases of bullous pemphigoid have been reported after initiation of DPP-4 inhibitor therapy.²⁹

GLP-1 receptor agonists carry a black box warning for medullary thyroid (C-cell) tumor risk. GLP-1 receptor agonists are contraindicated in patients with a personal or family history of this cancer, although this FDA warning is based solely on observations from animal models.

In addition, GLP-1 receptor agonists can increase the risk of cholecystitis and pancreatitis. Not uncommonly, they cause gastrointestinal symptoms when first started and when the dosage is titrated upward. Most GLP-1 receptor agonists can be used in patients with renal impairment, although data regarding their use in Stages 4 and 5 chronic kidney disease are limited.³⁰ Semaglutide was found, in the SUSTAIN-6 trial, to be associated with an increased rate of complications of retinopathy, including vitreous hemorrhage and blindness (P = .02)³¹

SGLT-2 inhibitors are associated with an increased incidence of genitourinary infection, bone fracture (canagliflozin), amputation (canagliflozin), and euglycemic diabetic ketoacidosis. Agents in this class should be avoided in patients with moderate or severe renal impairment, primarily due to a lack of efficacy. They are contraindicated in patients with an estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) < 30 mL/min/1.73 m2. (Dapagliflozin is not recommended when eGFR is < 45 mL/min/ 1.73 m2.) These agents carry an FDA warning about the risk of acute kidney injury.³⁰

Continue to: Summing up

Summing up

All glucose-lowering medications used to treat T2D are not equally effective in reducing CV complications. Recent CVOTs have uncovered evidence that certain antidiabetic agents might confer CV and all-cause mortality benefits (TABLE 2^{6,7,9,11,14-17,19-24}).

Discussion of proposed mechanisms for CV outcome superiority of these agents is beyond the scope of this review. It is generally believed that benefits result from mechanisms other than a reduction in the serum glucose level, given the relatively short time frame of the studies and the magnitude of the CV benefit. It is almost certain that mechanisms of CV benefit in the 2 landmark studies—LEADER and EMPA-REG OUTCOME—are distinct from each other.³²

See “When planning T2D pharmacotherapy, include newer agents that offer CV benefit,” ^33-38 for a stepwise approach to treating T2D, including the role of agents that have efficacy in modifying the risk of CV disease.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Linda Speer, MD, Kevin Phelps, DO, and Jay Shubrook, DO, provided support and editorial assistance.

CORRESPONDENCE
Robert Gotfried, DO, FAAFP, Department of Family Medicine, University of Toledo College of Medicine, 3333 Glendale Avenue, Toledo, OH 43614; Robert.gotfried@utoledo.edu.

The association between type 2 diabetes (T2D) and cardiovascular (CV) disease is well-established:

• Type 2 diabetes approximately doubles the risk of coronary artery disease, stroke, and peripheral arterial disease, independent of conventional risk factors¹
• CV disease is the leading cause of morbidity and mortality in patients with T2D
• CV disease is the largest contributor to direct and indirect costs of the health care of patients who have T2D.²

In recent years, new classes of agents for treating T2D have been introduced (TABLE 1). Prior to 2008, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved drugs in those new classes based simply on their effectiveness in reducing the blood glucose level. Concerns about the CV safety of specific drugs (eg, rosiglitazone, muraglitazar) emerged from a number of trials, suggesting that these agents might increase the risk of CV events.^3,4

All glucose-lowering medications used to treat type 2 diabetes are not equally effective in reducing CV complications.

Consequently, in 2008, the FDA issued guidance to the pharmaceutical industry: Preapproval and postapproval trials of all new antidiabetic drugs must now assess potential excess CV risk.⁵ CV outcomes trials (CVOTs), performed in accordance with FDA guidelines, have therefore become the focus of evaluating novel treatment options. In most CVOTs, combined primary CV endpoints have included CV mortality, nonfatal myocardial infarction (MI), and nonfatal stroke—taken together, what is known as the composite of these 3 major adverse CV events, or MACE-3.

To date, 15 CVOTs have been completed, assessing 3 novel classes of antihyperglycemic agents:

• dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors
• glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists
• sodium–glucose cotransporter-2 (SGLT-2) inhibitors.

None of these trials identified any increased incidence of MACE; 7 found CV benefit. This review summarizes what the CVOTs revealed about these antihyperglycemic agents and their ability to yield a reduction in MACE and a decrease in all-cause mortality in patients with T2D and elevated CV disease risk. Armed with this information, you will have the tools you need to offer patients with T2D CV benefit while managing their primary disease.

Cardiovascular outcomes trials: DPP-4 inhibitors

Four trials. Trials of DPP-4 inhibitors that have been completed and reported are of saxagliptin (SAVOR-TIMI 53⁶), alogliptin (EXAMINE⁷), sitagliptin (TECOS⁸), and linagliptin (CARMELINA⁹); others are in progress. In general, researchers enrolled patients at high risk of CV events, although inclusion criteria varied substantially. Consistently, these studies demonstrated that DPP-4 inhibition neither increased nor decreased (ie, were noninferior) the 3-point MACE (SAVOR-TIMI 53 noninferiority, P < .001; EXAMINE, P < .001; TECOS, P < .001).

Continue to: Rather than improve...

Rather than improve CV outcomes, there was some evidence that DPP-4 inhibitors might be associated with an increased risk of hospitalization for heart failure (HHF). In the SAVOR-TIMI 53 trial, patients randomized to saxagliptin had a 0.7% absolute increase in risk of HHF (P = .98).⁶ In the EXAMINE trial, patients treated with alogliptin showed a nonsignificant trend for HHF.¹⁰ In both the TECOS and CARMELINA trials, no difference was recorded in the rate of HHF.^8,9,11 Subsequent meta-analysis that summarized the risk of HHF in CVOTs with DPP-4 inhibitors indicated a nonsignificant trend to increased risk.¹²

It’s likely that the CV benefits result from mechanisms other than a reduction in the serum glucose level, given the short time frame of the studies and the magnitude of the CV benefit.

From these trials alone, it appears that DPP-4 inhibitors are unlikely to provide CV benefit. Data from additional trials are needed to evaluate the possible association between these medications and heart failure (HF). However, largely as a result of the findings from SAVOR-TIMI 53 and EXAMINE, the FDA issued a Drug Safety Communication in April 2016, adding warnings about HF to the labeling of saxagliptin and alogliptin.¹³

CARMELINA was designed to also evaluate kidney outcomes in patients with T2D. As with other DPP-4 inhibitor trials, the primary aim was to establish noninferiority, compared with placebo, for time to MACE-3 (P < .001). Secondary outcomes were defined as time to first occurrence of end-stage renal disease, death due to renal failure, and sustained decrease from baseline of ≥ 40% in the estimated glomerular filtration rate. The incidence of the secondary kidney composite results was not significantly different between groups randomized to linagliptin or placebo.⁹

Cardiovascular outcomes trials: GLP-1 receptor agonists

ELIXA. The CV safety of GLP-1 receptor agonists has been evaluated in several randomized clinical trials. The Evaluation of Lixisenatide in Acute Coronary Syndrome (ELIXA) trial was the first¹⁴: Lixisenatide was studied in 6068 patients with recent hospitalization for acute coronary syndrome. Lixisenatide therapy was neutral with regard to CV outcomes, which met the primary endpoint: noninferiority to placebo (P < .001). There was no increase in either HF or HHF.

Continue to: LEADER

LEADER. The Liraglutide Effect and Action in Diabetes: Evaluation of Cardiovascular Outcome Results trial (LEADER) evaluated long-term effects of liraglutide, compared to placebo, on CV events in patients with T2D.¹⁵ It was a multicenter, double-blind, placebocontrolled study that followed 9340 participants, most (81%) of whom had established CV disease, over 5 years. LEADER is considered a landmark study because it was the first large CVOT to show significant benefit for a GLP-1 receptor agonist.

Liraglutide demonstrated reductions in first occurrence of death from CV causes, nonfatal MI or nonfatal stroke, overall CV mortality, and all-cause mortality. The composite MACE-3 showed a relative risk reduction (RRR) of 13%, equivalent to an absolute risk reduction (ARR) of 1.9% (noninferiority, P < .001; superiority, P < .01). The RRR was 22% for death from CV causes, with an ARR of 1.3% (P = .007); the RRR for death from any cause was 15%, with an ARR of 1.4% (P = .02).

In addition, there was a lower rate of nephropathy (1.5 events for every 100 patient–years in the liraglutide group [P = .003], compared with 1.9 events every 100 patient–years in the placebo group).¹⁵

Results clearly demonstrated benefit. No significant difference was seen in the liraglutide rate of HHF, compared to the rate in the placebo group.

SUSTAIN-6. Evidence for the CV benefit of GLP-1 receptor agonists was also demonstrated in the phase 3 Trial to Evaluate Cardiovascular and Other Long-term Outcomes With Semaglutide in Subjects With Type 2 Diabetes (SUSTAIN-6).¹⁶ This was a study of 3297 patients with T2D at high risk of CV disease and with a mean hemoglobin A_1c (HbA_1c) value of 8.7%, 83% of whom had established CV disease. Patients were randomized to semaglutide or placebo. Note: SUSTAIN-6 was a noninferiority safety study; as such, it was not actually designed to assess or establish superiority.

Continue to: The incidence of MACE-3...

The incidence of MACE-3 was significantly reduced among patients treated with semaglutide (P = .02) after median followup of 2.1 years. The expanded composite outcome (death from CV causes, nonfatal MI, nonfatal stroke, coronary revascularization, or hospitalization for unstable angina or HF), also showed a significant reduction with semaglutide (P = .002), compared with placebo. There was no difference in the overall hospitalization rate or rate of death from any cause.

EXSCEL. The Exenatide Study of Cardiovascular Event Lowering trial (EXSCEL)^17,18 was a phase III/IV, double-blind, pragmatic placebo-controlled study of 14,752 patients at any level of CV risk, for a median 3.2 years. The study population was intentionally more diverse than in earlier GLP-1 receptor agonist studies. The researchers hypothesized that patients at increased risk of MACE would experience a comparatively greater relative treatment benefit with exenatide than those at lower risk. That did not prove to be the case.

EXSCEL did confirm noninferiority compared with placebo (P < .001), but once-weekly exenatide resulted in a nonsignificant reduction in major adverse CV events, and a trend for RRR in all-cause mortality (RRR = 14%; ARR = 1% [P = .06]).

HARMONY OUTCOMES. The Albiglutide and Cardiovascular Outcomes in Patients With Type 2 Diabetes and Cardiovascular Disease study (HARMONY OUTCOMES)¹⁹ was a double-blind, randomized, placebocontrolled trial conducted at 610 sites across 28 countries. The study investigated albiglutide, 30 to 50 mg once weekly, compared with placebo. It included 9463 patients ages ≥ 40 years with T2D who had an HbA_1c > 7% (median value, 8.7%) and established CV disease. Patients were evaluated for a median 1.6 years.

Albiglutide reduced the risk of CV causes of death, nonfatal MI, and nonfatal stroke by an RRR of 22%, (ARR, 2%) (noninferiority, P < .0001; superiority, P < .0006).

Continue to: REWIND

REWIND. The Researching Cardiovascular Events with a Weekly INcretin in Diabetes trial (REWIND),²⁰ the most recently completed GLP-1 receptor agonist CVOT (presented at the 2019 American Diabetes Association [ADA] Conference in June and published simultaneously in The Lancet), was a multicenter, randomized, double-blind placebo-controlled trial designed to assess the effect of weekly dulaglutide, 1.5 mg, compared with placebo, in 9901 participants enrolled at 371 sites in 24 countries. Mean patient age was 66.2 years, with women constituting 4589 (46.3%) of participants.

REWIND was distinct from other CVOTs in several ways:

• Other CVOTs were designed to show noninferiority compared with placebo regarding CV events; REWIND was designed to establish superiority
• In contrast to trials of other GLP-1 receptor agonists, in which most patients had established CV disease, only 31% of REWIND participants had a history of CV disease or a prior CV event (although 69% did have CV risk factors without underlying disease)
• REWIND was much longer (median follow-up, 5.4 years) than other GLP-1 receptor agonist trials (median follow-up, 1.5 to 3.8 years).

In REWIND, the primary composite outcome of MACE-3 occurred in 12% of participants assigned to dulaglutide, compared with 13.1% assigned to placebo (P = .026). This equated to 2.4 events for every 100 person– years on dulaglutide, compared with 2.7 events for every 100 person–years on placebo. There was a consistent effect on all MACE-3 components, although the greatest reductions were observed in nonfatal stroke (P = .017). Overall risk reduction was the same for primary and secondary prevention cohorts (P = .97), as well as in patients with either an HbA_1c value < 7.2% or ≥ 7.2% (P = .75). Risk reduction was consistent across age, sex, duration of T2D, and body mass index.

Dulaglutide did not significantly affect the incidence of all-cause mortality, heart failure, revascularization, or hospital admission. Forty-seven percent of patients taking dulaglutide reported gastrointestinal adverse effects (P = .0001).

Cases of bullous pemphigoid have been reported after initiation of DPP-4 inhibitor therapy.

In a separate analysis of secondary outcomes, ²¹ dulaglutide reduced the composite renal outcomes of new-onset macroalbuminuria (P = .0001); decline of ≥ 30% in the estimated glomerular filtration rate (P = .066); and chronic renal replacement therapy (P = .39). Investigators estimated that 1 composite renal outcome event would be prevented for every 31 patients treated with dulaglutide for a median 5.4 years.

Continue to: Cardiovascular outcomes trials...

Cardiovascular outcomes trials: SGLT-2 inhibitors

EMPA-REG OUTCOME. The Empagliflozin, Cardiovascular Outcomes, and Mortality in Type 2 Diabetes trial (EMPA-REG OUTCOME) was also a landmark study because it was the first dedicated CVOT to show that an antihyperglycemic agent 1) decreased CV mortality and all-cause mortality, and 2) reduced HHF in patients with T2D and established CV disease.22 In this trial, 7020 patients with T2D who were at high risk of CV events were randomized and treated with empagliflozin, 10 or 25 mg, or placebo, in addition to standard care, and were followed for a median 2.6 years.

In October, the FDA approved dapaglifozin to reduce the risk of hospitalization for heart failure in adults with T2D and established CV disease.

Compared with placebo, empagliflozin resulted in an RRR of 14% (ARR, 1.6%) in the primary endpoint of CV death, nonfatal MI, and stroke, confirming study drug superiority (P = .04). When compared with placebo, the empagliflozin group had an RRR of 38% in CV mortality, (ARR < 2.2%) (P < .001); an RRR of 35% in HHF (ARR, 1.4%) (P = .002); and an RRR of 32% (ARR, 2.6%) in death from any cause (P < .001).

CANVAS. The Canagliflozin Cardiovascular Assessment Study (CANVAS) integrated 2 multicenter, placebo-controlled, randomized trials with 10,142 participants and a mean follow-up of 3.6 years.²³ Patients were randomized to receive canagliflozin (100-300 mg/d) or placebo. Approximately two-thirds of patients had a history of CV disease (therefore representing secondary prevention); one-third had CV risk factors only (primary prevention).

In CANVAS, patients receiving canagliflozin had a risk reduction in MACE-3, establishing superiority compared with placebo (P < .001). There was also a significant reduction in progression of albuminuria (P < .05). Superiority was not shown for the secondary outcome of death from any cause. Canagliflozin had no effect on the primary endpoint (MACE-3) in the subgroup of participants who did not have a history of CV disease. Similar to what was found with empagliflozin in EMPA-REG OUTCOME, CANVAS participants had a reduced risk of HHF.

Continue to: Patients on canagliflozin...

Patients on canagliflozin unexpectedly had an increased incidence of amputations (6.3 participants, compared with 3.4 participants, for every 1000 patient–years). This finding led to a black box warning for canagliflozin about the risk of lower-limb amputation.

DECLARE-TIMI 58. The Dapagliflozin Effect of Cardiovascular Events-Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction 58 trial (DECLARETIMI 58) was the largest SGLT-2 inhibitor outcomes trial to date, enrolling 17,160 patients with T2D who also had established CV disease or multiple risk factors for atherosclerotic CV disease. The trial compared dapagliflozin, 10 mg/d, and placebo, following patients for a median 4.2 years.²⁴ Unlike CANVAS and EMPA-REG OUTCOME, DECLARE-TIMI 58 included CV death and HHF as primary outcomes, in addition to MACE-3.

Dapagliflozin was noninferior to placebo with regard to MACE-3. However, its use did result in a lower rate of CV death and HHF by an RRR of 17% (ARR, 1.9%). Risk reduction was greatest in patients with HF who had a reduced ejection fraction (ARR = 9.2%).²⁵

In October, the FDA approved dapagliflozin to reduce the risk of HHF in adults with T2D and established CV disease or multiple CV risk factors. Before initiating the drug, physicians should evaluate the patient's renal function and monitor periodically.

Meta-analyses of SGLT-2 inhibitors

Systematic review. Usman et al released a meta-analysis in 2018 that included 35 randomized, placebo-controlled trials (including EMPA-REG OUTCOME, CANVAS, and DECLARE-TIMI 58) that had assessed the use of SGLT-2 inhibitors in nearly 35,000 patients with T2D.²⁶ This review concluded that, as a class, SGLT-2 inhibitors reduce all-cause mortality, major adverse cardiac events, nonfatal MI, and HF and HHF, compared with placebo.

Continue to: CVD-REAL

CVD-REAL. A separate study, Comparative Effectiveness of Cardiovascular Outcomes in New Users of SGLT-2 Inhibitors (CVD-REAL), of 154,528 patients who were treated with canagliflozin, dapagliflozin, or empagliflozin, showed that initiation of SGLT-2 inhibitors, compared with other glucose- lowering therapies, was associated with a 39% reduction in HHF; a 51% reduction in death from any cause; and a 46% reduction in the composite of HHF or death (P < .001).²⁷

CVD-REAL was unique because it was the largest real-world study to assess the effectiveness of SGLT-2 inhibitors on HHF and mortality. The study utilized data from patients in the United States, Norway, Denmark, Sweden, Germany, and the United Kingdom, based on information obtained from medical claims, primary care and hospital records, and national registries that compared patients who were either newly started on an SGLT-2 inhibitor or another glucose-lowering drug. The drug used by most patients in the trial was canagliflozin (53%), followed by dapagliflozin (42%), and empagliflozin (5%).

In this meta-analysis, similar therapeutic effects were seen across countries, regardless of geographic differences, in the use of specific SGLT-2 inhibitors, suggesting a class effect. Of particular significance was that most (87%) patients enrolled in CVD-REAL did not have prior CV disease. Despite this, results for examined outcomes in CVD-REAL were similar to what was seen in other SGLT-2 inhibitor trials that were designed to study patients with established CV disease.

Risk of adverse effects of newer antidiabetic agents

DPP-4 inhibitors. Alogliptin and sitagliptin carry a black-box warning about potential risk of HF. In SAVOR-TIMI, a 27% increase was detected in the rate of HHF after approximately 2 years of saxagliptin therapy.⁶ Although HF should not be considered a class effect for DPP-4 inhibitors, patients who have risk factors for HF should be monitored for signs and symptoms of HF.

Continue to: Cases of acute pancreatitis...

Cases of acute pancreatitis have been reported in association with all DPP-4 inhibitors available in the United States. A combined analysis of DDP-4 inhibitor trials suggested an increased relative risk of 79% and an absolute risk of 0.13%, which translates to 1 or 2 additional cases of acute pancreatitis for every 1000 patients treated for 2 years.²⁸

There have been numerous postmarketing reports of severe joint pain in patients taking a DPP-4 inhibitor. Most recently, cases of bullous pemphigoid have been reported after initiation of DPP-4 inhibitor therapy.²⁹

GLP-1 receptor agonists carry a black box warning for medullary thyroid (C-cell) tumor risk. GLP-1 receptor agonists are contraindicated in patients with a personal or family history of this cancer, although this FDA warning is based solely on observations from animal models.

In addition, GLP-1 receptor agonists can increase the risk of cholecystitis and pancreatitis. Not uncommonly, they cause gastrointestinal symptoms when first started and when the dosage is titrated upward. Most GLP-1 receptor agonists can be used in patients with renal impairment, although data regarding their use in Stages 4 and 5 chronic kidney disease are limited.³⁰ Semaglutide was found, in the SUSTAIN-6 trial, to be associated with an increased rate of complications of retinopathy, including vitreous hemorrhage and blindness (P = .02)³¹

SGLT-2 inhibitors are associated with an increased incidence of genitourinary infection, bone fracture (canagliflozin), amputation (canagliflozin), and euglycemic diabetic ketoacidosis. Agents in this class should be avoided in patients with moderate or severe renal impairment, primarily due to a lack of efficacy. They are contraindicated in patients with an estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) < 30 mL/min/1.73 m2. (Dapagliflozin is not recommended when eGFR is < 45 mL/min/ 1.73 m2.) These agents carry an FDA warning about the risk of acute kidney injury.³⁰

Continue to: Summing up

Summing up

All glucose-lowering medications used to treat T2D are not equally effective in reducing CV complications. Recent CVOTs have uncovered evidence that certain antidiabetic agents might confer CV and all-cause mortality benefits (TABLE 2^{6,7,9,11,14-17,19-24}).

Discussion of proposed mechanisms for CV outcome superiority of these agents is beyond the scope of this review. It is generally believed that benefits result from mechanisms other than a reduction in the serum glucose level, given the relatively short time frame of the studies and the magnitude of the CV benefit. It is almost certain that mechanisms of CV benefit in the 2 landmark studies—LEADER and EMPA-REG OUTCOME—are distinct from each other.³²

See “When planning T2D pharmacotherapy, include newer agents that offer CV benefit,” ^33-38 for a stepwise approach to treating T2D, including the role of agents that have efficacy in modifying the risk of CV disease.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Linda Speer, MD, Kevin Phelps, DO, and Jay Shubrook, DO, provided support and editorial assistance.

CORRESPONDENCE
Robert Gotfried, DO, FAAFP, Department of Family Medicine, University of Toledo College of Medicine, 3333 Glendale Avenue, Toledo, OH 43614; Robert.gotfried@utoledo.edu.

The association between type 2 diabetes (T2D) and cardiovascular (CV) disease is well-established:

• Type 2 diabetes approximately doubles the risk of coronary artery disease, stroke, and peripheral arterial disease, independent of conventional risk factors¹
• CV disease is the leading cause of morbidity and mortality in patients with T2D
• CV disease is the largest contributor to direct and indirect costs of the health care of patients who have T2D.²

In recent years, new classes of agents for treating T2D have been introduced (TABLE 1). Prior to 2008, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved drugs in those new classes based simply on their effectiveness in reducing the blood glucose level. Concerns about the CV safety of specific drugs (eg, rosiglitazone, muraglitazar) emerged from a number of trials, suggesting that these agents might increase the risk of CV events.^3,4

All glucose-lowering medications used to treat type 2 diabetes are not equally effective in reducing CV complications.

Consequently, in 2008, the FDA issued guidance to the pharmaceutical industry: Preapproval and postapproval trials of all new antidiabetic drugs must now assess potential excess CV risk.⁵ CV outcomes trials (CVOTs), performed in accordance with FDA guidelines, have therefore become the focus of evaluating novel treatment options. In most CVOTs, combined primary CV endpoints have included CV mortality, nonfatal myocardial infarction (MI), and nonfatal stroke—taken together, what is known as the composite of these 3 major adverse CV events, or MACE-3.

To date, 15 CVOTs have been completed, assessing 3 novel classes of antihyperglycemic agents:

• dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors
• glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists
• sodium–glucose cotransporter-2 (SGLT-2) inhibitors.

None of these trials identified any increased incidence of MACE; 7 found CV benefit. This review summarizes what the CVOTs revealed about these antihyperglycemic agents and their ability to yield a reduction in MACE and a decrease in all-cause mortality in patients with T2D and elevated CV disease risk. Armed with this information, you will have the tools you need to offer patients with T2D CV benefit while managing their primary disease.

Cardiovascular outcomes trials: DPP-4 inhibitors

Four trials. Trials of DPP-4 inhibitors that have been completed and reported are of saxagliptin (SAVOR-TIMI 53⁶), alogliptin (EXAMINE⁷), sitagliptin (TECOS⁸), and linagliptin (CARMELINA⁹); others are in progress. In general, researchers enrolled patients at high risk of CV events, although inclusion criteria varied substantially. Consistently, these studies demonstrated that DPP-4 inhibition neither increased nor decreased (ie, were noninferior) the 3-point MACE (SAVOR-TIMI 53 noninferiority, P < .001; EXAMINE, P < .001; TECOS, P < .001).

Continue to: Rather than improve...

Rather than improve CV outcomes, there was some evidence that DPP-4 inhibitors might be associated with an increased risk of hospitalization for heart failure (HHF). In the SAVOR-TIMI 53 trial, patients randomized to saxagliptin had a 0.7% absolute increase in risk of HHF (P = .98).⁶ In the EXAMINE trial, patients treated with alogliptin showed a nonsignificant trend for HHF.¹⁰ In both the TECOS and CARMELINA trials, no difference was recorded in the rate of HHF.^8,9,11 Subsequent meta-analysis that summarized the risk of HHF in CVOTs with DPP-4 inhibitors indicated a nonsignificant trend to increased risk.¹²

It’s likely that the CV benefits result from mechanisms other than a reduction in the serum glucose level, given the short time frame of the studies and the magnitude of the CV benefit.

From these trials alone, it appears that DPP-4 inhibitors are unlikely to provide CV benefit. Data from additional trials are needed to evaluate the possible association between these medications and heart failure (HF). However, largely as a result of the findings from SAVOR-TIMI 53 and EXAMINE, the FDA issued a Drug Safety Communication in April 2016, adding warnings about HF to the labeling of saxagliptin and alogliptin.¹³

CARMELINA was designed to also evaluate kidney outcomes in patients with T2D. As with other DPP-4 inhibitor trials, the primary aim was to establish noninferiority, compared with placebo, for time to MACE-3 (P < .001). Secondary outcomes were defined as time to first occurrence of end-stage renal disease, death due to renal failure, and sustained decrease from baseline of ≥ 40% in the estimated glomerular filtration rate. The incidence of the secondary kidney composite results was not significantly different between groups randomized to linagliptin or placebo.⁹

Cardiovascular outcomes trials: GLP-1 receptor agonists

ELIXA. The CV safety of GLP-1 receptor agonists has been evaluated in several randomized clinical trials. The Evaluation of Lixisenatide in Acute Coronary Syndrome (ELIXA) trial was the first¹⁴: Lixisenatide was studied in 6068 patients with recent hospitalization for acute coronary syndrome. Lixisenatide therapy was neutral with regard to CV outcomes, which met the primary endpoint: noninferiority to placebo (P < .001). There was no increase in either HF or HHF.

Continue to: LEADER

LEADER. The Liraglutide Effect and Action in Diabetes: Evaluation of Cardiovascular Outcome Results trial (LEADER) evaluated long-term effects of liraglutide, compared to placebo, on CV events in patients with T2D.¹⁵ It was a multicenter, double-blind, placebocontrolled study that followed 9340 participants, most (81%) of whom had established CV disease, over 5 years. LEADER is considered a landmark study because it was the first large CVOT to show significant benefit for a GLP-1 receptor agonist.

Liraglutide demonstrated reductions in first occurrence of death from CV causes, nonfatal MI or nonfatal stroke, overall CV mortality, and all-cause mortality. The composite MACE-3 showed a relative risk reduction (RRR) of 13%, equivalent to an absolute risk reduction (ARR) of 1.9% (noninferiority, P < .001; superiority, P < .01). The RRR was 22% for death from CV causes, with an ARR of 1.3% (P = .007); the RRR for death from any cause was 15%, with an ARR of 1.4% (P = .02).

In addition, there was a lower rate of nephropathy (1.5 events for every 100 patient–years in the liraglutide group [P = .003], compared with 1.9 events every 100 patient–years in the placebo group).¹⁵

Results clearly demonstrated benefit. No significant difference was seen in the liraglutide rate of HHF, compared to the rate in the placebo group.

SUSTAIN-6. Evidence for the CV benefit of GLP-1 receptor agonists was also demonstrated in the phase 3 Trial to Evaluate Cardiovascular and Other Long-term Outcomes With Semaglutide in Subjects With Type 2 Diabetes (SUSTAIN-6).¹⁶ This was a study of 3297 patients with T2D at high risk of CV disease and with a mean hemoglobin A_1c (HbA_1c) value of 8.7%, 83% of whom had established CV disease. Patients were randomized to semaglutide or placebo. Note: SUSTAIN-6 was a noninferiority safety study; as such, it was not actually designed to assess or establish superiority.

Continue to: The incidence of MACE-3...

The incidence of MACE-3 was significantly reduced among patients treated with semaglutide (P = .02) after median followup of 2.1 years. The expanded composite outcome (death from CV causes, nonfatal MI, nonfatal stroke, coronary revascularization, or hospitalization for unstable angina or HF), also showed a significant reduction with semaglutide (P = .002), compared with placebo. There was no difference in the overall hospitalization rate or rate of death from any cause.

EXSCEL. The Exenatide Study of Cardiovascular Event Lowering trial (EXSCEL)^17,18 was a phase III/IV, double-blind, pragmatic placebo-controlled study of 14,752 patients at any level of CV risk, for a median 3.2 years. The study population was intentionally more diverse than in earlier GLP-1 receptor agonist studies. The researchers hypothesized that patients at increased risk of MACE would experience a comparatively greater relative treatment benefit with exenatide than those at lower risk. That did not prove to be the case.

EXSCEL did confirm noninferiority compared with placebo (P < .001), but once-weekly exenatide resulted in a nonsignificant reduction in major adverse CV events, and a trend for RRR in all-cause mortality (RRR = 14%; ARR = 1% [P = .06]).

HARMONY OUTCOMES. The Albiglutide and Cardiovascular Outcomes in Patients With Type 2 Diabetes and Cardiovascular Disease study (HARMONY OUTCOMES)¹⁹ was a double-blind, randomized, placebocontrolled trial conducted at 610 sites across 28 countries. The study investigated albiglutide, 30 to 50 mg once weekly, compared with placebo. It included 9463 patients ages ≥ 40 years with T2D who had an HbA_1c > 7% (median value, 8.7%) and established CV disease. Patients were evaluated for a median 1.6 years.

Albiglutide reduced the risk of CV causes of death, nonfatal MI, and nonfatal stroke by an RRR of 22%, (ARR, 2%) (noninferiority, P < .0001; superiority, P < .0006).

Continue to: REWIND

REWIND. The Researching Cardiovascular Events with a Weekly INcretin in Diabetes trial (REWIND),²⁰ the most recently completed GLP-1 receptor agonist CVOT (presented at the 2019 American Diabetes Association [ADA] Conference in June and published simultaneously in The Lancet), was a multicenter, randomized, double-blind placebo-controlled trial designed to assess the effect of weekly dulaglutide, 1.5 mg, compared with placebo, in 9901 participants enrolled at 371 sites in 24 countries. Mean patient age was 66.2 years, with women constituting 4589 (46.3%) of participants.

REWIND was distinct from other CVOTs in several ways:

• Other CVOTs were designed to show noninferiority compared with placebo regarding CV events; REWIND was designed to establish superiority
• In contrast to trials of other GLP-1 receptor agonists, in which most patients had established CV disease, only 31% of REWIND participants had a history of CV disease or a prior CV event (although 69% did have CV risk factors without underlying disease)
• REWIND was much longer (median follow-up, 5.4 years) than other GLP-1 receptor agonist trials (median follow-up, 1.5 to 3.8 years).

In REWIND, the primary composite outcome of MACE-3 occurred in 12% of participants assigned to dulaglutide, compared with 13.1% assigned to placebo (P = .026). This equated to 2.4 events for every 100 person– years on dulaglutide, compared with 2.7 events for every 100 person–years on placebo. There was a consistent effect on all MACE-3 components, although the greatest reductions were observed in nonfatal stroke (P = .017). Overall risk reduction was the same for primary and secondary prevention cohorts (P = .97), as well as in patients with either an HbA_1c value < 7.2% or ≥ 7.2% (P = .75). Risk reduction was consistent across age, sex, duration of T2D, and body mass index.

Dulaglutide did not significantly affect the incidence of all-cause mortality, heart failure, revascularization, or hospital admission. Forty-seven percent of patients taking dulaglutide reported gastrointestinal adverse effects (P = .0001).

Cases of bullous pemphigoid have been reported after initiation of DPP-4 inhibitor therapy.

In a separate analysis of secondary outcomes, ²¹ dulaglutide reduced the composite renal outcomes of new-onset macroalbuminuria (P = .0001); decline of ≥ 30% in the estimated glomerular filtration rate (P = .066); and chronic renal replacement therapy (P = .39). Investigators estimated that 1 composite renal outcome event would be prevented for every 31 patients treated with dulaglutide for a median 5.4 years.

Continue to: Cardiovascular outcomes trials...

Cardiovascular outcomes trials: SGLT-2 inhibitors

EMPA-REG OUTCOME. The Empagliflozin, Cardiovascular Outcomes, and Mortality in Type 2 Diabetes trial (EMPA-REG OUTCOME) was also a landmark study because it was the first dedicated CVOT to show that an antihyperglycemic agent 1) decreased CV mortality and all-cause mortality, and 2) reduced HHF in patients with T2D and established CV disease.22 In this trial, 7020 patients with T2D who were at high risk of CV events were randomized and treated with empagliflozin, 10 or 25 mg, or placebo, in addition to standard care, and were followed for a median 2.6 years.

In October, the FDA approved dapaglifozin to reduce the risk of hospitalization for heart failure in adults with T2D and established CV disease.

Compared with placebo, empagliflozin resulted in an RRR of 14% (ARR, 1.6%) in the primary endpoint of CV death, nonfatal MI, and stroke, confirming study drug superiority (P = .04). When compared with placebo, the empagliflozin group had an RRR of 38% in CV mortality, (ARR < 2.2%) (P < .001); an RRR of 35% in HHF (ARR, 1.4%) (P = .002); and an RRR of 32% (ARR, 2.6%) in death from any cause (P < .001).

CANVAS. The Canagliflozin Cardiovascular Assessment Study (CANVAS) integrated 2 multicenter, placebo-controlled, randomized trials with 10,142 participants and a mean follow-up of 3.6 years.²³ Patients were randomized to receive canagliflozin (100-300 mg/d) or placebo. Approximately two-thirds of patients had a history of CV disease (therefore representing secondary prevention); one-third had CV risk factors only (primary prevention).

In CANVAS, patients receiving canagliflozin had a risk reduction in MACE-3, establishing superiority compared with placebo (P < .001). There was also a significant reduction in progression of albuminuria (P < .05). Superiority was not shown for the secondary outcome of death from any cause. Canagliflozin had no effect on the primary endpoint (MACE-3) in the subgroup of participants who did not have a history of CV disease. Similar to what was found with empagliflozin in EMPA-REG OUTCOME, CANVAS participants had a reduced risk of HHF.

Continue to: Patients on canagliflozin...

Patients on canagliflozin unexpectedly had an increased incidence of amputations (6.3 participants, compared with 3.4 participants, for every 1000 patient–years). This finding led to a black box warning for canagliflozin about the risk of lower-limb amputation.

DECLARE-TIMI 58. The Dapagliflozin Effect of Cardiovascular Events-Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction 58 trial (DECLARETIMI 58) was the largest SGLT-2 inhibitor outcomes trial to date, enrolling 17,160 patients with T2D who also had established CV disease or multiple risk factors for atherosclerotic CV disease. The trial compared dapagliflozin, 10 mg/d, and placebo, following patients for a median 4.2 years.²⁴ Unlike CANVAS and EMPA-REG OUTCOME, DECLARE-TIMI 58 included CV death and HHF as primary outcomes, in addition to MACE-3.

Dapagliflozin was noninferior to placebo with regard to MACE-3. However, its use did result in a lower rate of CV death and HHF by an RRR of 17% (ARR, 1.9%). Risk reduction was greatest in patients with HF who had a reduced ejection fraction (ARR = 9.2%).²⁵

In October, the FDA approved dapagliflozin to reduce the risk of HHF in adults with T2D and established CV disease or multiple CV risk factors. Before initiating the drug, physicians should evaluate the patient's renal function and monitor periodically.

Meta-analyses of SGLT-2 inhibitors

Systematic review. Usman et al released a meta-analysis in 2018 that included 35 randomized, placebo-controlled trials (including EMPA-REG OUTCOME, CANVAS, and DECLARE-TIMI 58) that had assessed the use of SGLT-2 inhibitors in nearly 35,000 patients with T2D.²⁶ This review concluded that, as a class, SGLT-2 inhibitors reduce all-cause mortality, major adverse cardiac events, nonfatal MI, and HF and HHF, compared with placebo.

Continue to: CVD-REAL

CVD-REAL. A separate study, Comparative Effectiveness of Cardiovascular Outcomes in New Users of SGLT-2 Inhibitors (CVD-REAL), of 154,528 patients who were treated with canagliflozin, dapagliflozin, or empagliflozin, showed that initiation of SGLT-2 inhibitors, compared with other glucose- lowering therapies, was associated with a 39% reduction in HHF; a 51% reduction in death from any cause; and a 46% reduction in the composite of HHF or death (P < .001).²⁷

CVD-REAL was unique because it was the largest real-world study to assess the effectiveness of SGLT-2 inhibitors on HHF and mortality. The study utilized data from patients in the United States, Norway, Denmark, Sweden, Germany, and the United Kingdom, based on information obtained from medical claims, primary care and hospital records, and national registries that compared patients who were either newly started on an SGLT-2 inhibitor or another glucose-lowering drug. The drug used by most patients in the trial was canagliflozin (53%), followed by dapagliflozin (42%), and empagliflozin (5%).

In this meta-analysis, similar therapeutic effects were seen across countries, regardless of geographic differences, in the use of specific SGLT-2 inhibitors, suggesting a class effect. Of particular significance was that most (87%) patients enrolled in CVD-REAL did not have prior CV disease. Despite this, results for examined outcomes in CVD-REAL were similar to what was seen in other SGLT-2 inhibitor trials that were designed to study patients with established CV disease.

Risk of adverse effects of newer antidiabetic agents

DPP-4 inhibitors. Alogliptin and sitagliptin carry a black-box warning about potential risk of HF. In SAVOR-TIMI, a 27% increase was detected in the rate of HHF after approximately 2 years of saxagliptin therapy.⁶ Although HF should not be considered a class effect for DPP-4 inhibitors, patients who have risk factors for HF should be monitored for signs and symptoms of HF.

Continue to: Cases of acute pancreatitis...

Cases of acute pancreatitis have been reported in association with all DPP-4 inhibitors available in the United States. A combined analysis of DDP-4 inhibitor trials suggested an increased relative risk of 79% and an absolute risk of 0.13%, which translates to 1 or 2 additional cases of acute pancreatitis for every 1000 patients treated for 2 years.²⁸

There have been numerous postmarketing reports of severe joint pain in patients taking a DPP-4 inhibitor. Most recently, cases of bullous pemphigoid have been reported after initiation of DPP-4 inhibitor therapy.²⁹

GLP-1 receptor agonists carry a black box warning for medullary thyroid (C-cell) tumor risk. GLP-1 receptor agonists are contraindicated in patients with a personal or family history of this cancer, although this FDA warning is based solely on observations from animal models.

In addition, GLP-1 receptor agonists can increase the risk of cholecystitis and pancreatitis. Not uncommonly, they cause gastrointestinal symptoms when first started and when the dosage is titrated upward. Most GLP-1 receptor agonists can be used in patients with renal impairment, although data regarding their use in Stages 4 and 5 chronic kidney disease are limited.³⁰ Semaglutide was found, in the SUSTAIN-6 trial, to be associated with an increased rate of complications of retinopathy, including vitreous hemorrhage and blindness (P = .02)³¹

SGLT-2 inhibitors are associated with an increased incidence of genitourinary infection, bone fracture (canagliflozin), amputation (canagliflozin), and euglycemic diabetic ketoacidosis. Agents in this class should be avoided in patients with moderate or severe renal impairment, primarily due to a lack of efficacy. They are contraindicated in patients with an estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) < 30 mL/min/1.73 m2. (Dapagliflozin is not recommended when eGFR is < 45 mL/min/ 1.73 m2.) These agents carry an FDA warning about the risk of acute kidney injury.³⁰

Continue to: Summing up

Summing up

All glucose-lowering medications used to treat T2D are not equally effective in reducing CV complications. Recent CVOTs have uncovered evidence that certain antidiabetic agents might confer CV and all-cause mortality benefits (TABLE 2^{6,7,9,11,14-17,19-24}).

Discussion of proposed mechanisms for CV outcome superiority of these agents is beyond the scope of this review. It is generally believed that benefits result from mechanisms other than a reduction in the serum glucose level, given the relatively short time frame of the studies and the magnitude of the CV benefit. It is almost certain that mechanisms of CV benefit in the 2 landmark studies—LEADER and EMPA-REG OUTCOME—are distinct from each other.³²

See “When planning T2D pharmacotherapy, include newer agents that offer CV benefit,” ^33-38 for a stepwise approach to treating T2D, including the role of agents that have efficacy in modifying the risk of CV disease.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Linda Speer, MD, Kevin Phelps, DO, and Jay Shubrook, DO, provided support and editorial assistance.

CORRESPONDENCE
Robert Gotfried, DO, FAAFP, Department of Family Medicine, University of Toledo College of Medicine, 3333 Glendale Avenue, Toledo, OH 43614; Robert.gotfried@utoledo.edu.

BARCELONA – As many as 40%-60% of children have diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA) at the time of being diagnosed with type 1 diabetes, according to data from two U.S. analyses – and the figures have been rising for the past 10 years.

Between 2010 and 2017, the prevalence of DKA at diagnosis in children who were followed up at the Barbara Davies Cancer Center in Denver (n = 2,429) went from 41% to 59%, with a 7% annual rise, Arleta Rewers, MD, PhD, of Children’s Hospital Colorado, Denver, reported at the annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes.

Meanwhile, in another analysis that included multiple U.S. centers and about 7,600 cases of youth-onset type 1 diabetes, the overall prevalence of DKA at diagnosis was 38.5% between 2010 and 2016. However, the prevalence had increased from 35% in 2010 to 40.6% in 2016, according to Elizabeth T. Jensen, MPH, PhD, of Wake Forest University, Winston-Salem, N.C. The annual increase in prevalence of DKA at diagnosis of type 1 disease was 2%, adjusted for sociodemographic factors.
 

Rising prevalence

“DKA occurs most commonly at the time of type 1 diabetes diagnosis,” observed Dr. Jensen, who noted that “in the United States, among children, it’s younger children, uninsured or underinsured children, and children from minority racial or ethnic groups, who are at greatest risk.”

Sara Freeman/MDedge News

Dr. Jensen and colleagues had previously shown that the prevalence of DKA at diagnosis was around 30% between 2002 and 2010, with no significant change in its prevalence. However, more recent reports from referral-based, single-center studies had suggested there was an increase, and that led her and her colleagues to take a closer look at the data.

To characterize the risk factors for DKA and the prevalence of DKA over time, Dr. Jensen and her team used the SEARCH for Diabetes in Youth database, which, she said, was “uniquely suited” for this purpose. SEARCH is a population-based, multicenter study conducted in centers in five U.S. states: South Carolina, Ohio, Colorado, California, and Washington.

A diagnosis of DKA was based on blood bicarbonate levels of less than 15 mmol/L, a venous pH of less than 7.25 or arterial or capillary pH of less than 7.3, or if there was any documentation of a DKA diagnosis.

As expected, the prevalence of DKA was highest in the youngest age group (0-4 years), Dr. Jensen said, but the increase in prevalence in that group was no different from the increases seen over time in the other age groups (5-9 years, 10-14 years, and 15 years or older).

There were no differences in the prevalence of DKA between the sexes, although there was a general increase over time. Similar trends were seen in DKA prevalence by race or ethnicity and by season, or time of year.

Of note, higher rates of DKA were seen in children who were covered by public health insurance, than in those covered by private insurance, although there was no difference in the rate of increase in DKA prevalence between the two groups. Dr. Jensen noted that only 64% of this study population had private insurance.

She said that future research in this area would need to look at the economic drivers and the “changing landscape of health insurance coverage in the United States.”
 

Expansion in health coverage

In presenting the findings of a study showing an increase in the prevalence of DKA at diagnosis of type 1 diabetes in children in Colorado from 2010 to 2017, Dr. Rewers said that the increase “paradoxically occurred” at a time of increasing health insurance coverage, a reference to the expansion of Medicaid during 2008-2012 and implementation in 2013 of the Affordable Care Act.

“Our group in Colorado has followed the frequency of DKA for almost 2 decades,” Dr. Rewers said. It’s important to study DKA as it is linked to worse glycemic control – with children with DKA having an HbA_{1c level of} around 1% higher than those without DKA – and the potential for future, long-term complications.

Dr. Rewers noted that the increase in DKA at diagnosis of type 1 diabetes was more rapid in the children who had private rather than public health insurance. Of 1,187 patients with DKA, 57% had private health insurance, and 37% had public insurance, compared with 66% and 28%, respectively, in those without DKA. In 2010, the prevalence of DKA at diagnosis was 35.3% in those who were privately insured and 52.2% of those with public health insurance, but by 2017, a similar percentage of DKA was seen in the privately and publicly insured children (59.6% and 58.5%, respectively).

She said one possible explanation for that might be that “increased enrollment in high-deductible insurance plans could discourage families with private insurance from seeking timely care.”

Another explanation is that there is a low awareness of type 1 diabetes in the general population, she added. “Educational campaigns and autoimmunity screening have been shown to reduce DKA at diabetes diagnosis, but unfortunately they are not used widely at this point.”
 

Identifying at-risk children

“Diabetic ketoacidosis is a serious complication of diabetes [and] is difficult to diagnose because of the variability of the symptoms, said Angela Ibald-Mulli, PhD, who presented the findings of a retrospective cohort study in which she and her colleagues used a “discovery algorithm” called Q-Finder to identify the predictive factors for DKA in youth with type 1 diabetes, based on data from the Diabetes Prospective Follow-up Registry (DPV).

Sara Freeman/MDedge News

“The better we know the risk factors, the better we can care for our patients,” she emphasized.

The investigators obtained data on 108,223 patients with a diagnosis of type 1 disease and with more than two visits related to diabetes. The prevalence of DKA – defined as a pH of less than 7.3 during hospitalization occurring at least 10 days after the onset of type 1 diabetes – was 5.2%, said Dr. Ibald-Mulli, head of Medical Evidence Generation Primary Care at Sanofi, Paris.

A total of 129 different features were considered for their association with DKA – including comorbidities, sociodemographic factors, laboratory values, and concomitant medications – and were then used to identify, test, and the validate likely risk profiles.

After comparing the characteristics of patients with and without DKA, eight significant factors, all of which have been reported previously in the DPV cohort, were seen: younger age, lower body weight, higher HbA_1c, younger age at onset of T1D; shorter disease duration; having a migration background; being less active; and having had more medical visits.

The investigators used the algorithm, and found 11 distinct profiles associated with DKA: an HbA_1c higher than 8.87%; being aged 6-10 years; being aged 11-15 years; a diagnosis of nephropathy; DKA being present at onset; a prevalence of hypoglycemia with coma; a diagnosis of thyroiditis; a standardized body mass index lower than 16.9; not using short-acting insulin; younger than age 15 years; and not using continuous glucose monitoring.

Almost two-thirds of patients (64.7%) belonged to at least one of these risk profiles, Dr. Ibald-Mulli observed, with 7.1% of them having DKA, compared with 1.6% who belonged to none of the profiles.

Dr. Ibald-Mulli said it was important to note that the DKA risk profiles could overlap. “The more profiles a patient belongs to, the higher is the risk of having DKA,” she emphasized, adding that most patients (88.8%) with DKA belonged to just one profile, and fewer than 5% belonged to three or more profiles.

“Overall, the results of the algorithm confirmed known risk-factor profiles that had been previously identified by conventional statistical methods,” she concluded. It also provided “additional insights that can be further explored.”

SEARCH is funded by the Centers for Disease and Prevention and the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases. The DPV Registry is funded by multiple sponsors, including the European Federation for the Study of Diabetes and other academic institutions with the support of several commercial partners. Sanofi sponsored the study presented by Dr. Ibald-Mulli. Dr. Rewers made no disclosures, and Dr. Jensen did not have any conflicts of interest to declare. Dr. Ibald-Mulli is an employee of Sanofi.

SOURCE: Rewers A et al. EASD 2019, Abstract 115; Jensen E et al. EASD 2019, Abstract 116; Ibald-Mulli A et al. EASD 2019, Abstract 117.

BARCELONA – As many as 40%-60% of children have diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA) at the time of being diagnosed with type 1 diabetes, according to data from two U.S. analyses – and the figures have been rising for the past 10 years.

Between 2010 and 2017, the prevalence of DKA at diagnosis in children who were followed up at the Barbara Davies Cancer Center in Denver (n = 2,429) went from 41% to 59%, with a 7% annual rise, Arleta Rewers, MD, PhD, of Children’s Hospital Colorado, Denver, reported at the annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes.

Meanwhile, in another analysis that included multiple U.S. centers and about 7,600 cases of youth-onset type 1 diabetes, the overall prevalence of DKA at diagnosis was 38.5% between 2010 and 2016. However, the prevalence had increased from 35% in 2010 to 40.6% in 2016, according to Elizabeth T. Jensen, MPH, PhD, of Wake Forest University, Winston-Salem, N.C. The annual increase in prevalence of DKA at diagnosis of type 1 disease was 2%, adjusted for sociodemographic factors.
 

Rising prevalence

“DKA occurs most commonly at the time of type 1 diabetes diagnosis,” observed Dr. Jensen, who noted that “in the United States, among children, it’s younger children, uninsured or underinsured children, and children from minority racial or ethnic groups, who are at greatest risk.”

Sara Freeman/MDedge News

Dr. Jensen and colleagues had previously shown that the prevalence of DKA at diagnosis was around 30% between 2002 and 2010, with no significant change in its prevalence. However, more recent reports from referral-based, single-center studies had suggested there was an increase, and that led her and her colleagues to take a closer look at the data.

To characterize the risk factors for DKA and the prevalence of DKA over time, Dr. Jensen and her team used the SEARCH for Diabetes in Youth database, which, she said, was “uniquely suited” for this purpose. SEARCH is a population-based, multicenter study conducted in centers in five U.S. states: South Carolina, Ohio, Colorado, California, and Washington.

A diagnosis of DKA was based on blood bicarbonate levels of less than 15 mmol/L, a venous pH of less than 7.25 or arterial or capillary pH of less than 7.3, or if there was any documentation of a DKA diagnosis.

As expected, the prevalence of DKA was highest in the youngest age group (0-4 years), Dr. Jensen said, but the increase in prevalence in that group was no different from the increases seen over time in the other age groups (5-9 years, 10-14 years, and 15 years or older).

There were no differences in the prevalence of DKA between the sexes, although there was a general increase over time. Similar trends were seen in DKA prevalence by race or ethnicity and by season, or time of year.

Of note, higher rates of DKA were seen in children who were covered by public health insurance, than in those covered by private insurance, although there was no difference in the rate of increase in DKA prevalence between the two groups. Dr. Jensen noted that only 64% of this study population had private insurance.

She said that future research in this area would need to look at the economic drivers and the “changing landscape of health insurance coverage in the United States.”
 

Expansion in health coverage

In presenting the findings of a study showing an increase in the prevalence of DKA at diagnosis of type 1 diabetes in children in Colorado from 2010 to 2017, Dr. Rewers said that the increase “paradoxically occurred” at a time of increasing health insurance coverage, a reference to the expansion of Medicaid during 2008-2012 and implementation in 2013 of the Affordable Care Act.

“Our group in Colorado has followed the frequency of DKA for almost 2 decades,” Dr. Rewers said. It’s important to study DKA as it is linked to worse glycemic control – with children with DKA having an HbA_{1c level of} around 1% higher than those without DKA – and the potential for future, long-term complications.

Dr. Rewers noted that the increase in DKA at diagnosis of type 1 diabetes was more rapid in the children who had private rather than public health insurance. Of 1,187 patients with DKA, 57% had private health insurance, and 37% had public insurance, compared with 66% and 28%, respectively, in those without DKA. In 2010, the prevalence of DKA at diagnosis was 35.3% in those who were privately insured and 52.2% of those with public health insurance, but by 2017, a similar percentage of DKA was seen in the privately and publicly insured children (59.6% and 58.5%, respectively).

She said one possible explanation for that might be that “increased enrollment in high-deductible insurance plans could discourage families with private insurance from seeking timely care.”

Another explanation is that there is a low awareness of type 1 diabetes in the general population, she added. “Educational campaigns and autoimmunity screening have been shown to reduce DKA at diabetes diagnosis, but unfortunately they are not used widely at this point.”
 

Identifying at-risk children

“Diabetic ketoacidosis is a serious complication of diabetes [and] is difficult to diagnose because of the variability of the symptoms, said Angela Ibald-Mulli, PhD, who presented the findings of a retrospective cohort study in which she and her colleagues used a “discovery algorithm” called Q-Finder to identify the predictive factors for DKA in youth with type 1 diabetes, based on data from the Diabetes Prospective Follow-up Registry (DPV).

Sara Freeman/MDedge News

“The better we know the risk factors, the better we can care for our patients,” she emphasized.

The investigators obtained data on 108,223 patients with a diagnosis of type 1 disease and with more than two visits related to diabetes. The prevalence of DKA – defined as a pH of less than 7.3 during hospitalization occurring at least 10 days after the onset of type 1 diabetes – was 5.2%, said Dr. Ibald-Mulli, head of Medical Evidence Generation Primary Care at Sanofi, Paris.

A total of 129 different features were considered for their association with DKA – including comorbidities, sociodemographic factors, laboratory values, and concomitant medications – and were then used to identify, test, and the validate likely risk profiles.

After comparing the characteristics of patients with and without DKA, eight significant factors, all of which have been reported previously in the DPV cohort, were seen: younger age, lower body weight, higher HbA_1c, younger age at onset of T1D; shorter disease duration; having a migration background; being less active; and having had more medical visits.

The investigators used the algorithm, and found 11 distinct profiles associated with DKA: an HbA_1c higher than 8.87%; being aged 6-10 years; being aged 11-15 years; a diagnosis of nephropathy; DKA being present at onset; a prevalence of hypoglycemia with coma; a diagnosis of thyroiditis; a standardized body mass index lower than 16.9; not using short-acting insulin; younger than age 15 years; and not using continuous glucose monitoring.

Almost two-thirds of patients (64.7%) belonged to at least one of these risk profiles, Dr. Ibald-Mulli observed, with 7.1% of them having DKA, compared with 1.6% who belonged to none of the profiles.

Dr. Ibald-Mulli said it was important to note that the DKA risk profiles could overlap. “The more profiles a patient belongs to, the higher is the risk of having DKA,” she emphasized, adding that most patients (88.8%) with DKA belonged to just one profile, and fewer than 5% belonged to three or more profiles.

“Overall, the results of the algorithm confirmed known risk-factor profiles that had been previously identified by conventional statistical methods,” she concluded. It also provided “additional insights that can be further explored.”

SEARCH is funded by the Centers for Disease and Prevention and the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases. The DPV Registry is funded by multiple sponsors, including the European Federation for the Study of Diabetes and other academic institutions with the support of several commercial partners. Sanofi sponsored the study presented by Dr. Ibald-Mulli. Dr. Rewers made no disclosures, and Dr. Jensen did not have any conflicts of interest to declare. Dr. Ibald-Mulli is an employee of Sanofi.

SOURCE: Rewers A et al. EASD 2019, Abstract 115; Jensen E et al. EASD 2019, Abstract 116; Ibald-Mulli A et al. EASD 2019, Abstract 117.

BARCELONA – As many as 40%-60% of children have diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA) at the time of being diagnosed with type 1 diabetes, according to data from two U.S. analyses – and the figures have been rising for the past 10 years.

Between 2010 and 2017, the prevalence of DKA at diagnosis in children who were followed up at the Barbara Davies Cancer Center in Denver (n = 2,429) went from 41% to 59%, with a 7% annual rise, Arleta Rewers, MD, PhD, of Children’s Hospital Colorado, Denver, reported at the annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes.

Meanwhile, in another analysis that included multiple U.S. centers and about 7,600 cases of youth-onset type 1 diabetes, the overall prevalence of DKA at diagnosis was 38.5% between 2010 and 2016. However, the prevalence had increased from 35% in 2010 to 40.6% in 2016, according to Elizabeth T. Jensen, MPH, PhD, of Wake Forest University, Winston-Salem, N.C. The annual increase in prevalence of DKA at diagnosis of type 1 disease was 2%, adjusted for sociodemographic factors.
 

Rising prevalence

“DKA occurs most commonly at the time of type 1 diabetes diagnosis,” observed Dr. Jensen, who noted that “in the United States, among children, it’s younger children, uninsured or underinsured children, and children from minority racial or ethnic groups, who are at greatest risk.”

Sara Freeman/MDedge News

Dr. Jensen and colleagues had previously shown that the prevalence of DKA at diagnosis was around 30% between 2002 and 2010, with no significant change in its prevalence. However, more recent reports from referral-based, single-center studies had suggested there was an increase, and that led her and her colleagues to take a closer look at the data.

To characterize the risk factors for DKA and the prevalence of DKA over time, Dr. Jensen and her team used the SEARCH for Diabetes in Youth database, which, she said, was “uniquely suited” for this purpose. SEARCH is a population-based, multicenter study conducted in centers in five U.S. states: South Carolina, Ohio, Colorado, California, and Washington.

A diagnosis of DKA was based on blood bicarbonate levels of less than 15 mmol/L, a venous pH of less than 7.25 or arterial or capillary pH of less than 7.3, or if there was any documentation of a DKA diagnosis.

As expected, the prevalence of DKA was highest in the youngest age group (0-4 years), Dr. Jensen said, but the increase in prevalence in that group was no different from the increases seen over time in the other age groups (5-9 years, 10-14 years, and 15 years or older).

There were no differences in the prevalence of DKA between the sexes, although there was a general increase over time. Similar trends were seen in DKA prevalence by race or ethnicity and by season, or time of year.

Of note, higher rates of DKA were seen in children who were covered by public health insurance, than in those covered by private insurance, although there was no difference in the rate of increase in DKA prevalence between the two groups. Dr. Jensen noted that only 64% of this study population had private insurance.

She said that future research in this area would need to look at the economic drivers and the “changing landscape of health insurance coverage in the United States.”
 

Expansion in health coverage

In presenting the findings of a study showing an increase in the prevalence of DKA at diagnosis of type 1 diabetes in children in Colorado from 2010 to 2017, Dr. Rewers said that the increase “paradoxically occurred” at a time of increasing health insurance coverage, a reference to the expansion of Medicaid during 2008-2012 and implementation in 2013 of the Affordable Care Act.

“Our group in Colorado has followed the frequency of DKA for almost 2 decades,” Dr. Rewers said. It’s important to study DKA as it is linked to worse glycemic control – with children with DKA having an HbA_{1c level of} around 1% higher than those without DKA – and the potential for future, long-term complications.

Dr. Rewers noted that the increase in DKA at diagnosis of type 1 diabetes was more rapid in the children who had private rather than public health insurance. Of 1,187 patients with DKA, 57% had private health insurance, and 37% had public insurance, compared with 66% and 28%, respectively, in those without DKA. In 2010, the prevalence of DKA at diagnosis was 35.3% in those who were privately insured and 52.2% of those with public health insurance, but by 2017, a similar percentage of DKA was seen in the privately and publicly insured children (59.6% and 58.5%, respectively).

She said one possible explanation for that might be that “increased enrollment in high-deductible insurance plans could discourage families with private insurance from seeking timely care.”

Another explanation is that there is a low awareness of type 1 diabetes in the general population, she added. “Educational campaigns and autoimmunity screening have been shown to reduce DKA at diabetes diagnosis, but unfortunately they are not used widely at this point.”
 

Identifying at-risk children

“Diabetic ketoacidosis is a serious complication of diabetes [and] is difficult to diagnose because of the variability of the symptoms, said Angela Ibald-Mulli, PhD, who presented the findings of a retrospective cohort study in which she and her colleagues used a “discovery algorithm” called Q-Finder to identify the predictive factors for DKA in youth with type 1 diabetes, based on data from the Diabetes Prospective Follow-up Registry (DPV).

Sara Freeman/MDedge News

“The better we know the risk factors, the better we can care for our patients,” she emphasized.

The investigators obtained data on 108,223 patients with a diagnosis of type 1 disease and with more than two visits related to diabetes. The prevalence of DKA – defined as a pH of less than 7.3 during hospitalization occurring at least 10 days after the onset of type 1 diabetes – was 5.2%, said Dr. Ibald-Mulli, head of Medical Evidence Generation Primary Care at Sanofi, Paris.

A total of 129 different features were considered for their association with DKA – including comorbidities, sociodemographic factors, laboratory values, and concomitant medications – and were then used to identify, test, and the validate likely risk profiles.

After comparing the characteristics of patients with and without DKA, eight significant factors, all of which have been reported previously in the DPV cohort, were seen: younger age, lower body weight, higher HbA_1c, younger age at onset of T1D; shorter disease duration; having a migration background; being less active; and having had more medical visits.

The investigators used the algorithm, and found 11 distinct profiles associated with DKA: an HbA_1c higher than 8.87%; being aged 6-10 years; being aged 11-15 years; a diagnosis of nephropathy; DKA being present at onset; a prevalence of hypoglycemia with coma; a diagnosis of thyroiditis; a standardized body mass index lower than 16.9; not using short-acting insulin; younger than age 15 years; and not using continuous glucose monitoring.

Almost two-thirds of patients (64.7%) belonged to at least one of these risk profiles, Dr. Ibald-Mulli observed, with 7.1% of them having DKA, compared with 1.6% who belonged to none of the profiles.

Dr. Ibald-Mulli said it was important to note that the DKA risk profiles could overlap. “The more profiles a patient belongs to, the higher is the risk of having DKA,” she emphasized, adding that most patients (88.8%) with DKA belonged to just one profile, and fewer than 5% belonged to three or more profiles.

“Overall, the results of the algorithm confirmed known risk-factor profiles that had been previously identified by conventional statistical methods,” she concluded. It also provided “additional insights that can be further explored.”

SEARCH is funded by the Centers for Disease and Prevention and the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases. The DPV Registry is funded by multiple sponsors, including the European Federation for the Study of Diabetes and other academic institutions with the support of several commercial partners. Sanofi sponsored the study presented by Dr. Ibald-Mulli. Dr. Rewers made no disclosures, and Dr. Jensen did not have any conflicts of interest to declare. Dr. Ibald-Mulli is an employee of Sanofi.

SOURCE: Rewers A et al. EASD 2019, Abstract 115; Jensen E et al. EASD 2019, Abstract 116; Ibald-Mulli A et al. EASD 2019, Abstract 117.

Cardiovascular disease (CVD) remains the leading cause of global mortality. In 2015, 41.5% of the US population had at least 1 form of CVD and CVD accounted for nearly 18 million deaths worldwide.1,2 The major disease categories represented include myocardial infarction (MI), sudden death, strokes, calcific aortic valve stenosis (CAVS), and peripheral vascular disease.^1,2 In terms of health care costs, quality of life, and caregiver burden, the overall impact of disease prevalence continues to rise.^1,3-6 There is an urgent need for more precise and earlier CVD risk assessment to guide lifestyle and therapeutic interventions for prevention of disease progression as well as potential reversal of preclinical disease. Even at a young age, visible coronary atherosclerosis has been found in up to 11% of “healthy” active individuals during autopsies for trauma fatalities.^7,8

The impact of CVD on the US and global populations is profound. In 2011, CVD prevalence was predicted to reach 40% by 2030.9 That estimate was exceeded in 2015, and it is now predicted that by 2035, 45% of the US population will suffer from some form of clinical or preclinical CVD. In 2015, the decadeslong decline in CVD mortality was reversed for the first time since 1969, showing a 1% increase in deaths from CVD.¹ Nearly 300,000 of those using US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) services were hospitalized for CVD between 2010 and 2014.¹⁰ The annual direct and indirect costs related to CVD in the US are estimated at $329.7 billion, and these costs are predicted to top $1 trillion by 2035.¹ Heart attack, coronary atherosclerosis, and stroke accounted for 3 of the 10 most expensive conditions treated in US hospitals in 2013.¹¹ Globally, the estimate for CVD-related direct and indirect costs was $863 billion in 2010 and may exceed $1 trillion by 2030.¹²

The nature of military service adds additional risk factors, such as posttraumatic stress disorder, depression, sleep disorders and physical trauma which increase CVD morbidity/ mortality in service members, veterans, and their families.^13-16 In addition, living in lowerincome areas (countries or neighborhoods) can increase the risk of both CVD incidence and fatalities, particularly in younger individuals.^17-20 The Military Health System (MHS) and VA are responsible for the care of those individuals who have voluntarily taken on these additional risks through their time in service. This responsibility calls for rapid translation to practice tools and resources that can support interventions to minimize as many modifiable risk factors as possible and improve longterm health. This strategy aligns with the World Health Organization’s (WHO) focus on prevention of disease progression through interventions targeting modifiable risk.^3-6,21-23 The driving force behind the launch of the US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Million Hearts program was the goal of preventing 1 million heart attacks and strokes by 2017 with risk reduction through aspirin, blood pressure control, cholesterol management, smoking cessation, sodium reduction, and physical activity.^24,25 While some reductions in CVD events have been documented, the outcomes fell short of the goals set, highlighting both the need and value of continued and expanded efforts for CVD risk reduction.²⁶

More precise assessment of risk factors during preventative care, as well as after a diagnosis of CVD, may improve the timeliness and precision of earlier interventions (both lifestyle and therapeutic) that reduce CVD morbidity and mortality^.27 Personalized or precision medicine approaches take into account differences in socioeconomic, environmental, and lifestyle factors that are potentially reversible, as well as gender, race, and ethnicity.^28-31 Current methods of predicting CVD risk have considerable room for improvement.²⁷ About 40% of patients with newly diagnosed CVD have normal traditional cholesterol profiles, including those whose first cardiac event proves fatal.^29-33 Currently available risk scores (hundreds have been described in the literature) mischaracterize risk in minority populations and women, and have shown deficiencies in identifying preclinical atherosclerosis.^34,35 The failure to recognize preclinical CVD in military personnel during their active duty life cycle results in missed opportunities for improved health and readiness sustainment.

Most CVD risk prediction models incorporate some form of blood lipids. Total cholesterol (TC) is most commonly used in clinical practice, along with high-density lipoprotein (HDLC), low-density lipoprotein (LDLC), and triglycerides (TG).^23,27,36 High LDLC and/or TC are well established as lipid-related CVD risk factors and are incorporated into many CVD risk scoring systems/models described in the literature.²⁷ LDLC reduction is commonly recommended as CVD prevention, but even with optimal statin treatment, there is still considerable residual risk for new and recurrent CVD events.^{28,32,34,35,37-42}

Incorporating novel biomarkers and alternative lipid measurements may improve risk prediction and aid targeted treatment, ultimately reducing CVD events.²⁷ Apolipoprotein B (ApoB) is a major atherogenic component embedded in LDL and VLDL correlating to non-HDLC and may be useful in the setting of triglycerides ≥ 200 mg/d as levels > 130 mg/ dL appear to be risk-enhancing, but measurements may be unreliable.⁴³ According to the 2018 Cholesterol Guidelines, lipoprotein(a) [Lp(a)] elevation also is recognized as a risk-enhancing factor that is particularly implicated when there is a strong family history of premature atherosclerotic CVD or personal history of CVD not explained by major risk factors.⁴³

Lp(a) elevation is a largely underrecognized category of lipid disorder that impacts up to 20% to 30% of the population globally and within the US, although there is considerable variability by geographic location and ethnicity.⁴⁴ Globally, Lp(a) elevation places > 1 billion people at moderate to high risk for CVD.44 Lp(a) has a strong genetic component and is recognized as a distinct and independent risk factor for MI, sudden death, strokes and CAVS. Lp(a) has an extensive body of evidence to support its distinct role both as a causal factor in CVD and as an augmentation to traditional risk factors.^44-48

Lipoproteni(a) Elevation Use For Diagnosis

The importance of Lp(a) elevation as a clinical diagnosis rather than a laboratory abnormality alone was brought forward by the Lipoprotein(a) Foundation. Its founder, Sandra Tremulis, is a survivor of an acute coronary event that occurred when she was 39-years old, despite running marathons and having none of the traditional CVD lifestyle risk factors.⁴⁹ This experience inspired her to create the Lipoprotein(a) Foundation to give a voice to families living with or at risk for CVD due to Lp(a) elevation.

As often happens in the progress of medicine, patients and their families drive change based on their personal experiences with the gaps in standard clinical practice. It was this foundation—not a member of the medical establishment—that submitted the formal request for the addition of new ICD-10-CM diagnostic and family history codes for Lp(a) elevation during the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) September 2017 ICD-10-CM Coordination and Maintenance Committee meeting.⁵⁰ In June 2018, the final ICD-10-CM code addenda for 2019 was released and included the new codes E78.⁴¹ (Elevated Lp[a]) and Z83.430 (Family history of elevated Lp[a]).⁵² After the new codes were approved, both the American Heart Association and the National Lipid Association added recommendations regarding Lp(a) testing to their clinical practice guidelines.^43,52

Practically, these codes standardize billing and payment for legitimate clinical work and laboratory testing. Prior to the addition of Lp(a) elevation as a clinical diagnosis, testing and treatment of Lp(a) elevation was considered experimental and not medically necessary until after a cardiovascular event had already occurred. Services for Lp(a) elevation were therefore not reimbursed by many healthcare organizations and insurance companies. The new ICD-10-CM codes encourage the assessment of Lp(a) both in individuals with early onset major CVD events and in presumably fit, healthy individuals, particularly when there is a family history of Lp(a) elevation. Given that Lp(a) levels do not change significantly over time, the current understanding is that only a single measurement is needed to define the individual risk over a lifetime.^41,42,44,45 As therapies targeting Lp(a) levels evolve, repeated measurements may be indicated to monitor response and direct changes in management. “Elevated Lipoprotein(a)” is the first laboratory testing abnormality that has achieved the status of a clinical diagnosis.

Lp(a) Measurements

There is considerable complexity to the measurement of lipoproteins in blood samples due to heterogeneity in both density and size of particles as illustrated in the Figure.⁵³

For traditional lipids measured in clinical practice, the size and density ranges from small high-density lipoprotein (HDL) through LDLC and intermediate- density lipoprotein (IDL) to the largest least dense particles in the very low-density lipoprotein (VLDL) and chylomicron remnant fractions. Standard lipid profiles consist of mass concentration measurements (mg/dL) of TC, TG, HDLC, and LDLC.⁵³ Non-HDLC (calculated as: TC−HDLC) consists of all cholesterol found in atherogenic lipoproteins, including remnant-C and Lp(a). Until recently, the cholesterol content of Lp(a), corresponding to about 30% of Lp(a) total mass, was included in the TC, non-HDLC and LDLC measurements with no separate reporting by the majority of clinical laboratories.

After > 50 years of research on the structure and biochemistry of Lp(a), the physiology and biological functions of these complex and polymorphic lipoprotein particles are not fully understood. Lp(a) is composed of a lipoprotein particle similar in composition to LDL (protein and lipid), containing 1 molecule of ApoB wrapped around a core of cholesteryl ester and triglyceride with phospholipids and unesterified cholesterol at its surface.⁴⁸ The presence of a unique hydrophilic, highly glycosylated protein referred to as apolopoprotienA (apo[a]), covalently attached to ApoB-100 by a single disulfide bridge, differentiates Lp(a) from LDL.⁴⁸ Cholesterol rich ApoB is an important component within many lipoproteins pathogenic for atherosclerosis and CVD.^45,47,53

The apo(a) contributes to the increased density of Lp(a) compared to LDLC with associated reduced binding affinity to the LDL receptor. This reduced receptor binding affinity is a presumed mechanism for the lack of Lp(a) plasma level response to statin therapies, which increase hepatic LDL receptor activity.⁴⁷ Apo(a) evolved from the plasminogen gene through duplication and remodeling and demonstrates extensive heterogeneity in protein size, with > 40 different apo(a) isoforms resulting in > 40 different Lp(a) particle sizes. Size of the apo(a) particle is determined by the number of pleated structures known as kringles. Most people (> 80%) carry 2 different-sized apo(a) isoforms. Plasma Lp(a) level is determined by the net production of apo(a) in each isoform, and the smaller apo(a) isoforms are associated with higher plasma levels of Lp(a).⁴⁵

Given the heterogeneity in Lp(a) molecular weight, which can vary even within individuals, recommendations have been made for reporting results as particle numbers or concentrations (nmol/L or mmol/L) rather than as mass concentration (mg/dL).⁵⁵ However, the majority of the large CVD morbidity and mortality outcomes studies used Lp(a) mass concentration levels in mg/ dL to characterize risk levels.^56,57 There is no standardized method to convert Lp(a) measurements from mg/dL to nmol/L.⁵⁵ Current assays using WHO standardized reagents and controls are reliable for categorizing risk levels.⁵⁸

The European Atherosclerosis Society consensus panel recommended that desirable Lp(a) levels should be below the 80th percentile (< 50 mg/dL or < 125 nmol/L) in patients with intermediate or high CVD risk.⁵⁹ Subsequent epidemiological and Mendelian randomization studies have been performed in general populations with no history of CVD and demonstrated that increased CVD risk can be detected with Lp(a) levels as low as 25 to 30 mg/dL.^56,60-63 In secondary prevention populations with prior CVD and optimal treatment (statins, antiplatelet drugs), recurrent event risk was also increased with elevated Lp(a).^63-66

Using immunoturbidometric assays, Varvel and colleagues reported the prevalence of elevated Lp(a) mass concentration levels (mg/dL) in > 500,000 US patients undergoing clinical evaluations based on data from a referral laboratory of patients.⁵⁸ The mean Lp(a) levels were 34.0 mg/dL with median (interquartile range [IQR]) levels at 17 (7-47) mg/dL and overall range of 0 to 907 mg/dL.⁵⁸ Females had higher Lp(a) levels compared to males but no ethnic or racial breakdown was provided. Lp(a) levels > 30 mg/dL and > 50 mg/dL were present in 35% and 24% of subjects, respectively. Table 1 displays the relationship between various Lp(a) level cut-offs to mean levels of LDLC, estimated LDLC corrected for Lp(a), TC, HDLC, and TG.⁵⁸ The data demonstrate that Lp(a) elevation cannot be inferred from LDLC levels nor from any of the other traditional lipoprotein measures. Patients with high risk Lp(a) levels may have normal LDLC. While Lp(a) thresholds have been identified for stratification of CVD risk, the target levels for risk reduction have not been specifically defined, particularly since therapies are not widely available for reduction of Lp(a). Table 2 provides an overview of clinical lipoprotein measurements that may be reasonable targets for therapeutic interventions and reduction of CVD risk.^44,53,55 In general, existing studies suggest that radical reduction (> 80%) is required to impact long-term outcomes, particularly in individuals with severe disease.^68,69

LDLC reduction alone leaves a residual CVD risk that is greater than the risk reduced.40 In addition, the autoimmune inflammation and lipid specific autoantibodies play an important role in increased CVD morbidity and mortality risk.^70,71 The presence of autoantibodies such as antiphospholipid antibodies (without a specific autoimmune disease diagnosis) increases the risk of subclinical atherosclerosis.^72,73 Certain autoimmune diseases such as systemic lupus erythematosus are recognized as independent risk factors for CVD.^74,75 Autoantibodies appear to mediate CVD events and mortality risk, independent of traditional therapies for risk reduction.⁷³ Further research is needed to clarify the role of autoantibodies as markers of increased or decreased CVD risk and their mechanism of action.

Autoantibodies directed at new antigens in lipoproteins within atherosclerotic lesions can modulate the impact of atherosclerosis via activation of the innate and adaptive immune system.⁷⁶ The lipid-associated neopeptides are recognized as damage-associated or danger- associated molecular patterns (DAMPs), also known as alarmins, which signal molecules that can trigger and perpetuate noninfectious inflammatory responses.^77-79 Plasma autoantibodies (immunoglobulin M and G [IgM, IgG]) modify proinflammatory oxidation-specific epitopes on oxidized phospholipids (oxPL) within lipoproteins and are linked with markers of inflammation and CVD events.^80-82 Modified LDLC and ApoB-100 immune complexes with specific autoantibodies in the IgG class are associated with increased CVD.⁷⁶ These and other risk-modulating autoantibodies may explain some of the variability in CVD outcomes by ethnicity and between individuals.

Some antibodies to oxidized LDL (ox-LDL) may have a protective role in the development of atherosclerosis.^83,84 In a cohort of > 500 women, the number of carotid atherosclerotic plaques and total carotid plaque area were inversely correlated with a specific IgM autoantibody (MDA-p210).⁸⁴ High concentrations of Lp(a)- containing circulating immune complexes and Lp(a)-specific IgM and IgG have been described in patients with coronary heart disease (CHD).⁸⁵ Like ox-LDL, oxidized Lp(a) [ox-Lp(a)] is more potent than native Lp(a) in increasing atherosclerosis risk and is increased in patients with CHD compared to healthy controls.^86-88 Ox-Lp(a) levels may represent an even stronger risk marker for CVD than ox-LDL.⁸⁵

Possible Mechanisms of Pathogenesis

While the precise quantification of Lp(a) in human plasma (or serum) has been challenging, current clinical laboratories use standardized international reference reagents and controls in their assays. Most current Lp(a) assays are based on immunological methods (eg, immunonephelometry, immunoturbidimetry, or enzyme linked immunosorbent assay [ELISA]) using antibodies against apo(a).⁸⁹ Apo(a) contains 10 subtypes of kringle IV and 1 copy of kringle V. Some assays use antibodies against kringle-IV type 2; however, it has been recommended that newer methods should use antibodies against the specific bridging kringle-IV Type 9 domain, which has a more stable bond and is present as a single copy.^48,89 Other approaches to Lp(a) measurement include ultraperformance liquid chromatography/mass spectrometry that can determine both the concentration and particle size of apo(a).^48,90 For routine clinical care, currently available assays reporting in mg/dL can be considered fairly accurate for separating low-risk from moderate-to-high-risk patients.⁴⁵

The physiologic role of Lp(a) in humans remains to be fully defined and individuals with extremely low plasma Lp(a) levels present no disease or deficiency syndromes.⁹¹ Lp(a) accumulates in endothelial injuries and binds to components of the vessel wall and subendothelial matrix, presumably due to the strong lysine binding site in apo(a).⁴⁶ Mediated by apo(a), the binding stimulates chemotactic activation of monocytes/macrophages and thereby modulating angiogenesis and inflammation.⁸⁹ Lp(a) may contribute to CVD and CAVS via its LDL-like component, with proinflammatory effects of oxidized phospholipids (OxPL) on both ApoB and apo(a) and antifibrinolytic/prothrombotic effects of apo(a).⁹² In Vitro studies have demonstrated that apo(a) modifies cellular function of cultured vascular endothelial cells (promoting stress fiber formation, endothelial contraction and vascular permeability), smooth muscles, and monocytes/ macrophages (promoting differentiation of proinflammatory M1-1 type macrophages) via complex mechanisms of cell signaling and cytokine production.89 Lp(a) is the only monogenetic risk factor for aortic valve calcification and stenosis⁹³ and is strongly linked specifically with the single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) rs10455872 in the gene LPA encoding for apo(a).⁹⁴

CVD Risk Predictive Value

There are a large number of studies demonstrating that Lp(a) elevations are an independent predictor of adverse cardiovascular outcomes including MI, sudden death, strokes, calcific aortic valve stenosis and peripheral vascular disease (Table 3). The Copenhagen City Heart Study and Copenhagen General Population Study are well known prospective population- based cohort studies that track outcomes through national patient registries.⁹⁵ These studies demonstrate increased risk for MI, CHD, CAVS, and heart failure when subjects with very high Lp(a) levels (50-115 mg/dL) are compared with subjects with very low Lp(a) levels (< 5 mg/dL).^96-100 Subjects with less extreme Lp(a) elevations (> 30 mg/dL) also show increased risk of CVD when they have comorbid LDLC elevations.¹⁰¹ However, the Copenhagen studies are composed exclusively of white subjects and the effects of Lp(a) are known to vary with race or ethnicity.

The Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis (MESA) recruited an ethnically diverse sample of > 6,000 Americans, aged 45 to 84 years, without CVD, into an ongoing prospective cohort study. Research using subjects from this study has found consistently increased risk of CHD, heart failure, subclinical aortic valve calcification, and more severe CAVS in white subjects with elevated Lp(a).^60,102,103 Black subjects with elevated Lp(a) had increased risk of CHD and more severe CAVS and Hispanic subjects with Lp(a) elevation were at higher risk for CHD.^60,102 So far, no studies of MESA subjects have identified a relationship between Lp(a) elevation and CVD events for Asian-Americans subjects (predominantly of Chinese descent). There is a need for ongoing research to more precisely define relevant cut-off levels by race, ethnicity and sex.

The Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities (ARIC) Study was a prospective multiethnic cohort study including > 15,000 US adults, aged 45 to 64 years.¹⁰³ Lp(a) elevations in this cohort were associated with greater risks for first CVD events, heart failure, and recurrent CVD events.^61,64,105 The risk of stroke for subjects with elevated Lp(a) was greater for black and white women, and for black men.^61,106 However, a meta-analysis of case-control studies showed increased ischemic stroke risk in both men and women with elevated Lp(a).⁵⁷

A recent European meta-analysis collected blood samples and outcome data from > 50,000 subjects in 7 prospective cohort studies. Using a central laboratory to standardize Lp(a) measurements, researchers found increased risk of major coronary events and new CVD in subjects with Lp(a) > 50 mg/dL compared to those below that threshold.¹⁰⁷

Although many of these studies show modest increases in risk of CVD events with Lp(a) elevation, it should be noted that other studies do not demonstrate such consistent associations. This is particularly true in studies of women and nonwhite ethnic groups.^103,108-112 The variability of study results may be due to other confounding factors such as autoantibodies that either upregulate or downregulate atherogenicity of LDLC and potentially other lipoproteins. This is particularly relevant to women who have an increased risk for autoimmune disease.

Lp(a) has significant genetic heritability—75% in Europeans and 85% in African Americans.¹¹³ In whites, the LPA gene on chromosome 6p26- 27 with the polymorphism genetic variants rs10455872 and rs3798220 is consistently associated with elevated Lp(a) levels.^63,100,113 However, the degree of Lp(a) elevation associated with these specific genetic variants varies by ethnicity.^78,113,115

Lifestyle and Cardiovascular Health

It is noteworthy that the Lp(a) genetic risks can also be modified by lifestyle risk reduction even in the absence of significant blood level reductions. For example, Khera and colleagues constructed a genetic risk profile for CVD that included genes related to Lp(a).¹¹⁶ Subjects with high genetic risk were more likely to experience CVD events compared with subjects with low genetic risk. However, risks for CVD were attenuated by 4 healthy lifestyle factors: current nonsmoker, body mass index < 30, at least weekly physical activity, and a healthy diet. Subjects with high genetic risk and an unhealthy lifestyle (0 or 1 of the 4 healthy lifestyle factors) were the most likely to develop CVD (Hazard ratio [HR], 3.5), but that risk was lower for subjects with healthy (3 or 4 of the 4 healthy lifestyle factors) and intermediate lifestyles (2 of the 4 healthy lifestyle factors) (HR, 1.9 and 2.2, respectively), despite despite high genetic risk for CVD.

While the independent CVD risk associated with elevated Lp(a) does not appear to be responsive to lifestyle risk reduction alone, certainly elevated LDLC and traditional risk factors can increase the overall CVD risk and are worthy of preventive interventions. In particular, inflammation from any source exacerbates CVD risk. Proatherogenic diet, insufficient sleep, lack of exercise, and maladaptive stress responses are other targets for personalized CVD risk reduction. ^28,117 Studies of dietary modifications and other lifestyle factors have shown reduced risk of CVD events, despite lack of reduction in Lp(a) levels.^119,120 It is noteworthy that statin therapy (with or without ezetimibe) fails to impact CAVS progression, likely because statins either raise or have no effect on Lp(a) levels.^92,119

Until recently, there has been no evidence supporting any therapeutic intervention causing clinically meaningful reductions in Lp(a). Table 4 lists major drug classes and their effects on Lp(a) and CVD outcomes; however, a detailed discussion of each of these therapies is beyond the scope of this review. Drugs that reduce Lp(a) by 20-30% have varying effects on CVD outcomes, from no effect^122,123 to a 10% to 20% decrease in CVD events when compared with a placebo.^124,125 Because these drugs also produce substantial reductions in LDLC, it is not possible to determine how much of the beneficial effects are due to reductions in Lp(a).

Lipoprotein apheresis produces profound reductions in Lp(a) of 60 to 80% in very highrisk populations.^69,126 Within-subjects comparisons show up to 80% reductions in CVD events, relative to event rates prior to treatment initiation.^69,127 Early trials of antisense oligonucleotide against apo(a) therapies show potential to produce similar outcomes.^128,129 These treatments may be particularly effective in patients with isolated Lp(a) elevations.

Summary

Lp(a) elevation is a major contributor to cardiovascular disease risk and has been recognized as an ICD-10-CM coded clinical diagnosis, the first laboratory abnormality to be defined a clinical disease in the asymptomatic healthy young individuals. This change addresses currently under- diagnosed CVD risk independent of LDLC reduction strategies. A brief overview of recent guidelines for the clinical use of Lp(a) testing from the American Heart Association^43,151 and the National Lipid Association52 can be found in Table 5. Although drug therapies for lowering Lp(a) levels remain limited, new treatment options are actively being developed.

Many Americans with high Lp(a) have not yet been identified. Expanded one-time screening can inform these patients of their cardiovascular risk and increase their access to early, aggressive lifestyle modification and optimal lipid-lowering therapy. Given the further increased CVD risk factors for military service members and veterans, a case can be made for broader screening and enhanced surveillance of elevated Lp(a) in these presumably healthy and fit individuals as well as management focused on modifiable risk factors.

Acknowledgements

This program initiative was conducted by the Henry M. Jackson Foundation for the Advancement of Military Medicine, Inc. as part of the Integrative Cardiac Health Project at Walter Reed National Military Medical Center (WRNMMC), and is made possible by a cooperative agreement that was awarded and administered by the US Army Medical Research & Materiel Command (USAMRMC), at Fort Detrick under Contract Number: W81XWH-16-2-0007. It reflects literature review preparatory work for a research protocol but does not involve an actual research project. The work in this manuscript was supported by the staff of the Integrative Cardiac Health Project (ICHP) with special thanks to Claire Fuller, Elaine Walizer, Dr. Mariam Kashani and the entire health coaching team.

Cardiovascular disease (CVD) remains the leading cause of global mortality. In 2015, 41.5% of the US population had at least 1 form of CVD and CVD accounted for nearly 18 million deaths worldwide.1,2 The major disease categories represented include myocardial infarction (MI), sudden death, strokes, calcific aortic valve stenosis (CAVS), and peripheral vascular disease.^1,2 In terms of health care costs, quality of life, and caregiver burden, the overall impact of disease prevalence continues to rise.^1,3-6 There is an urgent need for more precise and earlier CVD risk assessment to guide lifestyle and therapeutic interventions for prevention of disease progression as well as potential reversal of preclinical disease. Even at a young age, visible coronary atherosclerosis has been found in up to 11% of “healthy” active individuals during autopsies for trauma fatalities.^7,8

The impact of CVD on the US and global populations is profound. In 2011, CVD prevalence was predicted to reach 40% by 2030.9 That estimate was exceeded in 2015, and it is now predicted that by 2035, 45% of the US population will suffer from some form of clinical or preclinical CVD. In 2015, the decadeslong decline in CVD mortality was reversed for the first time since 1969, showing a 1% increase in deaths from CVD.¹ Nearly 300,000 of those using US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) services were hospitalized for CVD between 2010 and 2014.¹⁰ The annual direct and indirect costs related to CVD in the US are estimated at $329.7 billion, and these costs are predicted to top $1 trillion by 2035.¹ Heart attack, coronary atherosclerosis, and stroke accounted for 3 of the 10 most expensive conditions treated in US hospitals in 2013.¹¹ Globally, the estimate for CVD-related direct and indirect costs was $863 billion in 2010 and may exceed $1 trillion by 2030.¹²

The nature of military service adds additional risk factors, such as posttraumatic stress disorder, depression, sleep disorders and physical trauma which increase CVD morbidity/ mortality in service members, veterans, and their families.^13-16 In addition, living in lowerincome areas (countries or neighborhoods) can increase the risk of both CVD incidence and fatalities, particularly in younger individuals.^17-20 The Military Health System (MHS) and VA are responsible for the care of those individuals who have voluntarily taken on these additional risks through their time in service. This responsibility calls for rapid translation to practice tools and resources that can support interventions to minimize as many modifiable risk factors as possible and improve longterm health. This strategy aligns with the World Health Organization’s (WHO) focus on prevention of disease progression through interventions targeting modifiable risk.^3-6,21-23 The driving force behind the launch of the US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Million Hearts program was the goal of preventing 1 million heart attacks and strokes by 2017 with risk reduction through aspirin, blood pressure control, cholesterol management, smoking cessation, sodium reduction, and physical activity.^24,25 While some reductions in CVD events have been documented, the outcomes fell short of the goals set, highlighting both the need and value of continued and expanded efforts for CVD risk reduction.²⁶

More precise assessment of risk factors during preventative care, as well as after a diagnosis of CVD, may improve the timeliness and precision of earlier interventions (both lifestyle and therapeutic) that reduce CVD morbidity and mortality^.27 Personalized or precision medicine approaches take into account differences in socioeconomic, environmental, and lifestyle factors that are potentially reversible, as well as gender, race, and ethnicity.^28-31 Current methods of predicting CVD risk have considerable room for improvement.²⁷ About 40% of patients with newly diagnosed CVD have normal traditional cholesterol profiles, including those whose first cardiac event proves fatal.^29-33 Currently available risk scores (hundreds have been described in the literature) mischaracterize risk in minority populations and women, and have shown deficiencies in identifying preclinical atherosclerosis.^34,35 The failure to recognize preclinical CVD in military personnel during their active duty life cycle results in missed opportunities for improved health and readiness sustainment.

Most CVD risk prediction models incorporate some form of blood lipids. Total cholesterol (TC) is most commonly used in clinical practice, along with high-density lipoprotein (HDLC), low-density lipoprotein (LDLC), and triglycerides (TG).^23,27,36 High LDLC and/or TC are well established as lipid-related CVD risk factors and are incorporated into many CVD risk scoring systems/models described in the literature.²⁷ LDLC reduction is commonly recommended as CVD prevention, but even with optimal statin treatment, there is still considerable residual risk for new and recurrent CVD events.^{28,32,34,35,37-42}

Incorporating novel biomarkers and alternative lipid measurements may improve risk prediction and aid targeted treatment, ultimately reducing CVD events.²⁷ Apolipoprotein B (ApoB) is a major atherogenic component embedded in LDL and VLDL correlating to non-HDLC and may be useful in the setting of triglycerides ≥ 200 mg/d as levels > 130 mg/ dL appear to be risk-enhancing, but measurements may be unreliable.⁴³ According to the 2018 Cholesterol Guidelines, lipoprotein(a) [Lp(a)] elevation also is recognized as a risk-enhancing factor that is particularly implicated when there is a strong family history of premature atherosclerotic CVD or personal history of CVD not explained by major risk factors.⁴³

Lp(a) elevation is a largely underrecognized category of lipid disorder that impacts up to 20% to 30% of the population globally and within the US, although there is considerable variability by geographic location and ethnicity.⁴⁴ Globally, Lp(a) elevation places > 1 billion people at moderate to high risk for CVD.44 Lp(a) has a strong genetic component and is recognized as a distinct and independent risk factor for MI, sudden death, strokes and CAVS. Lp(a) has an extensive body of evidence to support its distinct role both as a causal factor in CVD and as an augmentation to traditional risk factors.^44-48

Lipoproteni(a) Elevation Use For Diagnosis

The importance of Lp(a) elevation as a clinical diagnosis rather than a laboratory abnormality alone was brought forward by the Lipoprotein(a) Foundation. Its founder, Sandra Tremulis, is a survivor of an acute coronary event that occurred when she was 39-years old, despite running marathons and having none of the traditional CVD lifestyle risk factors.⁴⁹ This experience inspired her to create the Lipoprotein(a) Foundation to give a voice to families living with or at risk for CVD due to Lp(a) elevation.

As often happens in the progress of medicine, patients and their families drive change based on their personal experiences with the gaps in standard clinical practice. It was this foundation—not a member of the medical establishment—that submitted the formal request for the addition of new ICD-10-CM diagnostic and family history codes for Lp(a) elevation during the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) September 2017 ICD-10-CM Coordination and Maintenance Committee meeting.⁵⁰ In June 2018, the final ICD-10-CM code addenda for 2019 was released and included the new codes E78.⁴¹ (Elevated Lp[a]) and Z83.430 (Family history of elevated Lp[a]).⁵² After the new codes were approved, both the American Heart Association and the National Lipid Association added recommendations regarding Lp(a) testing to their clinical practice guidelines.^43,52

Practically, these codes standardize billing and payment for legitimate clinical work and laboratory testing. Prior to the addition of Lp(a) elevation as a clinical diagnosis, testing and treatment of Lp(a) elevation was considered experimental and not medically necessary until after a cardiovascular event had already occurred. Services for Lp(a) elevation were therefore not reimbursed by many healthcare organizations and insurance companies. The new ICD-10-CM codes encourage the assessment of Lp(a) both in individuals with early onset major CVD events and in presumably fit, healthy individuals, particularly when there is a family history of Lp(a) elevation. Given that Lp(a) levels do not change significantly over time, the current understanding is that only a single measurement is needed to define the individual risk over a lifetime.^41,42,44,45 As therapies targeting Lp(a) levels evolve, repeated measurements may be indicated to monitor response and direct changes in management. “Elevated Lipoprotein(a)” is the first laboratory testing abnormality that has achieved the status of a clinical diagnosis.

Lp(a) Measurements

There is considerable complexity to the measurement of lipoproteins in blood samples due to heterogeneity in both density and size of particles as illustrated in the Figure.⁵³

For traditional lipids measured in clinical practice, the size and density ranges from small high-density lipoprotein (HDL) through LDLC and intermediate- density lipoprotein (IDL) to the largest least dense particles in the very low-density lipoprotein (VLDL) and chylomicron remnant fractions. Standard lipid profiles consist of mass concentration measurements (mg/dL) of TC, TG, HDLC, and LDLC.⁵³ Non-HDLC (calculated as: TC−HDLC) consists of all cholesterol found in atherogenic lipoproteins, including remnant-C and Lp(a). Until recently, the cholesterol content of Lp(a), corresponding to about 30% of Lp(a) total mass, was included in the TC, non-HDLC and LDLC measurements with no separate reporting by the majority of clinical laboratories.

After > 50 years of research on the structure and biochemistry of Lp(a), the physiology and biological functions of these complex and polymorphic lipoprotein particles are not fully understood. Lp(a) is composed of a lipoprotein particle similar in composition to LDL (protein and lipid), containing 1 molecule of ApoB wrapped around a core of cholesteryl ester and triglyceride with phospholipids and unesterified cholesterol at its surface.⁴⁸ The presence of a unique hydrophilic, highly glycosylated protein referred to as apolopoprotienA (apo[a]), covalently attached to ApoB-100 by a single disulfide bridge, differentiates Lp(a) from LDL.⁴⁸ Cholesterol rich ApoB is an important component within many lipoproteins pathogenic for atherosclerosis and CVD.^45,47,53

The apo(a) contributes to the increased density of Lp(a) compared to LDLC with associated reduced binding affinity to the LDL receptor. This reduced receptor binding affinity is a presumed mechanism for the lack of Lp(a) plasma level response to statin therapies, which increase hepatic LDL receptor activity.⁴⁷ Apo(a) evolved from the plasminogen gene through duplication and remodeling and demonstrates extensive heterogeneity in protein size, with > 40 different apo(a) isoforms resulting in > 40 different Lp(a) particle sizes. Size of the apo(a) particle is determined by the number of pleated structures known as kringles. Most people (> 80%) carry 2 different-sized apo(a) isoforms. Plasma Lp(a) level is determined by the net production of apo(a) in each isoform, and the smaller apo(a) isoforms are associated with higher plasma levels of Lp(a).⁴⁵

Given the heterogeneity in Lp(a) molecular weight, which can vary even within individuals, recommendations have been made for reporting results as particle numbers or concentrations (nmol/L or mmol/L) rather than as mass concentration (mg/dL).⁵⁵ However, the majority of the large CVD morbidity and mortality outcomes studies used Lp(a) mass concentration levels in mg/ dL to characterize risk levels.^56,57 There is no standardized method to convert Lp(a) measurements from mg/dL to nmol/L.⁵⁵ Current assays using WHO standardized reagents and controls are reliable for categorizing risk levels.⁵⁸

The European Atherosclerosis Society consensus panel recommended that desirable Lp(a) levels should be below the 80th percentile (< 50 mg/dL or < 125 nmol/L) in patients with intermediate or high CVD risk.⁵⁹ Subsequent epidemiological and Mendelian randomization studies have been performed in general populations with no history of CVD and demonstrated that increased CVD risk can be detected with Lp(a) levels as low as 25 to 30 mg/dL.^56,60-63 In secondary prevention populations with prior CVD and optimal treatment (statins, antiplatelet drugs), recurrent event risk was also increased with elevated Lp(a).^63-66

Using immunoturbidometric assays, Varvel and colleagues reported the prevalence of elevated Lp(a) mass concentration levels (mg/dL) in > 500,000 US patients undergoing clinical evaluations based on data from a referral laboratory of patients.⁵⁸ The mean Lp(a) levels were 34.0 mg/dL with median (interquartile range [IQR]) levels at 17 (7-47) mg/dL and overall range of 0 to 907 mg/dL.⁵⁸ Females had higher Lp(a) levels compared to males but no ethnic or racial breakdown was provided. Lp(a) levels > 30 mg/dL and > 50 mg/dL were present in 35% and 24% of subjects, respectively. Table 1 displays the relationship between various Lp(a) level cut-offs to mean levels of LDLC, estimated LDLC corrected for Lp(a), TC, HDLC, and TG.⁵⁸ The data demonstrate that Lp(a) elevation cannot be inferred from LDLC levels nor from any of the other traditional lipoprotein measures. Patients with high risk Lp(a) levels may have normal LDLC. While Lp(a) thresholds have been identified for stratification of CVD risk, the target levels for risk reduction have not been specifically defined, particularly since therapies are not widely available for reduction of Lp(a). Table 2 provides an overview of clinical lipoprotein measurements that may be reasonable targets for therapeutic interventions and reduction of CVD risk.^44,53,55 In general, existing studies suggest that radical reduction (> 80%) is required to impact long-term outcomes, particularly in individuals with severe disease.^68,69

LDLC reduction alone leaves a residual CVD risk that is greater than the risk reduced.40 In addition, the autoimmune inflammation and lipid specific autoantibodies play an important role in increased CVD morbidity and mortality risk.^70,71 The presence of autoantibodies such as antiphospholipid antibodies (without a specific autoimmune disease diagnosis) increases the risk of subclinical atherosclerosis.^72,73 Certain autoimmune diseases such as systemic lupus erythematosus are recognized as independent risk factors for CVD.^74,75 Autoantibodies appear to mediate CVD events and mortality risk, independent of traditional therapies for risk reduction.⁷³ Further research is needed to clarify the role of autoantibodies as markers of increased or decreased CVD risk and their mechanism of action.

Autoantibodies directed at new antigens in lipoproteins within atherosclerotic lesions can modulate the impact of atherosclerosis via activation of the innate and adaptive immune system.⁷⁶ The lipid-associated neopeptides are recognized as damage-associated or danger- associated molecular patterns (DAMPs), also known as alarmins, which signal molecules that can trigger and perpetuate noninfectious inflammatory responses.^77-79 Plasma autoantibodies (immunoglobulin M and G [IgM, IgG]) modify proinflammatory oxidation-specific epitopes on oxidized phospholipids (oxPL) within lipoproteins and are linked with markers of inflammation and CVD events.^80-82 Modified LDLC and ApoB-100 immune complexes with specific autoantibodies in the IgG class are associated with increased CVD.⁷⁶ These and other risk-modulating autoantibodies may explain some of the variability in CVD outcomes by ethnicity and between individuals.

Some antibodies to oxidized LDL (ox-LDL) may have a protective role in the development of atherosclerosis.^83,84 In a cohort of > 500 women, the number of carotid atherosclerotic plaques and total carotid plaque area were inversely correlated with a specific IgM autoantibody (MDA-p210).⁸⁴ High concentrations of Lp(a)- containing circulating immune complexes and Lp(a)-specific IgM and IgG have been described in patients with coronary heart disease (CHD).⁸⁵ Like ox-LDL, oxidized Lp(a) [ox-Lp(a)] is more potent than native Lp(a) in increasing atherosclerosis risk and is increased in patients with CHD compared to healthy controls.^86-88 Ox-Lp(a) levels may represent an even stronger risk marker for CVD than ox-LDL.⁸⁵

Possible Mechanisms of Pathogenesis

While the precise quantification of Lp(a) in human plasma (or serum) has been challenging, current clinical laboratories use standardized international reference reagents and controls in their assays. Most current Lp(a) assays are based on immunological methods (eg, immunonephelometry, immunoturbidimetry, or enzyme linked immunosorbent assay [ELISA]) using antibodies against apo(a).⁸⁹ Apo(a) contains 10 subtypes of kringle IV and 1 copy of kringle V. Some assays use antibodies against kringle-IV type 2; however, it has been recommended that newer methods should use antibodies against the specific bridging kringle-IV Type 9 domain, which has a more stable bond and is present as a single copy.^48,89 Other approaches to Lp(a) measurement include ultraperformance liquid chromatography/mass spectrometry that can determine both the concentration and particle size of apo(a).^48,90 For routine clinical care, currently available assays reporting in mg/dL can be considered fairly accurate for separating low-risk from moderate-to-high-risk patients.⁴⁵

The physiologic role of Lp(a) in humans remains to be fully defined and individuals with extremely low plasma Lp(a) levels present no disease or deficiency syndromes.⁹¹ Lp(a) accumulates in endothelial injuries and binds to components of the vessel wall and subendothelial matrix, presumably due to the strong lysine binding site in apo(a).⁴⁶ Mediated by apo(a), the binding stimulates chemotactic activation of monocytes/macrophages and thereby modulating angiogenesis and inflammation.⁸⁹ Lp(a) may contribute to CVD and CAVS via its LDL-like component, with proinflammatory effects of oxidized phospholipids (OxPL) on both ApoB and apo(a) and antifibrinolytic/prothrombotic effects of apo(a).⁹² In Vitro studies have demonstrated that apo(a) modifies cellular function of cultured vascular endothelial cells (promoting stress fiber formation, endothelial contraction and vascular permeability), smooth muscles, and monocytes/ macrophages (promoting differentiation of proinflammatory M1-1 type macrophages) via complex mechanisms of cell signaling and cytokine production.89 Lp(a) is the only monogenetic risk factor for aortic valve calcification and stenosis⁹³ and is strongly linked specifically with the single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) rs10455872 in the gene LPA encoding for apo(a).⁹⁴

CVD Risk Predictive Value

There are a large number of studies demonstrating that Lp(a) elevations are an independent predictor of adverse cardiovascular outcomes including MI, sudden death, strokes, calcific aortic valve stenosis and peripheral vascular disease (Table 3). The Copenhagen City Heart Study and Copenhagen General Population Study are well known prospective population- based cohort studies that track outcomes through national patient registries.⁹⁵ These studies demonstrate increased risk for MI, CHD, CAVS, and heart failure when subjects with very high Lp(a) levels (50-115 mg/dL) are compared with subjects with very low Lp(a) levels (< 5 mg/dL).^96-100 Subjects with less extreme Lp(a) elevations (> 30 mg/dL) also show increased risk of CVD when they have comorbid LDLC elevations.¹⁰¹ However, the Copenhagen studies are composed exclusively of white subjects and the effects of Lp(a) are known to vary with race or ethnicity.

The Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis (MESA) recruited an ethnically diverse sample of > 6,000 Americans, aged 45 to 84 years, without CVD, into an ongoing prospective cohort study. Research using subjects from this study has found consistently increased risk of CHD, heart failure, subclinical aortic valve calcification, and more severe CAVS in white subjects with elevated Lp(a).^60,102,103 Black subjects with elevated Lp(a) had increased risk of CHD and more severe CAVS and Hispanic subjects with Lp(a) elevation were at higher risk for CHD.^60,102 So far, no studies of MESA subjects have identified a relationship between Lp(a) elevation and CVD events for Asian-Americans subjects (predominantly of Chinese descent). There is a need for ongoing research to more precisely define relevant cut-off levels by race, ethnicity and sex.

The Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities (ARIC) Study was a prospective multiethnic cohort study including > 15,000 US adults, aged 45 to 64 years.¹⁰³ Lp(a) elevations in this cohort were associated with greater risks for first CVD events, heart failure, and recurrent CVD events.^61,64,105 The risk of stroke for subjects with elevated Lp(a) was greater for black and white women, and for black men.^61,106 However, a meta-analysis of case-control studies showed increased ischemic stroke risk in both men and women with elevated Lp(a).⁵⁷

A recent European meta-analysis collected blood samples and outcome data from > 50,000 subjects in 7 prospective cohort studies. Using a central laboratory to standardize Lp(a) measurements, researchers found increased risk of major coronary events and new CVD in subjects with Lp(a) > 50 mg/dL compared to those below that threshold.¹⁰⁷

Although many of these studies show modest increases in risk of CVD events with Lp(a) elevation, it should be noted that other studies do not demonstrate such consistent associations. This is particularly true in studies of women and nonwhite ethnic groups.^103,108-112 The variability of study results may be due to other confounding factors such as autoantibodies that either upregulate or downregulate atherogenicity of LDLC and potentially other lipoproteins. This is particularly relevant to women who have an increased risk for autoimmune disease.

Lp(a) has significant genetic heritability—75% in Europeans and 85% in African Americans.¹¹³ In whites, the LPA gene on chromosome 6p26- 27 with the polymorphism genetic variants rs10455872 and rs3798220 is consistently associated with elevated Lp(a) levels.^63,100,113 However, the degree of Lp(a) elevation associated with these specific genetic variants varies by ethnicity.^78,113,115

Lifestyle and Cardiovascular Health

It is noteworthy that the Lp(a) genetic risks can also be modified by lifestyle risk reduction even in the absence of significant blood level reductions. For example, Khera and colleagues constructed a genetic risk profile for CVD that included genes related to Lp(a).¹¹⁶ Subjects with high genetic risk were more likely to experience CVD events compared with subjects with low genetic risk. However, risks for CVD were attenuated by 4 healthy lifestyle factors: current nonsmoker, body mass index < 30, at least weekly physical activity, and a healthy diet. Subjects with high genetic risk and an unhealthy lifestyle (0 or 1 of the 4 healthy lifestyle factors) were the most likely to develop CVD (Hazard ratio [HR], 3.5), but that risk was lower for subjects with healthy (3 or 4 of the 4 healthy lifestyle factors) and intermediate lifestyles (2 of the 4 healthy lifestyle factors) (HR, 1.9 and 2.2, respectively), despite despite high genetic risk for CVD.

While the independent CVD risk associated with elevated Lp(a) does not appear to be responsive to lifestyle risk reduction alone, certainly elevated LDLC and traditional risk factors can increase the overall CVD risk and are worthy of preventive interventions. In particular, inflammation from any source exacerbates CVD risk. Proatherogenic diet, insufficient sleep, lack of exercise, and maladaptive stress responses are other targets for personalized CVD risk reduction. ^28,117 Studies of dietary modifications and other lifestyle factors have shown reduced risk of CVD events, despite lack of reduction in Lp(a) levels.^119,120 It is noteworthy that statin therapy (with or without ezetimibe) fails to impact CAVS progression, likely because statins either raise or have no effect on Lp(a) levels.^92,119

Until recently, there has been no evidence supporting any therapeutic intervention causing clinically meaningful reductions in Lp(a). Table 4 lists major drug classes and their effects on Lp(a) and CVD outcomes; however, a detailed discussion of each of these therapies is beyond the scope of this review. Drugs that reduce Lp(a) by 20-30% have varying effects on CVD outcomes, from no effect^122,123 to a 10% to 20% decrease in CVD events when compared with a placebo.^124,125 Because these drugs also produce substantial reductions in LDLC, it is not possible to determine how much of the beneficial effects are due to reductions in Lp(a).

Lipoprotein apheresis produces profound reductions in Lp(a) of 60 to 80% in very highrisk populations.^69,126 Within-subjects comparisons show up to 80% reductions in CVD events, relative to event rates prior to treatment initiation.^69,127 Early trials of antisense oligonucleotide against apo(a) therapies show potential to produce similar outcomes.^128,129 These treatments may be particularly effective in patients with isolated Lp(a) elevations.

Summary

Lp(a) elevation is a major contributor to cardiovascular disease risk and has been recognized as an ICD-10-CM coded clinical diagnosis, the first laboratory abnormality to be defined a clinical disease in the asymptomatic healthy young individuals. This change addresses currently under- diagnosed CVD risk independent of LDLC reduction strategies. A brief overview of recent guidelines for the clinical use of Lp(a) testing from the American Heart Association^43,151 and the National Lipid Association52 can be found in Table 5. Although drug therapies for lowering Lp(a) levels remain limited, new treatment options are actively being developed.

Many Americans with high Lp(a) have not yet been identified. Expanded one-time screening can inform these patients of their cardiovascular risk and increase their access to early, aggressive lifestyle modification and optimal lipid-lowering therapy. Given the further increased CVD risk factors for military service members and veterans, a case can be made for broader screening and enhanced surveillance of elevated Lp(a) in these presumably healthy and fit individuals as well as management focused on modifiable risk factors.

Acknowledgements

This program initiative was conducted by the Henry M. Jackson Foundation for the Advancement of Military Medicine, Inc. as part of the Integrative Cardiac Health Project at Walter Reed National Military Medical Center (WRNMMC), and is made possible by a cooperative agreement that was awarded and administered by the US Army Medical Research & Materiel Command (USAMRMC), at Fort Detrick under Contract Number: W81XWH-16-2-0007. It reflects literature review preparatory work for a research protocol but does not involve an actual research project. The work in this manuscript was supported by the staff of the Integrative Cardiac Health Project (ICHP) with special thanks to Claire Fuller, Elaine Walizer, Dr. Mariam Kashani and the entire health coaching team.

Cardiovascular disease (CVD) remains the leading cause of global mortality. In 2015, 41.5% of the US population had at least 1 form of CVD and CVD accounted for nearly 18 million deaths worldwide.1,2 The major disease categories represented include myocardial infarction (MI), sudden death, strokes, calcific aortic valve stenosis (CAVS), and peripheral vascular disease.^1,2 In terms of health care costs, quality of life, and caregiver burden, the overall impact of disease prevalence continues to rise.^1,3-6 There is an urgent need for more precise and earlier CVD risk assessment to guide lifestyle and therapeutic interventions for prevention of disease progression as well as potential reversal of preclinical disease. Even at a young age, visible coronary atherosclerosis has been found in up to 11% of “healthy” active individuals during autopsies for trauma fatalities.^7,8

The impact of CVD on the US and global populations is profound. In 2011, CVD prevalence was predicted to reach 40% by 2030.9 That estimate was exceeded in 2015, and it is now predicted that by 2035, 45% of the US population will suffer from some form of clinical or preclinical CVD. In 2015, the decadeslong decline in CVD mortality was reversed for the first time since 1969, showing a 1% increase in deaths from CVD.¹ Nearly 300,000 of those using US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) services were hospitalized for CVD between 2010 and 2014.¹⁰ The annual direct and indirect costs related to CVD in the US are estimated at $329.7 billion, and these costs are predicted to top $1 trillion by 2035.¹ Heart attack, coronary atherosclerosis, and stroke accounted for 3 of the 10 most expensive conditions treated in US hospitals in 2013.¹¹ Globally, the estimate for CVD-related direct and indirect costs was $863 billion in 2010 and may exceed $1 trillion by 2030.¹²

The nature of military service adds additional risk factors, such as posttraumatic stress disorder, depression, sleep disorders and physical trauma which increase CVD morbidity/ mortality in service members, veterans, and their families.^13-16 In addition, living in lowerincome areas (countries or neighborhoods) can increase the risk of both CVD incidence and fatalities, particularly in younger individuals.^17-20 The Military Health System (MHS) and VA are responsible for the care of those individuals who have voluntarily taken on these additional risks through their time in service. This responsibility calls for rapid translation to practice tools and resources that can support interventions to minimize as many modifiable risk factors as possible and improve longterm health. This strategy aligns with the World Health Organization’s (WHO) focus on prevention of disease progression through interventions targeting modifiable risk.^3-6,21-23 The driving force behind the launch of the US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Million Hearts program was the goal of preventing 1 million heart attacks and strokes by 2017 with risk reduction through aspirin, blood pressure control, cholesterol management, smoking cessation, sodium reduction, and physical activity.^24,25 While some reductions in CVD events have been documented, the outcomes fell short of the goals set, highlighting both the need and value of continued and expanded efforts for CVD risk reduction.²⁶

More precise assessment of risk factors during preventative care, as well as after a diagnosis of CVD, may improve the timeliness and precision of earlier interventions (both lifestyle and therapeutic) that reduce CVD morbidity and mortality^.27 Personalized or precision medicine approaches take into account differences in socioeconomic, environmental, and lifestyle factors that are potentially reversible, as well as gender, race, and ethnicity.^28-31 Current methods of predicting CVD risk have considerable room for improvement.²⁷ About 40% of patients with newly diagnosed CVD have normal traditional cholesterol profiles, including those whose first cardiac event proves fatal.^29-33 Currently available risk scores (hundreds have been described in the literature) mischaracterize risk in minority populations and women, and have shown deficiencies in identifying preclinical atherosclerosis.^34,35 The failure to recognize preclinical CVD in military personnel during their active duty life cycle results in missed opportunities for improved health and readiness sustainment.

Most CVD risk prediction models incorporate some form of blood lipids. Total cholesterol (TC) is most commonly used in clinical practice, along with high-density lipoprotein (HDLC), low-density lipoprotein (LDLC), and triglycerides (TG).^23,27,36 High LDLC and/or TC are well established as lipid-related CVD risk factors and are incorporated into many CVD risk scoring systems/models described in the literature.²⁷ LDLC reduction is commonly recommended as CVD prevention, but even with optimal statin treatment, there is still considerable residual risk for new and recurrent CVD events.^{28,32,34,35,37-42}

Incorporating novel biomarkers and alternative lipid measurements may improve risk prediction and aid targeted treatment, ultimately reducing CVD events.²⁷ Apolipoprotein B (ApoB) is a major atherogenic component embedded in LDL and VLDL correlating to non-HDLC and may be useful in the setting of triglycerides ≥ 200 mg/d as levels > 130 mg/ dL appear to be risk-enhancing, but measurements may be unreliable.⁴³ According to the 2018 Cholesterol Guidelines, lipoprotein(a) [Lp(a)] elevation also is recognized as a risk-enhancing factor that is particularly implicated when there is a strong family history of premature atherosclerotic CVD or personal history of CVD not explained by major risk factors.⁴³

Lp(a) elevation is a largely underrecognized category of lipid disorder that impacts up to 20% to 30% of the population globally and within the US, although there is considerable variability by geographic location and ethnicity.⁴⁴ Globally, Lp(a) elevation places > 1 billion people at moderate to high risk for CVD.44 Lp(a) has a strong genetic component and is recognized as a distinct and independent risk factor for MI, sudden death, strokes and CAVS. Lp(a) has an extensive body of evidence to support its distinct role both as a causal factor in CVD and as an augmentation to traditional risk factors.^44-48

Lipoproteni(a) Elevation Use For Diagnosis

The importance of Lp(a) elevation as a clinical diagnosis rather than a laboratory abnormality alone was brought forward by the Lipoprotein(a) Foundation. Its founder, Sandra Tremulis, is a survivor of an acute coronary event that occurred when she was 39-years old, despite running marathons and having none of the traditional CVD lifestyle risk factors.⁴⁹ This experience inspired her to create the Lipoprotein(a) Foundation to give a voice to families living with or at risk for CVD due to Lp(a) elevation.

As often happens in the progress of medicine, patients and their families drive change based on their personal experiences with the gaps in standard clinical practice. It was this foundation—not a member of the medical establishment—that submitted the formal request for the addition of new ICD-10-CM diagnostic and family history codes for Lp(a) elevation during the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) September 2017 ICD-10-CM Coordination and Maintenance Committee meeting.⁵⁰ In June 2018, the final ICD-10-CM code addenda for 2019 was released and included the new codes E78.⁴¹ (Elevated Lp[a]) and Z83.430 (Family history of elevated Lp[a]).⁵² After the new codes were approved, both the American Heart Association and the National Lipid Association added recommendations regarding Lp(a) testing to their clinical practice guidelines.^43,52

Practically, these codes standardize billing and payment for legitimate clinical work and laboratory testing. Prior to the addition of Lp(a) elevation as a clinical diagnosis, testing and treatment of Lp(a) elevation was considered experimental and not medically necessary until after a cardiovascular event had already occurred. Services for Lp(a) elevation were therefore not reimbursed by many healthcare organizations and insurance companies. The new ICD-10-CM codes encourage the assessment of Lp(a) both in individuals with early onset major CVD events and in presumably fit, healthy individuals, particularly when there is a family history of Lp(a) elevation. Given that Lp(a) levels do not change significantly over time, the current understanding is that only a single measurement is needed to define the individual risk over a lifetime.^41,42,44,45 As therapies targeting Lp(a) levels evolve, repeated measurements may be indicated to monitor response and direct changes in management. “Elevated Lipoprotein(a)” is the first laboratory testing abnormality that has achieved the status of a clinical diagnosis.

Lp(a) Measurements

There is considerable complexity to the measurement of lipoproteins in blood samples due to heterogeneity in both density and size of particles as illustrated in the Figure.⁵³

For traditional lipids measured in clinical practice, the size and density ranges from small high-density lipoprotein (HDL) through LDLC and intermediate- density lipoprotein (IDL) to the largest least dense particles in the very low-density lipoprotein (VLDL) and chylomicron remnant fractions. Standard lipid profiles consist of mass concentration measurements (mg/dL) of TC, TG, HDLC, and LDLC.⁵³ Non-HDLC (calculated as: TC−HDLC) consists of all cholesterol found in atherogenic lipoproteins, including remnant-C and Lp(a). Until recently, the cholesterol content of Lp(a), corresponding to about 30% of Lp(a) total mass, was included in the TC, non-HDLC and LDLC measurements with no separate reporting by the majority of clinical laboratories.

After > 50 years of research on the structure and biochemistry of Lp(a), the physiology and biological functions of these complex and polymorphic lipoprotein particles are not fully understood. Lp(a) is composed of a lipoprotein particle similar in composition to LDL (protein and lipid), containing 1 molecule of ApoB wrapped around a core of cholesteryl ester and triglyceride with phospholipids and unesterified cholesterol at its surface.⁴⁸ The presence of a unique hydrophilic, highly glycosylated protein referred to as apolopoprotienA (apo[a]), covalently attached to ApoB-100 by a single disulfide bridge, differentiates Lp(a) from LDL.⁴⁸ Cholesterol rich ApoB is an important component within many lipoproteins pathogenic for atherosclerosis and CVD.^45,47,53

The apo(a) contributes to the increased density of Lp(a) compared to LDLC with associated reduced binding affinity to the LDL receptor. This reduced receptor binding affinity is a presumed mechanism for the lack of Lp(a) plasma level response to statin therapies, which increase hepatic LDL receptor activity.⁴⁷ Apo(a) evolved from the plasminogen gene through duplication and remodeling and demonstrates extensive heterogeneity in protein size, with > 40 different apo(a) isoforms resulting in > 40 different Lp(a) particle sizes. Size of the apo(a) particle is determined by the number of pleated structures known as kringles. Most people (> 80%) carry 2 different-sized apo(a) isoforms. Plasma Lp(a) level is determined by the net production of apo(a) in each isoform, and the smaller apo(a) isoforms are associated with higher plasma levels of Lp(a).⁴⁵

Given the heterogeneity in Lp(a) molecular weight, which can vary even within individuals, recommendations have been made for reporting results as particle numbers or concentrations (nmol/L or mmol/L) rather than as mass concentration (mg/dL).⁵⁵ However, the majority of the large CVD morbidity and mortality outcomes studies used Lp(a) mass concentration levels in mg/ dL to characterize risk levels.^56,57 There is no standardized method to convert Lp(a) measurements from mg/dL to nmol/L.⁵⁵ Current assays using WHO standardized reagents and controls are reliable for categorizing risk levels.⁵⁸

The European Atherosclerosis Society consensus panel recommended that desirable Lp(a) levels should be below the 80th percentile (< 50 mg/dL or < 125 nmol/L) in patients with intermediate or high CVD risk.⁵⁹ Subsequent epidemiological and Mendelian randomization studies have been performed in general populations with no history of CVD and demonstrated that increased CVD risk can be detected with Lp(a) levels as low as 25 to 30 mg/dL.^56,60-63 In secondary prevention populations with prior CVD and optimal treatment (statins, antiplatelet drugs), recurrent event risk was also increased with elevated Lp(a).^63-66

Using immunoturbidometric assays, Varvel and colleagues reported the prevalence of elevated Lp(a) mass concentration levels (mg/dL) in > 500,000 US patients undergoing clinical evaluations based on data from a referral laboratory of patients.⁵⁸ The mean Lp(a) levels were 34.0 mg/dL with median (interquartile range [IQR]) levels at 17 (7-47) mg/dL and overall range of 0 to 907 mg/dL.⁵⁸ Females had higher Lp(a) levels compared to males but no ethnic or racial breakdown was provided. Lp(a) levels > 30 mg/dL and > 50 mg/dL were present in 35% and 24% of subjects, respectively. Table 1 displays the relationship between various Lp(a) level cut-offs to mean levels of LDLC, estimated LDLC corrected for Lp(a), TC, HDLC, and TG.⁵⁸ The data demonstrate that Lp(a) elevation cannot be inferred from LDLC levels nor from any of the other traditional lipoprotein measures. Patients with high risk Lp(a) levels may have normal LDLC. While Lp(a) thresholds have been identified for stratification of CVD risk, the target levels for risk reduction have not been specifically defined, particularly since therapies are not widely available for reduction of Lp(a). Table 2 provides an overview of clinical lipoprotein measurements that may be reasonable targets for therapeutic interventions and reduction of CVD risk.^44,53,55 In general, existing studies suggest that radical reduction (> 80%) is required to impact long-term outcomes, particularly in individuals with severe disease.^68,69

LDLC reduction alone leaves a residual CVD risk that is greater than the risk reduced.40 In addition, the autoimmune inflammation and lipid specific autoantibodies play an important role in increased CVD morbidity and mortality risk.^70,71 The presence of autoantibodies such as antiphospholipid antibodies (without a specific autoimmune disease diagnosis) increases the risk of subclinical atherosclerosis.^72,73 Certain autoimmune diseases such as systemic lupus erythematosus are recognized as independent risk factors for CVD.^74,75 Autoantibodies appear to mediate CVD events and mortality risk, independent of traditional therapies for risk reduction.⁷³ Further research is needed to clarify the role of autoantibodies as markers of increased or decreased CVD risk and their mechanism of action.

Autoantibodies directed at new antigens in lipoproteins within atherosclerotic lesions can modulate the impact of atherosclerosis via activation of the innate and adaptive immune system.⁷⁶ The lipid-associated neopeptides are recognized as damage-associated or danger- associated molecular patterns (DAMPs), also known as alarmins, which signal molecules that can trigger and perpetuate noninfectious inflammatory responses.^77-79 Plasma autoantibodies (immunoglobulin M and G [IgM, IgG]) modify proinflammatory oxidation-specific epitopes on oxidized phospholipids (oxPL) within lipoproteins and are linked with markers of inflammation and CVD events.^80-82 Modified LDLC and ApoB-100 immune complexes with specific autoantibodies in the IgG class are associated with increased CVD.⁷⁶ These and other risk-modulating autoantibodies may explain some of the variability in CVD outcomes by ethnicity and between individuals.

Some antibodies to oxidized LDL (ox-LDL) may have a protective role in the development of atherosclerosis.^83,84 In a cohort of > 500 women, the number of carotid atherosclerotic plaques and total carotid plaque area were inversely correlated with a specific IgM autoantibody (MDA-p210).⁸⁴ High concentrations of Lp(a)- containing circulating immune complexes and Lp(a)-specific IgM and IgG have been described in patients with coronary heart disease (CHD).⁸⁵ Like ox-LDL, oxidized Lp(a) [ox-Lp(a)] is more potent than native Lp(a) in increasing atherosclerosis risk and is increased in patients with CHD compared to healthy controls.^86-88 Ox-Lp(a) levels may represent an even stronger risk marker for CVD than ox-LDL.⁸⁵

Possible Mechanisms of Pathogenesis

While the precise quantification of Lp(a) in human plasma (or serum) has been challenging, current clinical laboratories use standardized international reference reagents and controls in their assays. Most current Lp(a) assays are based on immunological methods (eg, immunonephelometry, immunoturbidimetry, or enzyme linked immunosorbent assay [ELISA]) using antibodies against apo(a).⁸⁹ Apo(a) contains 10 subtypes of kringle IV and 1 copy of kringle V. Some assays use antibodies against kringle-IV type 2; however, it has been recommended that newer methods should use antibodies against the specific bridging kringle-IV Type 9 domain, which has a more stable bond and is present as a single copy.^48,89 Other approaches to Lp(a) measurement include ultraperformance liquid chromatography/mass spectrometry that can determine both the concentration and particle size of apo(a).^48,90 For routine clinical care, currently available assays reporting in mg/dL can be considered fairly accurate for separating low-risk from moderate-to-high-risk patients.⁴⁵

The physiologic role of Lp(a) in humans remains to be fully defined and individuals with extremely low plasma Lp(a) levels present no disease or deficiency syndromes.⁹¹ Lp(a) accumulates in endothelial injuries and binds to components of the vessel wall and subendothelial matrix, presumably due to the strong lysine binding site in apo(a).⁴⁶ Mediated by apo(a), the binding stimulates chemotactic activation of monocytes/macrophages and thereby modulating angiogenesis and inflammation.⁸⁹ Lp(a) may contribute to CVD and CAVS via its LDL-like component, with proinflammatory effects of oxidized phospholipids (OxPL) on both ApoB and apo(a) and antifibrinolytic/prothrombotic effects of apo(a).⁹² In Vitro studies have demonstrated that apo(a) modifies cellular function of cultured vascular endothelial cells (promoting stress fiber formation, endothelial contraction and vascular permeability), smooth muscles, and monocytes/ macrophages (promoting differentiation of proinflammatory M1-1 type macrophages) via complex mechanisms of cell signaling and cytokine production.89 Lp(a) is the only monogenetic risk factor for aortic valve calcification and stenosis⁹³ and is strongly linked specifically with the single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) rs10455872 in the gene LPA encoding for apo(a).⁹⁴

CVD Risk Predictive Value

There are a large number of studies demonstrating that Lp(a) elevations are an independent predictor of adverse cardiovascular outcomes including MI, sudden death, strokes, calcific aortic valve stenosis and peripheral vascular disease (Table 3). The Copenhagen City Heart Study and Copenhagen General Population Study are well known prospective population- based cohort studies that track outcomes through national patient registries.⁹⁵ These studies demonstrate increased risk for MI, CHD, CAVS, and heart failure when subjects with very high Lp(a) levels (50-115 mg/dL) are compared with subjects with very low Lp(a) levels (< 5 mg/dL).^96-100 Subjects with less extreme Lp(a) elevations (> 30 mg/dL) also show increased risk of CVD when they have comorbid LDLC elevations.¹⁰¹ However, the Copenhagen studies are composed exclusively of white subjects and the effects of Lp(a) are known to vary with race or ethnicity.

The Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis (MESA) recruited an ethnically diverse sample of > 6,000 Americans, aged 45 to 84 years, without CVD, into an ongoing prospective cohort study. Research using subjects from this study has found consistently increased risk of CHD, heart failure, subclinical aortic valve calcification, and more severe CAVS in white subjects with elevated Lp(a).^60,102,103 Black subjects with elevated Lp(a) had increased risk of CHD and more severe CAVS and Hispanic subjects with Lp(a) elevation were at higher risk for CHD.^60,102 So far, no studies of MESA subjects have identified a relationship between Lp(a) elevation and CVD events for Asian-Americans subjects (predominantly of Chinese descent). There is a need for ongoing research to more precisely define relevant cut-off levels by race, ethnicity and sex.

The Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities (ARIC) Study was a prospective multiethnic cohort study including > 15,000 US adults, aged 45 to 64 years.¹⁰³ Lp(a) elevations in this cohort were associated with greater risks for first CVD events, heart failure, and recurrent CVD events.^61,64,105 The risk of stroke for subjects with elevated Lp(a) was greater for black and white women, and for black men.^61,106 However, a meta-analysis of case-control studies showed increased ischemic stroke risk in both men and women with elevated Lp(a).⁵⁷

A recent European meta-analysis collected blood samples and outcome data from > 50,000 subjects in 7 prospective cohort studies. Using a central laboratory to standardize Lp(a) measurements, researchers found increased risk of major coronary events and new CVD in subjects with Lp(a) > 50 mg/dL compared to those below that threshold.¹⁰⁷

Although many of these studies show modest increases in risk of CVD events with Lp(a) elevation, it should be noted that other studies do not demonstrate such consistent associations. This is particularly true in studies of women and nonwhite ethnic groups.^103,108-112 The variability of study results may be due to other confounding factors such as autoantibodies that either upregulate or downregulate atherogenicity of LDLC and potentially other lipoproteins. This is particularly relevant to women who have an increased risk for autoimmune disease.

Lp(a) has significant genetic heritability—75% in Europeans and 85% in African Americans.¹¹³ In whites, the LPA gene on chromosome 6p26- 27 with the polymorphism genetic variants rs10455872 and rs3798220 is consistently associated with elevated Lp(a) levels.^63,100,113 However, the degree of Lp(a) elevation associated with these specific genetic variants varies by ethnicity.^78,113,115

Lifestyle and Cardiovascular Health

It is noteworthy that the Lp(a) genetic risks can also be modified by lifestyle risk reduction even in the absence of significant blood level reductions. For example, Khera and colleagues constructed a genetic risk profile for CVD that included genes related to Lp(a).¹¹⁶ Subjects with high genetic risk were more likely to experience CVD events compared with subjects with low genetic risk. However, risks for CVD were attenuated by 4 healthy lifestyle factors: current nonsmoker, body mass index < 30, at least weekly physical activity, and a healthy diet. Subjects with high genetic risk and an unhealthy lifestyle (0 or 1 of the 4 healthy lifestyle factors) were the most likely to develop CVD (Hazard ratio [HR], 3.5), but that risk was lower for subjects with healthy (3 or 4 of the 4 healthy lifestyle factors) and intermediate lifestyles (2 of the 4 healthy lifestyle factors) (HR, 1.9 and 2.2, respectively), despite despite high genetic risk for CVD.

While the independent CVD risk associated with elevated Lp(a) does not appear to be responsive to lifestyle risk reduction alone, certainly elevated LDLC and traditional risk factors can increase the overall CVD risk and are worthy of preventive interventions. In particular, inflammation from any source exacerbates CVD risk. Proatherogenic diet, insufficient sleep, lack of exercise, and maladaptive stress responses are other targets for personalized CVD risk reduction. ^28,117 Studies of dietary modifications and other lifestyle factors have shown reduced risk of CVD events, despite lack of reduction in Lp(a) levels.^119,120 It is noteworthy that statin therapy (with or without ezetimibe) fails to impact CAVS progression, likely because statins either raise or have no effect on Lp(a) levels.^92,119

Until recently, there has been no evidence supporting any therapeutic intervention causing clinically meaningful reductions in Lp(a). Table 4 lists major drug classes and their effects on Lp(a) and CVD outcomes; however, a detailed discussion of each of these therapies is beyond the scope of this review. Drugs that reduce Lp(a) by 20-30% have varying effects on CVD outcomes, from no effect^122,123 to a 10% to 20% decrease in CVD events when compared with a placebo.^124,125 Because these drugs also produce substantial reductions in LDLC, it is not possible to determine how much of the beneficial effects are due to reductions in Lp(a).

Lipoprotein apheresis produces profound reductions in Lp(a) of 60 to 80% in very highrisk populations.^69,126 Within-subjects comparisons show up to 80% reductions in CVD events, relative to event rates prior to treatment initiation.^69,127 Early trials of antisense oligonucleotide against apo(a) therapies show potential to produce similar outcomes.^128,129 These treatments may be particularly effective in patients with isolated Lp(a) elevations.

Summary

Lp(a) elevation is a major contributor to cardiovascular disease risk and has been recognized as an ICD-10-CM coded clinical diagnosis, the first laboratory abnormality to be defined a clinical disease in the asymptomatic healthy young individuals. This change addresses currently under- diagnosed CVD risk independent of LDLC reduction strategies. A brief overview of recent guidelines for the clinical use of Lp(a) testing from the American Heart Association^43,151 and the National Lipid Association52 can be found in Table 5. Although drug therapies for lowering Lp(a) levels remain limited, new treatment options are actively being developed.

Many Americans with high Lp(a) have not yet been identified. Expanded one-time screening can inform these patients of their cardiovascular risk and increase their access to early, aggressive lifestyle modification and optimal lipid-lowering therapy. Given the further increased CVD risk factors for military service members and veterans, a case can be made for broader screening and enhanced surveillance of elevated Lp(a) in these presumably healthy and fit individuals as well as management focused on modifiable risk factors.

Acknowledgements

This program initiative was conducted by the Henry M. Jackson Foundation for the Advancement of Military Medicine, Inc. as part of the Integrative Cardiac Health Project at Walter Reed National Military Medical Center (WRNMMC), and is made possible by a cooperative agreement that was awarded and administered by the US Army Medical Research & Materiel Command (USAMRMC), at Fort Detrick under Contract Number: W81XWH-16-2-0007. It reflects literature review preparatory work for a research protocol but does not involve an actual research project. The work in this manuscript was supported by the staff of the Integrative Cardiac Health Project (ICHP) with special thanks to Claire Fuller, Elaine Walizer, Dr. Mariam Kashani and the entire health coaching team.

Hepatitis C virus testing should be combined with HIV integrated care services among people who inject drugs (PWID), according to researchers reporting on a multisite randomized trial of nearly 12,000 HIV-infected individuals in India.

Courtesy NIH

HCV antibody prevalence at these sites ranged from 7.2%-76.6%. Across six integrated care centers (ICCs), 5,263 clients underwent HCV testing, of whom 2,278 were newly diagnosed. At evaluation, PWID in ICC clusters were nearly four times more likely to report being tested for HCV than those in usual care clusters (adjusted prevalence ratio [aPR]: 3.69), according to the report by Sunil Suhas Solomon, MD, of Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, and colleagues.

PWID in ICC clusters were also seven times more likely to be aware of their HCV status (aPR: 7.11; 95% confidence interval: 1.14, 44.3) and significantly more likely to initiate treatment, (aPR: 9.86; 95% CI: 1.52, 63.8), than individuals in usual care, the authors stated in their report published online ahead of press in the Journal of Hepatology.

“These data provide among the first empirical support of the benefits of integrating HCV testing with HIV prevention and treatment services for PWID. Over a short duration, we observed significant impact on community-level HCV testing and awareness of HCV status among PWID. While additional strategies might be required to improve population awareness levels, integration of HCV testing with HIV programs for PWID particularly given the high burden of HIV/HCV coinfection represents a critical first step,” the researchers concluded.

The study was funded by the National Institutes of Health and the Elton John AIDS Foundation. The authors reported that they had no relevant disclosures.

mlesney@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Solomon, SS et al. J Hepatol. 2019. doi.org/10.1016/j.jhep.2019.09.022.

Hepatitis C virus testing should be combined with HIV integrated care services among people who inject drugs (PWID), according to researchers reporting on a multisite randomized trial of nearly 12,000 HIV-infected individuals in India.

Courtesy NIH

HCV antibody prevalence at these sites ranged from 7.2%-76.6%. Across six integrated care centers (ICCs), 5,263 clients underwent HCV testing, of whom 2,278 were newly diagnosed. At evaluation, PWID in ICC clusters were nearly four times more likely to report being tested for HCV than those in usual care clusters (adjusted prevalence ratio [aPR]: 3.69), according to the report by Sunil Suhas Solomon, MD, of Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, and colleagues.

PWID in ICC clusters were also seven times more likely to be aware of their HCV status (aPR: 7.11; 95% confidence interval: 1.14, 44.3) and significantly more likely to initiate treatment, (aPR: 9.86; 95% CI: 1.52, 63.8), than individuals in usual care, the authors stated in their report published online ahead of press in the Journal of Hepatology.

“These data provide among the first empirical support of the benefits of integrating HCV testing with HIV prevention and treatment services for PWID. Over a short duration, we observed significant impact on community-level HCV testing and awareness of HCV status among PWID. While additional strategies might be required to improve population awareness levels, integration of HCV testing with HIV programs for PWID particularly given the high burden of HIV/HCV coinfection represents a critical first step,” the researchers concluded.

The study was funded by the National Institutes of Health and the Elton John AIDS Foundation. The authors reported that they had no relevant disclosures.

mlesney@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Solomon, SS et al. J Hepatol. 2019. doi.org/10.1016/j.jhep.2019.09.022.

Hepatitis C virus testing should be combined with HIV integrated care services among people who inject drugs (PWID), according to researchers reporting on a multisite randomized trial of nearly 12,000 HIV-infected individuals in India.

Courtesy NIH

HCV antibody prevalence at these sites ranged from 7.2%-76.6%. Across six integrated care centers (ICCs), 5,263 clients underwent HCV testing, of whom 2,278 were newly diagnosed. At evaluation, PWID in ICC clusters were nearly four times more likely to report being tested for HCV than those in usual care clusters (adjusted prevalence ratio [aPR]: 3.69), according to the report by Sunil Suhas Solomon, MD, of Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, and colleagues.

PWID in ICC clusters were also seven times more likely to be aware of their HCV status (aPR: 7.11; 95% confidence interval: 1.14, 44.3) and significantly more likely to initiate treatment, (aPR: 9.86; 95% CI: 1.52, 63.8), than individuals in usual care, the authors stated in their report published online ahead of press in the Journal of Hepatology.

“These data provide among the first empirical support of the benefits of integrating HCV testing with HIV prevention and treatment services for PWID. Over a short duration, we observed significant impact on community-level HCV testing and awareness of HCV status among PWID. While additional strategies might be required to improve population awareness levels, integration of HCV testing with HIV programs for PWID particularly given the high burden of HIV/HCV coinfection represents a critical first step,” the researchers concluded.

The study was funded by the National Institutes of Health and the Elton John AIDS Foundation. The authors reported that they had no relevant disclosures.

mlesney@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Solomon, SS et al. J Hepatol. 2019. doi.org/10.1016/j.jhep.2019.09.022.