PURLs

ILLUSTRATIVE CASE

An 8-year-old girl with congenital heart disease (status: post repair) arrives at your clinic for a routine appointment. Since the age of 12 months, she has experienced significant anxiety during medical visits, especially with blood draws and injections. She enjoys playing video games on her new tablet computer. Her parents want to know what you can do to reduce her anxiety and pain during today’s scheduled blood draw. Should you recommend that she continue playing video games during the venipuncture?

Adequately managing pain while performing venipuncture in children can improve the quality of the experience, reduce children’s fear of going to the doctor, and increase efficiency in medical practice.² Since pharmacologic pain-control methods may have adverse effects, distraction techniques—engaging the child in another activity during a procedure—are commonly used instead to help reduce a child’s pain. These techniques can be active or passive.

Studies have demonstrated that both active and passive distraction techniques reduce children’s pain during medical procedures, including venipuncture. Passive techniques, such as nurse coaching³ and watching cartoons,⁴ have been found to reduce distress and pain. Active distraction techniques, such as playing video games while undergoing a painful procedure (eg, dressing a wound), have been shown to be more effective than passive techniques.^5,6

A Cochrane review and meta-analysis of distraction and hypnosis for needle-related pain and distress in children demonstrated reduced pain, but the quality of evidence was low and the review recommended improved methodological rigor and trial reporting.⁷ Another systematic review and analysis showed strong support for distraction for reducing pain; however, the quality of evidence was low and the researchers cited problems with characteristics of the distraction interventions, child age, and risk of bias in the studies.⁸

There has been a lack of RCTs comparing the effectiveness and superiority of active vs passive distraction techniques. The first high-quality RCT to directly compare 3 of the most common distraction techniques to a control group was recently conducted in a large training and research hospital in Turkey.¹

STUDY SUMMARY

Pain and anxiety levels were lowest in actively distracted children

The RCT included 180 children ages 6 to 10 years randomly assigned to 1 of 3 intervention groups or a control group.¹ Phlebotomy was performed while children watched a cartoon, played a video game, were distracted by parental interaction, or had no distraction (control group).

Investigators independently measured pain and anxiety in the patient and perceived pain and anxiety according to both a family member and a health care worker (medical observer). Researchers used the previously validated Children’s Fear Scale and the Wong-Baker Pain Scale.^9,10 The Children’s Fear Scale was used to assess anxiety in children on a scale of 0 (picture of a calm face) to 4 (picture of the most fearful face). The Wong-Baker Pain Scale was used to assess pain on a scale of 0 (no hurt: happy face) to 10 (hurts worst: saddest face).

Continue to: Results

Results. The pain and anxiety scores were significantly lower in all of the intervention groups compared with the control group (P < .05). The video game (active distraction) group had the lowest levels of both pain and anxiety. The self-reported Children’s Fear Scale scores of children in the video game group were 0.27, compared with 0.76 in the cartoon group, 1.24 in the parental distraction group, and 2.22 in the control group. The anxiety scores recorded by the family member and the medical observer showed similar significant differences.

Allow children to play a video game during procedures such as venipuncture; doing so reduces pain and anxiety.

The Wong-Baker Pain Scale scores showed similar differences in self-reported pain for the video game group (1.42) compared with the cartoon group (3.02), the parental distraction group (2.89), and the control group (5.11). Pain scores reported by the family member and the medical observer (respectively) also reflected benefit from any type of distraction, with active game-playing as the most effective type of distraction (video game: 1.69 and 1.96; cartoon: 3.07 and 3.20; parental distraction: 3.56 and 4.22; and control: 5.29 and 6.13).

In addition, the intraclass correlation coefficient was 0.67 to 0.924 (P < .01), suggesting that the reports from the child, parent, and medical observer about the child’s pain and anxiety were highly correlated.

WHAT'S NEW

All distraction techniques provide benefit, but there’s a clear winner

In this RCT of children undergoing phlebotomy, both active and passive distraction techniques were superior to no distraction in terms of perceived pain and anxiety by the child, a health care provider, or a parent. The active-distraction group played a video game, while the passive-distraction groups watched a cartoon or interacted with a parent. Active distraction was superior to passive distraction.

CAVEATS

Procedure time was short; intervention not blinded

One potential weakness of this study is that it was not a double-blinded trial. Blinding was not possible for much of the study as the patient, parent, and medical observer were fully aware of the intervention or lack thereof. However, the parent and medical observer were blinded to each other’s assessments of the child’s pain and anxiety.

Continue to: Furthermore, the study...

Furthermore, the study was conducted at a single institution in Turkey. There could be cultural differences in reporting of pain and anxiety compared to Western cultures.

Finally, the average duration of the procedure in this study was 3 minutes, with a range of 1 to 5 minutes. It is unclear if the findings can be extrapolated to more time-consuming procedures.

CHALLENGES TO IMPLEMENTATION

Technology is not available to all

The use of tablet computers may seem increasingly ubiquitous, but not all families have access to these devices. Another challenge is that phlebotomy/clinic personnel must learn to work around the device.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

The PURLs Surveillance System was supported in part by Grant Number UL1RR024999 from the National Center for Research Resources, a Clinical Translational Science Award to the University of Chicago. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Center for Research Resources or the National Institutes of Health.

ILLUSTRATIVE CASE

An 8-year-old girl with congenital heart disease (status: post repair) arrives at your clinic for a routine appointment. Since the age of 12 months, she has experienced significant anxiety during medical visits, especially with blood draws and injections. She enjoys playing video games on her new tablet computer. Her parents want to know what you can do to reduce her anxiety and pain during today’s scheduled blood draw. Should you recommend that she continue playing video games during the venipuncture?

Adequately managing pain while performing venipuncture in children can improve the quality of the experience, reduce children’s fear of going to the doctor, and increase efficiency in medical practice.² Since pharmacologic pain-control methods may have adverse effects, distraction techniques—engaging the child in another activity during a procedure—are commonly used instead to help reduce a child’s pain. These techniques can be active or passive.

Studies have demonstrated that both active and passive distraction techniques reduce children’s pain during medical procedures, including venipuncture. Passive techniques, such as nurse coaching³ and watching cartoons,⁴ have been found to reduce distress and pain. Active distraction techniques, such as playing video games while undergoing a painful procedure (eg, dressing a wound), have been shown to be more effective than passive techniques.^5,6

A Cochrane review and meta-analysis of distraction and hypnosis for needle-related pain and distress in children demonstrated reduced pain, but the quality of evidence was low and the review recommended improved methodological rigor and trial reporting.⁷ Another systematic review and analysis showed strong support for distraction for reducing pain; however, the quality of evidence was low and the researchers cited problems with characteristics of the distraction interventions, child age, and risk of bias in the studies.⁸

There has been a lack of RCTs comparing the effectiveness and superiority of active vs passive distraction techniques. The first high-quality RCT to directly compare 3 of the most common distraction techniques to a control group was recently conducted in a large training and research hospital in Turkey.¹

STUDY SUMMARY

Pain and anxiety levels were lowest in actively distracted children

The RCT included 180 children ages 6 to 10 years randomly assigned to 1 of 3 intervention groups or a control group.¹ Phlebotomy was performed while children watched a cartoon, played a video game, were distracted by parental interaction, or had no distraction (control group).

Investigators independently measured pain and anxiety in the patient and perceived pain and anxiety according to both a family member and a health care worker (medical observer). Researchers used the previously validated Children’s Fear Scale and the Wong-Baker Pain Scale.^9,10 The Children’s Fear Scale was used to assess anxiety in children on a scale of 0 (picture of a calm face) to 4 (picture of the most fearful face). The Wong-Baker Pain Scale was used to assess pain on a scale of 0 (no hurt: happy face) to 10 (hurts worst: saddest face).

Continue to: Results

Results. The pain and anxiety scores were significantly lower in all of the intervention groups compared with the control group (P < .05). The video game (active distraction) group had the lowest levels of both pain and anxiety. The self-reported Children’s Fear Scale scores of children in the video game group were 0.27, compared with 0.76 in the cartoon group, 1.24 in the parental distraction group, and 2.22 in the control group. The anxiety scores recorded by the family member and the medical observer showed similar significant differences.

Allow children to play a video game during procedures such as venipuncture; doing so reduces pain and anxiety.

The Wong-Baker Pain Scale scores showed similar differences in self-reported pain for the video game group (1.42) compared with the cartoon group (3.02), the parental distraction group (2.89), and the control group (5.11). Pain scores reported by the family member and the medical observer (respectively) also reflected benefit from any type of distraction, with active game-playing as the most effective type of distraction (video game: 1.69 and 1.96; cartoon: 3.07 and 3.20; parental distraction: 3.56 and 4.22; and control: 5.29 and 6.13).

In addition, the intraclass correlation coefficient was 0.67 to 0.924 (P < .01), suggesting that the reports from the child, parent, and medical observer about the child’s pain and anxiety were highly correlated.

WHAT'S NEW

All distraction techniques provide benefit, but there’s a clear winner

In this RCT of children undergoing phlebotomy, both active and passive distraction techniques were superior to no distraction in terms of perceived pain and anxiety by the child, a health care provider, or a parent. The active-distraction group played a video game, while the passive-distraction groups watched a cartoon or interacted with a parent. Active distraction was superior to passive distraction.

CAVEATS

Procedure time was short; intervention not blinded

One potential weakness of this study is that it was not a double-blinded trial. Blinding was not possible for much of the study as the patient, parent, and medical observer were fully aware of the intervention or lack thereof. However, the parent and medical observer were blinded to each other’s assessments of the child’s pain and anxiety.

Continue to: Furthermore, the study...

Furthermore, the study was conducted at a single institution in Turkey. There could be cultural differences in reporting of pain and anxiety compared to Western cultures.

Finally, the average duration of the procedure in this study was 3 minutes, with a range of 1 to 5 minutes. It is unclear if the findings can be extrapolated to more time-consuming procedures.

CHALLENGES TO IMPLEMENTATION

Technology is not available to all

The use of tablet computers may seem increasingly ubiquitous, but not all families have access to these devices. Another challenge is that phlebotomy/clinic personnel must learn to work around the device.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

The PURLs Surveillance System was supported in part by Grant Number UL1RR024999 from the National Center for Research Resources, a Clinical Translational Science Award to the University of Chicago. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Center for Research Resources or the National Institutes of Health.

ILLUSTRATIVE CASE

An 8-year-old girl with congenital heart disease (status: post repair) arrives at your clinic for a routine appointment. Since the age of 12 months, she has experienced significant anxiety during medical visits, especially with blood draws and injections. She enjoys playing video games on her new tablet computer. Her parents want to know what you can do to reduce her anxiety and pain during today’s scheduled blood draw. Should you recommend that she continue playing video games during the venipuncture?

Adequately managing pain while performing venipuncture in children can improve the quality of the experience, reduce children’s fear of going to the doctor, and increase efficiency in medical practice.² Since pharmacologic pain-control methods may have adverse effects, distraction techniques—engaging the child in another activity during a procedure—are commonly used instead to help reduce a child’s pain. These techniques can be active or passive.

Studies have demonstrated that both active and passive distraction techniques reduce children’s pain during medical procedures, including venipuncture. Passive techniques, such as nurse coaching³ and watching cartoons,⁴ have been found to reduce distress and pain. Active distraction techniques, such as playing video games while undergoing a painful procedure (eg, dressing a wound), have been shown to be more effective than passive techniques.^5,6

A Cochrane review and meta-analysis of distraction and hypnosis for needle-related pain and distress in children demonstrated reduced pain, but the quality of evidence was low and the review recommended improved methodological rigor and trial reporting.⁷ Another systematic review and analysis showed strong support for distraction for reducing pain; however, the quality of evidence was low and the researchers cited problems with characteristics of the distraction interventions, child age, and risk of bias in the studies.⁸

There has been a lack of RCTs comparing the effectiveness and superiority of active vs passive distraction techniques. The first high-quality RCT to directly compare 3 of the most common distraction techniques to a control group was recently conducted in a large training and research hospital in Turkey.¹

STUDY SUMMARY

Pain and anxiety levels were lowest in actively distracted children

The RCT included 180 children ages 6 to 10 years randomly assigned to 1 of 3 intervention groups or a control group.¹ Phlebotomy was performed while children watched a cartoon, played a video game, were distracted by parental interaction, or had no distraction (control group).

Investigators independently measured pain and anxiety in the patient and perceived pain and anxiety according to both a family member and a health care worker (medical observer). Researchers used the previously validated Children’s Fear Scale and the Wong-Baker Pain Scale.^9,10 The Children’s Fear Scale was used to assess anxiety in children on a scale of 0 (picture of a calm face) to 4 (picture of the most fearful face). The Wong-Baker Pain Scale was used to assess pain on a scale of 0 (no hurt: happy face) to 10 (hurts worst: saddest face).

Continue to: Results

Results. The pain and anxiety scores were significantly lower in all of the intervention groups compared with the control group (P < .05). The video game (active distraction) group had the lowest levels of both pain and anxiety. The self-reported Children’s Fear Scale scores of children in the video game group were 0.27, compared with 0.76 in the cartoon group, 1.24 in the parental distraction group, and 2.22 in the control group. The anxiety scores recorded by the family member and the medical observer showed similar significant differences.

Allow children to play a video game during procedures such as venipuncture; doing so reduces pain and anxiety.

The Wong-Baker Pain Scale scores showed similar differences in self-reported pain for the video game group (1.42) compared with the cartoon group (3.02), the parental distraction group (2.89), and the control group (5.11). Pain scores reported by the family member and the medical observer (respectively) also reflected benefit from any type of distraction, with active game-playing as the most effective type of distraction (video game: 1.69 and 1.96; cartoon: 3.07 and 3.20; parental distraction: 3.56 and 4.22; and control: 5.29 and 6.13).

In addition, the intraclass correlation coefficient was 0.67 to 0.924 (P < .01), suggesting that the reports from the child, parent, and medical observer about the child’s pain and anxiety were highly correlated.

WHAT'S NEW

All distraction techniques provide benefit, but there’s a clear winner

In this RCT of children undergoing phlebotomy, both active and passive distraction techniques were superior to no distraction in terms of perceived pain and anxiety by the child, a health care provider, or a parent. The active-distraction group played a video game, while the passive-distraction groups watched a cartoon or interacted with a parent. Active distraction was superior to passive distraction.

CAVEATS

Procedure time was short; intervention not blinded

One potential weakness of this study is that it was not a double-blinded trial. Blinding was not possible for much of the study as the patient, parent, and medical observer were fully aware of the intervention or lack thereof. However, the parent and medical observer were blinded to each other’s assessments of the child’s pain and anxiety.

Continue to: Furthermore, the study...

Furthermore, the study was conducted at a single institution in Turkey. There could be cultural differences in reporting of pain and anxiety compared to Western cultures.

Finally, the average duration of the procedure in this study was 3 minutes, with a range of 1 to 5 minutes. It is unclear if the findings can be extrapolated to more time-consuming procedures.

CHALLENGES TO IMPLEMENTATION

Technology is not available to all

The use of tablet computers may seem increasingly ubiquitous, but not all families have access to these devices. Another challenge is that phlebotomy/clinic personnel must learn to work around the device.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

The PURLs Surveillance System was supported in part by Grant Number UL1RR024999 from the National Center for Research Resources, a Clinical Translational Science Award to the University of Chicago. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Center for Research Resources or the National Institutes of Health.

ILLUSTRATIVE CASE

A 57-year-old man who was given a diagnosis of T2D a year ago presents for an office visit. His hemoglobin A1C level at diagnosis was 8.3%. He is otherwise healthy and has been adhering well to a plan of metformin 1000 mg twice daily, regular exercise, and a low-­carbohydrate diet you recommended. His most recent hemoglobin A1C is 7.3%. He is pleased with his progress, so he is discouraged when you tell him that he is not yet at goal. He asks if there are other things that he can do to further lower his hemoglobin A1C. What can you recommend for him?

According to the National Diabetes Statistics Report, 2020 from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, approximately 34.1 million US adults ≥ 18 years of age (13% of the adult population) have diabetes, 50% of whom have a hemoglobin A1C > 7%. The report also states that approximately 88 million US adults—more than one-third of the population—have prediabetes.²

The American Diabetes Association (ADA) estimated that diabetes-related health care costs in the United States for 2017 totaled $237 billion, an increase of 26% from 2012. More than $30 billion of this expense comes directly from diabetes medications; the remainder of these costs are related to lost wages, clinic visits, hospitalizations, and treatment for diabetic complications and comorbidities. After controlling for age and gender, medical expenditures for people with diabetes are 2.3 times higher than for those without diabetes.³

The 2019 ADA Nutrition Therapy for Adults With Diabetes or Prediabetes: A Consensus Report makes general recommendations concerning fiber intake for patients with diabetes or prediabetes, stating that these patients should consume approximately 14 g of fiber for every 1000 kcal consumed, giving preference to whole-food sources rather than supplements.⁴ The report indicates that some studies have shown hemoglobin A1C reductions of 0.2% to 0.3% with daily fiber intake exceeding 50 g. However, this level of intake can cause unpleasant gastrointestinal adverse effects, including bloating, diarrhea, and flatulence.^4,5

STUDY SUMMARY

Effect on A1C exceeded the FDA threshold for new drugs

This systematic review and meta-analysis searched MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials to identify randomized controlled trials that studied the effects of viscous fiber supplementation on glycemic control in patients with T2D. Eligible studies included those that: (1) had a duration ≥ 3 weeks; (2) allowed isolation of the viscous fiber effects; and (3) reported at least 1 of the following glycemic measures: hemoglobin A1C (n = 1148 patients), fasting glucose (n = 1394), fasting insulin (n = 228), homeostatic model assessment of insulin resistance (HOMA-IR; n = 652), and fructosamine (n = 23).

As an adjunct to standard of care, viscous fiber supplements significantly improved hemoglobin A1C and other glycemic markers in patients with T2D.

Data were pooled using the generic inverse variance method and expressed as mean difference (MD) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Heterogeneity was assessed and quantified (Cochran Q and I² statistics, respectively). I² ≥ 50% indicates substantial heterogeneity. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach was used to evaluate the overall strength of evidence.

Twenty-eight eligible studies were compared. The median age of included patients was 60 years. The median dose of viscous fiber was 13.1 g/d (range, 2.55-21). Viscous fiber type varied between the studies and included psyllium, guar gum, β-glucan, and konjac, and was consumed in powder, tablet, capsule, and limited food-based forms (in 1 of the included studies). The median trial duration was 8 weeks, with 11 trials lasting ≥ 12 weeks.

Continue to: The study found...

The study found moderate-grade evidence that, when added to standard of care, viscous fiber supplementation reduced hemoglobin A1C (MD = –0.58%; 95% CI, –0.88 to –0.28; P = .0002; I² = 91%), fasting glucose (MD = –14.8 mg/dL; 95% CI, –23.8 to –5.58; P = .001; I² = 92%), and HOMA-IR (MD = –1.89; 95% CI, –3.45 to –0.33; P = .02; I² = 94%) compared with control. The effect on hemoglobin A1C exceeds the ≥ 0.3% threshold established by the US Food and Drug Administration for new antihyperglycemic drug development. There was no significant effect on fasting insulin or fructosamine, although the sample size for fructosamine was small. No significant evidence of a dose-dependent response effect was found. The studies had substantial heterogeneity. No evaluation of potential or real harm was noted in the analysis.

WHAT’S NEW

Potential glycemic benefit without large dietary increase

The glucose-lowering effects of increased fiber intake have often been hypothesized, but this meta-analysis is the first to focus specifically on the effect of viscous fiber supplements in patients with T2D. Prior meta-analyses, including those cited in the 2019 ADA recommendations mentioned above, included primarily whole-food dietary sources of fiber in the treatment arms and generally had more modest effects on outcomes.^4,6,7

By focusing on viscous fiber supplements, this study isolated the effect of these supplements vs fiber-rich dietary changes. It illustrates a greater potential benefit with supplements than whole-food dietary ­sources of fiber, and at a lower dose of fiber than was seen in prior studies without requiring substantial increases in caloric intake. Viscous fiber supplementation is a potential adjunct to the usual evidence-based standards of care for glycemic control in patients with T2D.

CAVEATS

Limited study durations may raise uncertainty about long-term benefits

This meta-analysis does have its limitations. The heterogeneity among the studies analyzed makes it difficult to establish a single recommendation regarding dose, type, and brand of fiber to be used. Only 11 of the 28 studies lasted longer than 12 weeks, with a median duration of 8 weeks, making any long-term effects on hemoglobin A1C unknown. No adverse effects or reactions were described to evaluate safety and tolerability of the viscous fiber supplementation. No patient-oriented outcomes were reported.

CHALLENGES TO IMPLEMENTATION

Patients may not be eager to supplement with viscous fiber

The biggest challenge to implementation is patient compliance. Some forms of supplemental fiber are less palatable than others and may cause unpleasant gastrointestinal adverse effects, which may be an impediment for some patients. Cost may also be an issue for some patients. Diabetes medications can be expensive; however, they are often covered, at least partially, by medical insurance. Over-the-counter supplements are unlikely to be covered for most patients.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

The PURLs Surveillance System was supported in part by Grant Number UL1RR024999 from the National Center for Research Resources, a Clinical Translational Science Award to the University of Chicago. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Center for Research Resources or the National Institutes of Health.

ILLUSTRATIVE CASE

A 57-year-old man who was given a diagnosis of T2D a year ago presents for an office visit. His hemoglobin A1C level at diagnosis was 8.3%. He is otherwise healthy and has been adhering well to a plan of metformin 1000 mg twice daily, regular exercise, and a low-­carbohydrate diet you recommended. His most recent hemoglobin A1C is 7.3%. He is pleased with his progress, so he is discouraged when you tell him that he is not yet at goal. He asks if there are other things that he can do to further lower his hemoglobin A1C. What can you recommend for him?

According to the National Diabetes Statistics Report, 2020 from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, approximately 34.1 million US adults ≥ 18 years of age (13% of the adult population) have diabetes, 50% of whom have a hemoglobin A1C > 7%. The report also states that approximately 88 million US adults—more than one-third of the population—have prediabetes.²

The American Diabetes Association (ADA) estimated that diabetes-related health care costs in the United States for 2017 totaled $237 billion, an increase of 26% from 2012. More than $30 billion of this expense comes directly from diabetes medications; the remainder of these costs are related to lost wages, clinic visits, hospitalizations, and treatment for diabetic complications and comorbidities. After controlling for age and gender, medical expenditures for people with diabetes are 2.3 times higher than for those without diabetes.³

The 2019 ADA Nutrition Therapy for Adults With Diabetes or Prediabetes: A Consensus Report makes general recommendations concerning fiber intake for patients with diabetes or prediabetes, stating that these patients should consume approximately 14 g of fiber for every 1000 kcal consumed, giving preference to whole-food sources rather than supplements.⁴ The report indicates that some studies have shown hemoglobin A1C reductions of 0.2% to 0.3% with daily fiber intake exceeding 50 g. However, this level of intake can cause unpleasant gastrointestinal adverse effects, including bloating, diarrhea, and flatulence.^4,5

STUDY SUMMARY

Effect on A1C exceeded the FDA threshold for new drugs

This systematic review and meta-analysis searched MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials to identify randomized controlled trials that studied the effects of viscous fiber supplementation on glycemic control in patients with T2D. Eligible studies included those that: (1) had a duration ≥ 3 weeks; (2) allowed isolation of the viscous fiber effects; and (3) reported at least 1 of the following glycemic measures: hemoglobin A1C (n = 1148 patients), fasting glucose (n = 1394), fasting insulin (n = 228), homeostatic model assessment of insulin resistance (HOMA-IR; n = 652), and fructosamine (n = 23).

As an adjunct to standard of care, viscous fiber supplements significantly improved hemoglobin A1C and other glycemic markers in patients with T2D.

Data were pooled using the generic inverse variance method and expressed as mean difference (MD) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Heterogeneity was assessed and quantified (Cochran Q and I² statistics, respectively). I² ≥ 50% indicates substantial heterogeneity. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach was used to evaluate the overall strength of evidence.

Twenty-eight eligible studies were compared. The median age of included patients was 60 years. The median dose of viscous fiber was 13.1 g/d (range, 2.55-21). Viscous fiber type varied between the studies and included psyllium, guar gum, β-glucan, and konjac, and was consumed in powder, tablet, capsule, and limited food-based forms (in 1 of the included studies). The median trial duration was 8 weeks, with 11 trials lasting ≥ 12 weeks.

Continue to: The study found...

The study found moderate-grade evidence that, when added to standard of care, viscous fiber supplementation reduced hemoglobin A1C (MD = –0.58%; 95% CI, –0.88 to –0.28; P = .0002; I² = 91%), fasting glucose (MD = –14.8 mg/dL; 95% CI, –23.8 to –5.58; P = .001; I² = 92%), and HOMA-IR (MD = –1.89; 95% CI, –3.45 to –0.33; P = .02; I² = 94%) compared with control. The effect on hemoglobin A1C exceeds the ≥ 0.3% threshold established by the US Food and Drug Administration for new antihyperglycemic drug development. There was no significant effect on fasting insulin or fructosamine, although the sample size for fructosamine was small. No significant evidence of a dose-dependent response effect was found. The studies had substantial heterogeneity. No evaluation of potential or real harm was noted in the analysis.

WHAT’S NEW

Potential glycemic benefit without large dietary increase

The glucose-lowering effects of increased fiber intake have often been hypothesized, but this meta-analysis is the first to focus specifically on the effect of viscous fiber supplements in patients with T2D. Prior meta-analyses, including those cited in the 2019 ADA recommendations mentioned above, included primarily whole-food dietary sources of fiber in the treatment arms and generally had more modest effects on outcomes.^4,6,7

By focusing on viscous fiber supplements, this study isolated the effect of these supplements vs fiber-rich dietary changes. It illustrates a greater potential benefit with supplements than whole-food dietary ­sources of fiber, and at a lower dose of fiber than was seen in prior studies without requiring substantial increases in caloric intake. Viscous fiber supplementation is a potential adjunct to the usual evidence-based standards of care for glycemic control in patients with T2D.

CAVEATS

Limited study durations may raise uncertainty about long-term benefits

This meta-analysis does have its limitations. The heterogeneity among the studies analyzed makes it difficult to establish a single recommendation regarding dose, type, and brand of fiber to be used. Only 11 of the 28 studies lasted longer than 12 weeks, with a median duration of 8 weeks, making any long-term effects on hemoglobin A1C unknown. No adverse effects or reactions were described to evaluate safety and tolerability of the viscous fiber supplementation. No patient-oriented outcomes were reported.

CHALLENGES TO IMPLEMENTATION

Patients may not be eager to supplement with viscous fiber

The biggest challenge to implementation is patient compliance. Some forms of supplemental fiber are less palatable than others and may cause unpleasant gastrointestinal adverse effects, which may be an impediment for some patients. Cost may also be an issue for some patients. Diabetes medications can be expensive; however, they are often covered, at least partially, by medical insurance. Over-the-counter supplements are unlikely to be covered for most patients.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

The PURLs Surveillance System was supported in part by Grant Number UL1RR024999 from the National Center for Research Resources, a Clinical Translational Science Award to the University of Chicago. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Center for Research Resources or the National Institutes of Health.

ILLUSTRATIVE CASE

A 57-year-old man who was given a diagnosis of T2D a year ago presents for an office visit. His hemoglobin A1C level at diagnosis was 8.3%. He is otherwise healthy and has been adhering well to a plan of metformin 1000 mg twice daily, regular exercise, and a low-­carbohydrate diet you recommended. His most recent hemoglobin A1C is 7.3%. He is pleased with his progress, so he is discouraged when you tell him that he is not yet at goal. He asks if there are other things that he can do to further lower his hemoglobin A1C. What can you recommend for him?

According to the National Diabetes Statistics Report, 2020 from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, approximately 34.1 million US adults ≥ 18 years of age (13% of the adult population) have diabetes, 50% of whom have a hemoglobin A1C > 7%. The report also states that approximately 88 million US adults—more than one-third of the population—have prediabetes.²

The American Diabetes Association (ADA) estimated that diabetes-related health care costs in the United States for 2017 totaled $237 billion, an increase of 26% from 2012. More than $30 billion of this expense comes directly from diabetes medications; the remainder of these costs are related to lost wages, clinic visits, hospitalizations, and treatment for diabetic complications and comorbidities. After controlling for age and gender, medical expenditures for people with diabetes are 2.3 times higher than for those without diabetes.³

The 2019 ADA Nutrition Therapy for Adults With Diabetes or Prediabetes: A Consensus Report makes general recommendations concerning fiber intake for patients with diabetes or prediabetes, stating that these patients should consume approximately 14 g of fiber for every 1000 kcal consumed, giving preference to whole-food sources rather than supplements.⁴ The report indicates that some studies have shown hemoglobin A1C reductions of 0.2% to 0.3% with daily fiber intake exceeding 50 g. However, this level of intake can cause unpleasant gastrointestinal adverse effects, including bloating, diarrhea, and flatulence.^4,5

STUDY SUMMARY

Effect on A1C exceeded the FDA threshold for new drugs

This systematic review and meta-analysis searched MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials to identify randomized controlled trials that studied the effects of viscous fiber supplementation on glycemic control in patients with T2D. Eligible studies included those that: (1) had a duration ≥ 3 weeks; (2) allowed isolation of the viscous fiber effects; and (3) reported at least 1 of the following glycemic measures: hemoglobin A1C (n = 1148 patients), fasting glucose (n = 1394), fasting insulin (n = 228), homeostatic model assessment of insulin resistance (HOMA-IR; n = 652), and fructosamine (n = 23).

As an adjunct to standard of care, viscous fiber supplements significantly improved hemoglobin A1C and other glycemic markers in patients with T2D.

Data were pooled using the generic inverse variance method and expressed as mean difference (MD) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Heterogeneity was assessed and quantified (Cochran Q and I² statistics, respectively). I² ≥ 50% indicates substantial heterogeneity. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach was used to evaluate the overall strength of evidence.

Twenty-eight eligible studies were compared. The median age of included patients was 60 years. The median dose of viscous fiber was 13.1 g/d (range, 2.55-21). Viscous fiber type varied between the studies and included psyllium, guar gum, β-glucan, and konjac, and was consumed in powder, tablet, capsule, and limited food-based forms (in 1 of the included studies). The median trial duration was 8 weeks, with 11 trials lasting ≥ 12 weeks.

Continue to: The study found...

The study found moderate-grade evidence that, when added to standard of care, viscous fiber supplementation reduced hemoglobin A1C (MD = –0.58%; 95% CI, –0.88 to –0.28; P = .0002; I² = 91%), fasting glucose (MD = –14.8 mg/dL; 95% CI, –23.8 to –5.58; P = .001; I² = 92%), and HOMA-IR (MD = –1.89; 95% CI, –3.45 to –0.33; P = .02; I² = 94%) compared with control. The effect on hemoglobin A1C exceeds the ≥ 0.3% threshold established by the US Food and Drug Administration for new antihyperglycemic drug development. There was no significant effect on fasting insulin or fructosamine, although the sample size for fructosamine was small. No significant evidence of a dose-dependent response effect was found. The studies had substantial heterogeneity. No evaluation of potential or real harm was noted in the analysis.

WHAT’S NEW

Potential glycemic benefit without large dietary increase

The glucose-lowering effects of increased fiber intake have often been hypothesized, but this meta-analysis is the first to focus specifically on the effect of viscous fiber supplements in patients with T2D. Prior meta-analyses, including those cited in the 2019 ADA recommendations mentioned above, included primarily whole-food dietary sources of fiber in the treatment arms and generally had more modest effects on outcomes.^4,6,7

By focusing on viscous fiber supplements, this study isolated the effect of these supplements vs fiber-rich dietary changes. It illustrates a greater potential benefit with supplements than whole-food dietary ­sources of fiber, and at a lower dose of fiber than was seen in prior studies without requiring substantial increases in caloric intake. Viscous fiber supplementation is a potential adjunct to the usual evidence-based standards of care for glycemic control in patients with T2D.

CAVEATS

Limited study durations may raise uncertainty about long-term benefits

This meta-analysis does have its limitations. The heterogeneity among the studies analyzed makes it difficult to establish a single recommendation regarding dose, type, and brand of fiber to be used. Only 11 of the 28 studies lasted longer than 12 weeks, with a median duration of 8 weeks, making any long-term effects on hemoglobin A1C unknown. No adverse effects or reactions were described to evaluate safety and tolerability of the viscous fiber supplementation. No patient-oriented outcomes were reported.

CHALLENGES TO IMPLEMENTATION

Patients may not be eager to supplement with viscous fiber

The biggest challenge to implementation is patient compliance. Some forms of supplemental fiber are less palatable than others and may cause unpleasant gastrointestinal adverse effects, which may be an impediment for some patients. Cost may also be an issue for some patients. Diabetes medications can be expensive; however, they are often covered, at least partially, by medical insurance. Over-the-counter supplements are unlikely to be covered for most patients.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

The PURLs Surveillance System was supported in part by Grant Number UL1RR024999 from the National Center for Research Resources, a Clinical Translational Science Award to the University of Chicago. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Center for Research Resources or the National Institutes of Health.

ILLUSTRATIVE CASE

A 63-year-old man with a medical history significant for myocardial infarction (MI) 5 years ago presents to you for an annual exam. His medications include a daily aspirin, ­angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor, beta-blocker, and a high-intensity statin for coronary artery disease (CAD). On his fasting lipid panel, his low-density lipoprotein (LDL) level is 70 mg/dL, but his triglycerides remain elevated at 200 mg/dL despite dietary changes.

In addition to lifestyle modifications, what can be done to reduce his risk of another MI?

Patients with known cardiovascular disease (CVD) or multiple risk factors for CVD are at high risk of cardiovascular events, even when taking primary or secondary preventive medications such as statins.^2,3 In these patients, elevated triglycerides are an independent risk factor for increased rates of cardiovascular events.^4,5

The 2018 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association (ACC/AHA) guidelines for the treatment of blood cholesterol recommend statin therapy for moderate (175-499 mg/dL) to severe (≥ 500 mg/dL) hypertriglyceridemia in appropriate patients with atherosclerotic CVD risk ≥ 7.5%, after appropriately addressing secondary causes of hypertriglycidemia.⁶

Previous studies have shown no benefit from combination therapy with triglyceride-lowering medications (eg, extended-release niacin and fibrates) and statins, compared with statin monotherapy.⁷ A recent meta-analysis concluded that omega-3 fatty acid supplements offer no reduction in cardiovascular morbidity or mortality, whether taken with or without statins.⁸

Interestingly, the randomized controlled Japan EPA Lipid Intervention Study (JELIS) demonstrated fewer major coronary events in patients with elevated cholesterol, with or without CAD, who took eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA)—a subtype of omega-3 fatty acids—plus a statin, compared with statin monotherapy.⁹

The REDUCE-IT trial evaluated icosapent ethyl, a highly purified EPA that has been shown to reduce triglycerides and, at the time this study was conducted, was approved for use solely for the reduction of triglyceride levels in adults with severe hypertriglyceridemia.^10,11

Continue to: Study Summary

STUDY SUMMARY

Patients with known CVD had fewercardiovascular events on icosapent ethyl

The multicenter, randomized controlled REDUCE-IT trial evaluated the effectiveness of icosapent ethyl, 2 g orally twice daily, on cardiovascular outcomes.¹ A total of 8179 patients, ≥ 45 years of age with hypertriglyceridemia and known CVD or ≥ 50 years with diabetes and at least 1 additional risk factor and no known CVD, were enrolled at 473 participating sites in 11 countries, including the United States.

Patients had a triglyceride level of 150 to 499 mg/dL and an LDL cholesterol level of 41 to 100 mg/dL, and were taking a stable dose of a statin for at least 4 weeks. The enrollment protocol was amended to increase the lower limit of triglycerides from 150 to 200 mg/dL about one-third of the way through the study. Among the study population, 70.7% of patients were enrolled for secondary prevention (ie, had established CVD) and 29.3% of patients were enrolled for primary prevention (ie, had diabetes and at least 1 additional risk factor but no known CVD). Exclusion criteria included severe heart failure, active severe liver disease, glycated hemoglobin > 10%, a planned surgical cardiac intervention, history of pancreatitis, or allergies to fish or shellfish products.

Outcomes. The primary end point was a composite outcome of cardiovascular death, nonfatal MI, nonfatal stroke, coronary revascularization, or unstable angina.

Results. The median duration of follow-up was 4.9 years. From baseline to 1 year, the median change in triglycerides was an 18% reduction in the icosapent ethyl group but a 2% increase in the placebo group. Fewer patients in the icosapent ethyl group than the placebo group had a composite outcome event (17% vs 22%, respectively; hazard ratio [HR] = 0.75; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.68-0.83; number needed to treat [NNT] to avoid 1 primary end point event = 21). Patients with known CVD had fewer composite outcome events in the icosapent ethyl group than the placebo group (19% vs 26%; HR = 0.73; 95% CI, 0.65-0.81; NNT = 14) but not in the primary prevention group vs the placebo group (12% vs 14%; HR = 0.88; 95% CI, 0.70-1.1).

In the entire population, all individual outcomes in the composite were significantly fewer in the icosapent ethyl group (cardiovascular death: HR = 0.8; 95% CI, 0.66-0.98; fatal or nonfatal MI: HR = 0.69; 95% CI, 0.58-0.81; revascularization: HR = 0.65; 95% CI, 0.55-0.78; unstable angina: HR = 0.68; 95% CI, 0.53-0.87; and fatal or nonfatal stroke: HR = 0.72; 95% CI, 0.55-0.93). All-cause mortality did not differ between groups (HR = 0.87; 95% CI, 0.74-1.02).

No significant differences in adverse events leading to discontinuation of the drug were reported between groups. Atrial fibrillation occurred more frequently in the icosapent ethyl group (5.3% vs 3.9%), but anemia (4.7% vs 5.8%) and gastrointestinal adverse events (33% vs 35%) were less common.

Continue to: What's New

WHAT’S NEW

First RCT to demonstrate valueof pairing icosapent ethyl with a statin

Many prior studies on use of omega-3 fatty acid supplements to treat hypertriglyceridemia did not show any benefit, possibly due to a low dose or low ratio of EPA in the study drug.⁸ One trial (JELIS) with favorable results was an open-label study, limited to patients in Japan. The REDUCE-IT study was the first randomized, placebo-controlled trial to show that icosapent ethyl treatment for hypertriglyceridemia in patients with known CVD who are taking a statin results in fewer cardiovascular events than statin use alone.

In this multinational trial of patients with hypertriglyceridemia and CVD or cardiovascular risk factors, icosapent ethyl significantly reduced the risk of cardiovascular events.

Also worth noting: Since publication of the REDUCE-IT study, the FDA has approved an expanded indication for icosapent ethyl for reduction of risk of cardiovascular events in statin-treated patients with hypertriglyceridemia and established CVD or diabetes and ≥ 2 additional cardiovascular risk factors.¹¹

CAVEATS

Drug’s benefit was not linkedto triglyceride level reductions

The cardiovascular benefits of icosapent ethyl were obtained irrespective of triglyceride levels achieved. This raises the question of other potential mechanisms of action of icosapent ethyl in achieving cardiovascular benefit. However, this should not preclude the use of icosapent ethyl for secondary prevention in appropriate patients.

CHALLENGES TO IMPLEMENTATION

Medication is pricey

Icosapent ethyl is an expensive medication, currently priced at an estimated $351/month using a nationally available discount pharmacy plan, although additional manufacturer’s discounts may apply.^12,13 The cost of the medication could be a consideration for widespread implementation of this recommendation.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

The PURLs Surveillance System was supported in part by Grant Number UL1RR024999 from the National Center For Research Resources, a Clinical Translational Science Award to the University of Chicago. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Center For Research Resources or the National Institutes of Health.

Copyright © 2020. The Family Physicians Inquiries Network. All rights reserved.

ILLUSTRATIVE CASE

A 63-year-old man with a medical history significant for myocardial infarction (MI) 5 years ago presents to you for an annual exam. His medications include a daily aspirin, ­angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor, beta-blocker, and a high-intensity statin for coronary artery disease (CAD). On his fasting lipid panel, his low-density lipoprotein (LDL) level is 70 mg/dL, but his triglycerides remain elevated at 200 mg/dL despite dietary changes.

In addition to lifestyle modifications, what can be done to reduce his risk of another MI?

Patients with known cardiovascular disease (CVD) or multiple risk factors for CVD are at high risk of cardiovascular events, even when taking primary or secondary preventive medications such as statins.^2,3 In these patients, elevated triglycerides are an independent risk factor for increased rates of cardiovascular events.^4,5

The 2018 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association (ACC/AHA) guidelines for the treatment of blood cholesterol recommend statin therapy for moderate (175-499 mg/dL) to severe (≥ 500 mg/dL) hypertriglyceridemia in appropriate patients with atherosclerotic CVD risk ≥ 7.5%, after appropriately addressing secondary causes of hypertriglycidemia.⁶

Previous studies have shown no benefit from combination therapy with triglyceride-lowering medications (eg, extended-release niacin and fibrates) and statins, compared with statin monotherapy.⁷ A recent meta-analysis concluded that omega-3 fatty acid supplements offer no reduction in cardiovascular morbidity or mortality, whether taken with or without statins.⁸

Interestingly, the randomized controlled Japan EPA Lipid Intervention Study (JELIS) demonstrated fewer major coronary events in patients with elevated cholesterol, with or without CAD, who took eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA)—a subtype of omega-3 fatty acids—plus a statin, compared with statin monotherapy.⁹

The REDUCE-IT trial evaluated icosapent ethyl, a highly purified EPA that has been shown to reduce triglycerides and, at the time this study was conducted, was approved for use solely for the reduction of triglyceride levels in adults with severe hypertriglyceridemia.^10,11

Continue to: Study Summary

STUDY SUMMARY

Patients with known CVD had fewercardiovascular events on icosapent ethyl

The multicenter, randomized controlled REDUCE-IT trial evaluated the effectiveness of icosapent ethyl, 2 g orally twice daily, on cardiovascular outcomes.¹ A total of 8179 patients, ≥ 45 years of age with hypertriglyceridemia and known CVD or ≥ 50 years with diabetes and at least 1 additional risk factor and no known CVD, were enrolled at 473 participating sites in 11 countries, including the United States.

Patients had a triglyceride level of 150 to 499 mg/dL and an LDL cholesterol level of 41 to 100 mg/dL, and were taking a stable dose of a statin for at least 4 weeks. The enrollment protocol was amended to increase the lower limit of triglycerides from 150 to 200 mg/dL about one-third of the way through the study. Among the study population, 70.7% of patients were enrolled for secondary prevention (ie, had established CVD) and 29.3% of patients were enrolled for primary prevention (ie, had diabetes and at least 1 additional risk factor but no known CVD). Exclusion criteria included severe heart failure, active severe liver disease, glycated hemoglobin > 10%, a planned surgical cardiac intervention, history of pancreatitis, or allergies to fish or shellfish products.

Outcomes. The primary end point was a composite outcome of cardiovascular death, nonfatal MI, nonfatal stroke, coronary revascularization, or unstable angina.

Results. The median duration of follow-up was 4.9 years. From baseline to 1 year, the median change in triglycerides was an 18% reduction in the icosapent ethyl group but a 2% increase in the placebo group. Fewer patients in the icosapent ethyl group than the placebo group had a composite outcome event (17% vs 22%, respectively; hazard ratio [HR] = 0.75; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.68-0.83; number needed to treat [NNT] to avoid 1 primary end point event = 21). Patients with known CVD had fewer composite outcome events in the icosapent ethyl group than the placebo group (19% vs 26%; HR = 0.73; 95% CI, 0.65-0.81; NNT = 14) but not in the primary prevention group vs the placebo group (12% vs 14%; HR = 0.88; 95% CI, 0.70-1.1).

In the entire population, all individual outcomes in the composite were significantly fewer in the icosapent ethyl group (cardiovascular death: HR = 0.8; 95% CI, 0.66-0.98; fatal or nonfatal MI: HR = 0.69; 95% CI, 0.58-0.81; revascularization: HR = 0.65; 95% CI, 0.55-0.78; unstable angina: HR = 0.68; 95% CI, 0.53-0.87; and fatal or nonfatal stroke: HR = 0.72; 95% CI, 0.55-0.93). All-cause mortality did not differ between groups (HR = 0.87; 95% CI, 0.74-1.02).

No significant differences in adverse events leading to discontinuation of the drug were reported between groups. Atrial fibrillation occurred more frequently in the icosapent ethyl group (5.3% vs 3.9%), but anemia (4.7% vs 5.8%) and gastrointestinal adverse events (33% vs 35%) were less common.

Continue to: What's New

WHAT’S NEW

First RCT to demonstrate valueof pairing icosapent ethyl with a statin

Many prior studies on use of omega-3 fatty acid supplements to treat hypertriglyceridemia did not show any benefit, possibly due to a low dose or low ratio of EPA in the study drug.⁸ One trial (JELIS) with favorable results was an open-label study, limited to patients in Japan. The REDUCE-IT study was the first randomized, placebo-controlled trial to show that icosapent ethyl treatment for hypertriglyceridemia in patients with known CVD who are taking a statin results in fewer cardiovascular events than statin use alone.

In this multinational trial of patients with hypertriglyceridemia and CVD or cardiovascular risk factors, icosapent ethyl significantly reduced the risk of cardiovascular events.

Also worth noting: Since publication of the REDUCE-IT study, the FDA has approved an expanded indication for icosapent ethyl for reduction of risk of cardiovascular events in statin-treated patients with hypertriglyceridemia and established CVD or diabetes and ≥ 2 additional cardiovascular risk factors.¹¹

CAVEATS

Drug’s benefit was not linkedto triglyceride level reductions

The cardiovascular benefits of icosapent ethyl were obtained irrespective of triglyceride levels achieved. This raises the question of other potential mechanisms of action of icosapent ethyl in achieving cardiovascular benefit. However, this should not preclude the use of icosapent ethyl for secondary prevention in appropriate patients.

CHALLENGES TO IMPLEMENTATION

Medication is pricey

Icosapent ethyl is an expensive medication, currently priced at an estimated $351/month using a nationally available discount pharmacy plan, although additional manufacturer’s discounts may apply.^12,13 The cost of the medication could be a consideration for widespread implementation of this recommendation.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

The PURLs Surveillance System was supported in part by Grant Number UL1RR024999 from the National Center For Research Resources, a Clinical Translational Science Award to the University of Chicago. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Center For Research Resources or the National Institutes of Health.

Copyright © 2020. The Family Physicians Inquiries Network. All rights reserved.

ILLUSTRATIVE CASE

A 63-year-old man with a medical history significant for myocardial infarction (MI) 5 years ago presents to you for an annual exam. His medications include a daily aspirin, ­angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor, beta-blocker, and a high-intensity statin for coronary artery disease (CAD). On his fasting lipid panel, his low-density lipoprotein (LDL) level is 70 mg/dL, but his triglycerides remain elevated at 200 mg/dL despite dietary changes.

In addition to lifestyle modifications, what can be done to reduce his risk of another MI?

Patients with known cardiovascular disease (CVD) or multiple risk factors for CVD are at high risk of cardiovascular events, even when taking primary or secondary preventive medications such as statins.^2,3 In these patients, elevated triglycerides are an independent risk factor for increased rates of cardiovascular events.^4,5

The 2018 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association (ACC/AHA) guidelines for the treatment of blood cholesterol recommend statin therapy for moderate (175-499 mg/dL) to severe (≥ 500 mg/dL) hypertriglyceridemia in appropriate patients with atherosclerotic CVD risk ≥ 7.5%, after appropriately addressing secondary causes of hypertriglycidemia.⁶

Previous studies have shown no benefit from combination therapy with triglyceride-lowering medications (eg, extended-release niacin and fibrates) and statins, compared with statin monotherapy.⁷ A recent meta-analysis concluded that omega-3 fatty acid supplements offer no reduction in cardiovascular morbidity or mortality, whether taken with or without statins.⁸

Interestingly, the randomized controlled Japan EPA Lipid Intervention Study (JELIS) demonstrated fewer major coronary events in patients with elevated cholesterol, with or without CAD, who took eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA)—a subtype of omega-3 fatty acids—plus a statin, compared with statin monotherapy.⁹

The REDUCE-IT trial evaluated icosapent ethyl, a highly purified EPA that has been shown to reduce triglycerides and, at the time this study was conducted, was approved for use solely for the reduction of triglyceride levels in adults with severe hypertriglyceridemia.^10,11

Continue to: Study Summary

STUDY SUMMARY

Patients with known CVD had fewercardiovascular events on icosapent ethyl

The multicenter, randomized controlled REDUCE-IT trial evaluated the effectiveness of icosapent ethyl, 2 g orally twice daily, on cardiovascular outcomes.¹ A total of 8179 patients, ≥ 45 years of age with hypertriglyceridemia and known CVD or ≥ 50 years with diabetes and at least 1 additional risk factor and no known CVD, were enrolled at 473 participating sites in 11 countries, including the United States.

Patients had a triglyceride level of 150 to 499 mg/dL and an LDL cholesterol level of 41 to 100 mg/dL, and were taking a stable dose of a statin for at least 4 weeks. The enrollment protocol was amended to increase the lower limit of triglycerides from 150 to 200 mg/dL about one-third of the way through the study. Among the study population, 70.7% of patients were enrolled for secondary prevention (ie, had established CVD) and 29.3% of patients were enrolled for primary prevention (ie, had diabetes and at least 1 additional risk factor but no known CVD). Exclusion criteria included severe heart failure, active severe liver disease, glycated hemoglobin > 10%, a planned surgical cardiac intervention, history of pancreatitis, or allergies to fish or shellfish products.

Outcomes. The primary end point was a composite outcome of cardiovascular death, nonfatal MI, nonfatal stroke, coronary revascularization, or unstable angina.

Results. The median duration of follow-up was 4.9 years. From baseline to 1 year, the median change in triglycerides was an 18% reduction in the icosapent ethyl group but a 2% increase in the placebo group. Fewer patients in the icosapent ethyl group than the placebo group had a composite outcome event (17% vs 22%, respectively; hazard ratio [HR] = 0.75; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.68-0.83; number needed to treat [NNT] to avoid 1 primary end point event = 21). Patients with known CVD had fewer composite outcome events in the icosapent ethyl group than the placebo group (19% vs 26%; HR = 0.73; 95% CI, 0.65-0.81; NNT = 14) but not in the primary prevention group vs the placebo group (12% vs 14%; HR = 0.88; 95% CI, 0.70-1.1).

In the entire population, all individual outcomes in the composite were significantly fewer in the icosapent ethyl group (cardiovascular death: HR = 0.8; 95% CI, 0.66-0.98; fatal or nonfatal MI: HR = 0.69; 95% CI, 0.58-0.81; revascularization: HR = 0.65; 95% CI, 0.55-0.78; unstable angina: HR = 0.68; 95% CI, 0.53-0.87; and fatal or nonfatal stroke: HR = 0.72; 95% CI, 0.55-0.93). All-cause mortality did not differ between groups (HR = 0.87; 95% CI, 0.74-1.02).

No significant differences in adverse events leading to discontinuation of the drug were reported between groups. Atrial fibrillation occurred more frequently in the icosapent ethyl group (5.3% vs 3.9%), but anemia (4.7% vs 5.8%) and gastrointestinal adverse events (33% vs 35%) were less common.

Continue to: What's New

WHAT’S NEW

First RCT to demonstrate valueof pairing icosapent ethyl with a statin

Many prior studies on use of omega-3 fatty acid supplements to treat hypertriglyceridemia did not show any benefit, possibly due to a low dose or low ratio of EPA in the study drug.⁸ One trial (JELIS) with favorable results was an open-label study, limited to patients in Japan. The REDUCE-IT study was the first randomized, placebo-controlled trial to show that icosapent ethyl treatment for hypertriglyceridemia in patients with known CVD who are taking a statin results in fewer cardiovascular events than statin use alone.

In this multinational trial of patients with hypertriglyceridemia and CVD or cardiovascular risk factors, icosapent ethyl significantly reduced the risk of cardiovascular events.

Also worth noting: Since publication of the REDUCE-IT study, the FDA has approved an expanded indication for icosapent ethyl for reduction of risk of cardiovascular events in statin-treated patients with hypertriglyceridemia and established CVD or diabetes and ≥ 2 additional cardiovascular risk factors.¹¹

CAVEATS

Drug’s benefit was not linkedto triglyceride level reductions

The cardiovascular benefits of icosapent ethyl were obtained irrespective of triglyceride levels achieved. This raises the question of other potential mechanisms of action of icosapent ethyl in achieving cardiovascular benefit. However, this should not preclude the use of icosapent ethyl for secondary prevention in appropriate patients.

CHALLENGES TO IMPLEMENTATION

Medication is pricey

Icosapent ethyl is an expensive medication, currently priced at an estimated $351/month using a nationally available discount pharmacy plan, although additional manufacturer’s discounts may apply.^12,13 The cost of the medication could be a consideration for widespread implementation of this recommendation.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

The PURLs Surveillance System was supported in part by Grant Number UL1RR024999 from the National Center For Research Resources, a Clinical Translational Science Award to the University of Chicago. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Center For Research Resources or the National Institutes of Health.

Copyright © 2020. The Family Physicians Inquiries Network. All rights reserved.

ILLUSTRATIVE CASE

A 55-year-old man with well-controlled diabetes, hypertension, and sleep apnea arrives at your office for a routine annual physical. In reviewing his medications, you note that he takes a low-dose aspirin daily for “heart health.” He has no known cardiovascular disease (CVD). His calculated 10-year risk of a major cardiovascular event is 11%.

Should this patient continue taking a daily aspirin for primary prevention of CVD?

Many patients in the United States take aspirin for primary prevention of CVD as recommended by the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF).² This recommendation was based on older studies of populations in which smoking rates were higher and statin use was less common, leading to an overall higher risk of CVD.³ (The USPSTF is currently in the process of updating its recommendation.) More recent RCTs have been done in patients with a lower baseline risk of CVD, and these outcomes are more generalizable to today’s population. This new meta-analysis includes recent RCTs that evaluated whether there is value in using aspirin for the primary prevention of CVD.

STUDY SUMMARY

No reduction in risk, increased chance of bleeding

Mahmoud and colleagues conducted a meta-analysis of 11 randomized controlled trials that included 157,248 patients and assessed the efficacy and safety of aspirin for primary prevention of cardiovascular events.¹ The mean age of the total population was 61.3 years; 52% were women and 14% were smokers. The doses of aspirin used in most of the studies were ≤ 100 mg/d, although 2 of the studies examined doses that were higher. Patients were followed for a mean of 6.6 years. The primary efficacy outcome was all-cause mortality, and the primary safety outcome was major bleeding (as defined by each study). The secondary outcomes included cardiovascular mortality, fatal and nonfatal myocardial infarction (MI), and fatal and ­nonfatal ischemic stroke.

Aspirin did not lower all-cause mortality (risk ratio [RR] = 0.98; 95% confidence ­interval [CI], 0.93-1.02) and was associated with an increased risk of major bleeding (RR = 1.47; 95% CI, 1.31-1.65; number needed to harm = 250) and intracranial hemorrhage (RR = 1.33; 95% CI, 1.13-1.58). Aspirin also had no effect on all-cause mortality in subgroup analyses of patients with diabetes mellitus or high cardiovascular risk (10-year risk > 7.5%). There was (again) an increased risk of major bleeding.

Review of current guidelines and studies regarding the use of aspirin for primary prevention of CVD shows that the tide has been turning against this practice.

Aspirin had no effect on the secondary outcomes—with the exception of the incidence of MI (RR = 0.82; 95% CI, 0.71-0.94; number needed to treat = 333). However, this outcome was associated with considerable heterogeneity (I² = 67%), and the reduction was no longer evident after limiting the analysis to the more recent trials.

WHAT’S NEW?

Study is emblematic of a shift away from daily aspirin

Review of current guidelines and studies regarding the use of aspirin for primary prevention of CVD shows that the tide has been turning against this practice, but the change has been gradual. Newer studies—large RCTs such as ARRIVE (Aspirin to Reduce Risk of Initial Vascular Events) and ASCEND (A Study of Cardiovascular Events iN Diabetes)—found no mortality benefit (all-cause or cardiovascular) from using aspirin in this context.

Continue to: The USPSTF guidelines...

The USPSTF guidelines in 2016 recommended prescribing daily aspirin for adults ages 50 to 59 who have a > 10% 10-year CVD risk and discussing with adults ages 60 to 69 the risks and benefits of daily aspirin.²

The 2019 American College of ­Cardiology/American Heart Association guidelines state that aspirin should no longer be used routinely for primary prevention, given the lack of net benefit. Patients ages 40 to 70 who are not at increased risk of bleeding with a higher risk of CVD may be considered for daily low-dose aspirin. The guidelines also state that adults > 70 years or those with increased risk of ­bleeding should not be started on a daily aspirin.⁴

CAVEATS

Jury is still out regarding very high-risk patients

While the meta-analysis by Mahmoud and colleagues makes a good case for discontinuing aspirin for primary prevention in most patients, the data do not examine in detail whether there is a benefit in patients with very high risk (> 20%) for atherosclerotic CVD. More studies are needed before making recommendations for that specific subgroup.

CHALLENGES TO IMPLEMENTATION

Patients may not be eager to give up an accepted practice

Physicians have been recommending aspirin for primary prevention of CVD for decades and many patients, who purchase aspirin themselves, are vested in the notion that aspirin protects them. It will take time for this change in practice to be accepted. Some patients may continue taking aspirin despite recommendation to stop. Primary care physicians will need to educate patients and clearly explain the rationale for stopping daily aspirin.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

The PURLs Surveillance System was supported in part by Grant Number UL1RR024999 from the National Center for Research Resources, a Clinical Translational Science Award to the University of Chicago. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Center for Research Resources or the National Institutes of Health.

ILLUSTRATIVE CASE

A 55-year-old man with well-controlled diabetes, hypertension, and sleep apnea arrives at your office for a routine annual physical. In reviewing his medications, you note that he takes a low-dose aspirin daily for “heart health.” He has no known cardiovascular disease (CVD). His calculated 10-year risk of a major cardiovascular event is 11%.

Should this patient continue taking a daily aspirin for primary prevention of CVD?

Many patients in the United States take aspirin for primary prevention of CVD as recommended by the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF).² This recommendation was based on older studies of populations in which smoking rates were higher and statin use was less common, leading to an overall higher risk of CVD.³ (The USPSTF is currently in the process of updating its recommendation.) More recent RCTs have been done in patients with a lower baseline risk of CVD, and these outcomes are more generalizable to today’s population. This new meta-analysis includes recent RCTs that evaluated whether there is value in using aspirin for the primary prevention of CVD.

STUDY SUMMARY

No reduction in risk, increased chance of bleeding

Mahmoud and colleagues conducted a meta-analysis of 11 randomized controlled trials that included 157,248 patients and assessed the efficacy and safety of aspirin for primary prevention of cardiovascular events.¹ The mean age of the total population was 61.3 years; 52% were women and 14% were smokers. The doses of aspirin used in most of the studies were ≤ 100 mg/d, although 2 of the studies examined doses that were higher. Patients were followed for a mean of 6.6 years. The primary efficacy outcome was all-cause mortality, and the primary safety outcome was major bleeding (as defined by each study). The secondary outcomes included cardiovascular mortality, fatal and nonfatal myocardial infarction (MI), and fatal and ­nonfatal ischemic stroke.

Aspirin did not lower all-cause mortality (risk ratio [RR] = 0.98; 95% confidence ­interval [CI], 0.93-1.02) and was associated with an increased risk of major bleeding (RR = 1.47; 95% CI, 1.31-1.65; number needed to harm = 250) and intracranial hemorrhage (RR = 1.33; 95% CI, 1.13-1.58). Aspirin also had no effect on all-cause mortality in subgroup analyses of patients with diabetes mellitus or high cardiovascular risk (10-year risk > 7.5%). There was (again) an increased risk of major bleeding.

Review of current guidelines and studies regarding the use of aspirin for primary prevention of CVD shows that the tide has been turning against this practice.

Aspirin had no effect on the secondary outcomes—with the exception of the incidence of MI (RR = 0.82; 95% CI, 0.71-0.94; number needed to treat = 333). However, this outcome was associated with considerable heterogeneity (I² = 67%), and the reduction was no longer evident after limiting the analysis to the more recent trials.

WHAT’S NEW?

Study is emblematic of a shift away from daily aspirin

Review of current guidelines and studies regarding the use of aspirin for primary prevention of CVD shows that the tide has been turning against this practice, but the change has been gradual. Newer studies—large RCTs such as ARRIVE (Aspirin to Reduce Risk of Initial Vascular Events) and ASCEND (A Study of Cardiovascular Events iN Diabetes)—found no mortality benefit (all-cause or cardiovascular) from using aspirin in this context.

Continue to: The USPSTF guidelines...

The USPSTF guidelines in 2016 recommended prescribing daily aspirin for adults ages 50 to 59 who have a > 10% 10-year CVD risk and discussing with adults ages 60 to 69 the risks and benefits of daily aspirin.²

The 2019 American College of ­Cardiology/American Heart Association guidelines state that aspirin should no longer be used routinely for primary prevention, given the lack of net benefit. Patients ages 40 to 70 who are not at increased risk of bleeding with a higher risk of CVD may be considered for daily low-dose aspirin. The guidelines also state that adults > 70 years or those with increased risk of ­bleeding should not be started on a daily aspirin.⁴

CAVEATS

Jury is still out regarding very high-risk patients

While the meta-analysis by Mahmoud and colleagues makes a good case for discontinuing aspirin for primary prevention in most patients, the data do not examine in detail whether there is a benefit in patients with very high risk (> 20%) for atherosclerotic CVD. More studies are needed before making recommendations for that specific subgroup.

CHALLENGES TO IMPLEMENTATION

Patients may not be eager to give up an accepted practice

Physicians have been recommending aspirin for primary prevention of CVD for decades and many patients, who purchase aspirin themselves, are vested in the notion that aspirin protects them. It will take time for this change in practice to be accepted. Some patients may continue taking aspirin despite recommendation to stop. Primary care physicians will need to educate patients and clearly explain the rationale for stopping daily aspirin.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

The PURLs Surveillance System was supported in part by Grant Number UL1RR024999 from the National Center for Research Resources, a Clinical Translational Science Award to the University of Chicago. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Center for Research Resources or the National Institutes of Health.

ILLUSTRATIVE CASE

A 55-year-old man with well-controlled diabetes, hypertension, and sleep apnea arrives at your office for a routine annual physical. In reviewing his medications, you note that he takes a low-dose aspirin daily for “heart health.” He has no known cardiovascular disease (CVD). His calculated 10-year risk of a major cardiovascular event is 11%.

Should this patient continue taking a daily aspirin for primary prevention of CVD?

Many patients in the United States take aspirin for primary prevention of CVD as recommended by the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF).² This recommendation was based on older studies of populations in which smoking rates were higher and statin use was less common, leading to an overall higher risk of CVD.³ (The USPSTF is currently in the process of updating its recommendation.) More recent RCTs have been done in patients with a lower baseline risk of CVD, and these outcomes are more generalizable to today’s population. This new meta-analysis includes recent RCTs that evaluated whether there is value in using aspirin for the primary prevention of CVD.

STUDY SUMMARY

No reduction in risk, increased chance of bleeding

Mahmoud and colleagues conducted a meta-analysis of 11 randomized controlled trials that included 157,248 patients and assessed the efficacy and safety of aspirin for primary prevention of cardiovascular events.¹ The mean age of the total population was 61.3 years; 52% were women and 14% were smokers. The doses of aspirin used in most of the studies were ≤ 100 mg/d, although 2 of the studies examined doses that were higher. Patients were followed for a mean of 6.6 years. The primary efficacy outcome was all-cause mortality, and the primary safety outcome was major bleeding (as defined by each study). The secondary outcomes included cardiovascular mortality, fatal and nonfatal myocardial infarction (MI), and fatal and ­nonfatal ischemic stroke.

Aspirin did not lower all-cause mortality (risk ratio [RR] = 0.98; 95% confidence ­interval [CI], 0.93-1.02) and was associated with an increased risk of major bleeding (RR = 1.47; 95% CI, 1.31-1.65; number needed to harm = 250) and intracranial hemorrhage (RR = 1.33; 95% CI, 1.13-1.58). Aspirin also had no effect on all-cause mortality in subgroup analyses of patients with diabetes mellitus or high cardiovascular risk (10-year risk > 7.5%). There was (again) an increased risk of major bleeding.

Review of current guidelines and studies regarding the use of aspirin for primary prevention of CVD shows that the tide has been turning against this practice.

Aspirin had no effect on the secondary outcomes—with the exception of the incidence of MI (RR = 0.82; 95% CI, 0.71-0.94; number needed to treat = 333). However, this outcome was associated with considerable heterogeneity (I² = 67%), and the reduction was no longer evident after limiting the analysis to the more recent trials.

WHAT’S NEW?

Study is emblematic of a shift away from daily aspirin

Review of current guidelines and studies regarding the use of aspirin for primary prevention of CVD shows that the tide has been turning against this practice, but the change has been gradual. Newer studies—large RCTs such as ARRIVE (Aspirin to Reduce Risk of Initial Vascular Events) and ASCEND (A Study of Cardiovascular Events iN Diabetes)—found no mortality benefit (all-cause or cardiovascular) from using aspirin in this context.

Continue to: The USPSTF guidelines...

The USPSTF guidelines in 2016 recommended prescribing daily aspirin for adults ages 50 to 59 who have a > 10% 10-year CVD risk and discussing with adults ages 60 to 69 the risks and benefits of daily aspirin.²

The 2019 American College of ­Cardiology/American Heart Association guidelines state that aspirin should no longer be used routinely for primary prevention, given the lack of net benefit. Patients ages 40 to 70 who are not at increased risk of bleeding with a higher risk of CVD may be considered for daily low-dose aspirin. The guidelines also state that adults > 70 years or those with increased risk of ­bleeding should not be started on a daily aspirin.⁴

CAVEATS

Jury is still out regarding very high-risk patients

While the meta-analysis by Mahmoud and colleagues makes a good case for discontinuing aspirin for primary prevention in most patients, the data do not examine in detail whether there is a benefit in patients with very high risk (> 20%) for atherosclerotic CVD. More studies are needed before making recommendations for that specific subgroup.

CHALLENGES TO IMPLEMENTATION

Patients may not be eager to give up an accepted practice

Physicians have been recommending aspirin for primary prevention of CVD for decades and many patients, who purchase aspirin themselves, are vested in the notion that aspirin protects them. It will take time for this change in practice to be accepted. Some patients may continue taking aspirin despite recommendation to stop. Primary care physicians will need to educate patients and clearly explain the rationale for stopping daily aspirin.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

The PURLs Surveillance System was supported in part by Grant Number UL1RR024999 from the National Center for Research Resources, a Clinical Translational Science Award to the University of Chicago. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Center for Research Resources or the National Institutes of Health.

ILLUSTRATIVE CASE

A 28-year-old G2P1001 at 28 weeks’ gestation presents to your clinic with 1 day of dyspnea and palpitations. Her pregnancy has been otherwise uncomplicated. She reports worsening dyspnea with mild exertion but denies other symptoms, including leg swelling.

The current incidence of venous thromboembolism (VTE) in pregnant women is estimated to be a relatively low 5 to 12 events per 10,000 pregnancies, yet the condition is the leading cause of maternal mortality in developed countries.^2,3,4 Currently, there are conflicting recommendations among relevant organization guidelines regarding the use of D-dimer testing to aid in the diagnosis of pulmonary embolism (PE) during pregnancy. Both the Working Group in Women’s Health of the Society of Thrombosis and Haemostasis (GTH) and the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) recommend using D-dimer testing to rule out PE in pregnant women (ESC Class IIa, level of evidence B based on small studies, retrospective studies, and observational studies; GTH provides no grade).^5,6

Conversely, the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists (RCOG), the Society of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists of Canada (SOGC), and the American Thoracic Society (ATS)/Society of Thoracic Radiology recommend against the use of D-dimer testing in pregnant women because pregnant women were excluded from D-dimer validation studies (RCOG and SOGC Grade D; ATS weak recommendation).^4,7,8 The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists does not have specific recommendations regarding the use of D-dimer testing during pregnancy, but has endorsed the ATS guidelines.^4,9 In addition, SOGC recommends against the use of clinical prediction scores (Grade D), and RCOG states that there is no evidence to support their use (Grade C).^7,8 The remaining societies do not make a recommendation for or against the use of clinical prediction scores because of the absence of high-quality evidence regarding their use in the pregnant patient population.^4,5,6

STUDY SUMMARY

Prospective validation of a strategy to diagnose PE in pregnant women

This multicenter, multinational, prospective diagnostic study involving 395 pregnant women evaluated the accuracy of PE diagnosis across 11 centers in France and Switzerland from August 2008 through July 2016.¹ Patients with clinically suspected PE were evaluated in emergency departments. Patients were tested according to a diagnostic algorithm that included pretest clinical probability using the revised Geneva Score for Pulmonary Embolism (www.mdcalc.com/geneva-score-revised-pulmonary-­embolism), a clinical prediction tool that uses patient history, presenting symptoms, and clinical signs to classify patients as being at low (0-3/25), intermediate (4-10/25), or high (≥ 11/25) risk;¹⁰ high-sensitivity D-dimer testing; bilateral lower limb compression ultrasonography (CUS); computed tomography pulmonary angiography (CTPA); and a ventilation-perfusion (V/Q) scan.

PE was excluded in patients who had a low or intermediate pretest clinical probability score and a negative D-dimer test result (< 500 mcg/L). Patients with a high pretest probability score or positive D-dimer test result underwent CUS, and, if negative, subsequent CTPA. A V/Q scan was performed if the CTPA was inconclusive. If the work-up was negative, PE was excluded.

Untreated pregnant women had clinical follow-up at 3 months. Any cases of suspected VTE were evaluated by a 3-member independent adjudication committee blinded to the initial diagnostic work-up. The primary outcome was the rate of adjudicated VTE events during the 3-month follow-up period. PE was diagnosed in 28 patients (7.1%) and excluded in 367 (clinical probability score and negative D-dimer test result [n = 46], negative CTPA result [n = 290], normal or low-probability V/Q scan [n = 17], and other reason [n = 14]). Twenty-two women received anticoagulation during the follow-up period for other reasons (mainly history of previous VTE disease). No symptomatic VTE events occurred in any of the women after the diagnostic work-up was negative, including among those patients who were ruled out with only the clinical prediction tool and a negative D-dimer test result (rate 0.0%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.0%-1%).

WHAT’S NEW

Clinical probability and D-dimer rule out PE in pregnant women

This study ruled out PE in patients with low/intermediate risk as determined by the revised Geneva score and a D-dimer test, enabling patients to avoid further diagnostic testing. This low-cost strategy can be applied easily to the pregnant population.

CAVEATS

Additional research is still needed

From the results of this study, 11.6% of patients (n = 46) had a PE ruled out utilizing the revised Geneva score in conjunction with a D-dimer test result, with avoidance of chest imaging. However, this study was powered for the entire treatment algorithm and was not specifically powered for patients with low- or intermediate-risk pretest probability scores. Since this is the first published prospective diagnostic study of VTE in pregnancy, further research is needed to confirm the findings that a clinical prediction tool and a negative D-dimer test result can safely rule out PE in pregnant women.

This strategy ruled out PE in patients with low/ intermediate risk as determined by the revised Geneva score and a D-dimer test, enabling patients to avoid further diagnostic testing.

In addition, further research is needed to determine pregnancy-adapted D-dimer cut-off values, as the researchers of this study noted that < 500 mcg/L was useful in the first and second trimester, but that levels increased as gestational age increased.

CHALLENGES TO IMPLEMENTATION

None to speak of

Implementing a diagnostic algorithm that incorporates sequential assessment of pretest clinical probability based on the revised Geneva score and a D-dimer measurement should be relatively easy to implement, as both methods are readily available and relatively inexpensive.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

The PURLs Surveillance System was supported in part by Grant Number UL1RR024999 from the National Center For Research Resources, a Clinical Translational Science Award to the University of Chicago. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Center For Research Resources or the National Institutes of Health.

ILLUSTRATIVE CASE

A 28-year-old G2P1001 at 28 weeks’ gestation presents to your clinic with 1 day of dyspnea and palpitations. Her pregnancy has been otherwise uncomplicated. She reports worsening dyspnea with mild exertion but denies other symptoms, including leg swelling.

The current incidence of venous thromboembolism (VTE) in pregnant women is estimated to be a relatively low 5 to 12 events per 10,000 pregnancies, yet the condition is the leading cause of maternal mortality in developed countries.^2,3,4 Currently, there are conflicting recommendations among relevant organization guidelines regarding the use of D-dimer testing to aid in the diagnosis of pulmonary embolism (PE) during pregnancy. Both the Working Group in Women’s Health of the Society of Thrombosis and Haemostasis (GTH) and the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) recommend using D-dimer testing to rule out PE in pregnant women (ESC Class IIa, level of evidence B based on small studies, retrospective studies, and observational studies; GTH provides no grade).^5,6

Conversely, the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists (RCOG), the Society of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists of Canada (SOGC), and the American Thoracic Society (ATS)/Society of Thoracic Radiology recommend against the use of D-dimer testing in pregnant women because pregnant women were excluded from D-dimer validation studies (RCOG and SOGC Grade D; ATS weak recommendation).^4,7,8 The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists does not have specific recommendations regarding the use of D-dimer testing during pregnancy, but has endorsed the ATS guidelines.^4,9 In addition, SOGC recommends against the use of clinical prediction scores (Grade D), and RCOG states that there is no evidence to support their use (Grade C).^7,8 The remaining societies do not make a recommendation for or against the use of clinical prediction scores because of the absence of high-quality evidence regarding their use in the pregnant patient population.^4,5,6

STUDY SUMMARY

Prospective validation of a strategy to diagnose PE in pregnant women

This multicenter, multinational, prospective diagnostic study involving 395 pregnant women evaluated the accuracy of PE diagnosis across 11 centers in France and Switzerland from August 2008 through July 2016.¹ Patients with clinically suspected PE were evaluated in emergency departments. Patients were tested according to a diagnostic algorithm that included pretest clinical probability using the revised Geneva Score for Pulmonary Embolism (www.mdcalc.com/geneva-score-revised-pulmonary-­embolism), a clinical prediction tool that uses patient history, presenting symptoms, and clinical signs to classify patients as being at low (0-3/25), intermediate (4-10/25), or high (≥ 11/25) risk;¹⁰ high-sensitivity D-dimer testing; bilateral lower limb compression ultrasonography (CUS); computed tomography pulmonary angiography (CTPA); and a ventilation-perfusion (V/Q) scan.

PE was excluded in patients who had a low or intermediate pretest clinical probability score and a negative D-dimer test result (< 500 mcg/L). Patients with a high pretest probability score or positive D-dimer test result underwent CUS, and, if negative, subsequent CTPA. A V/Q scan was performed if the CTPA was inconclusive. If the work-up was negative, PE was excluded.

Untreated pregnant women had clinical follow-up at 3 months. Any cases of suspected VTE were evaluated by a 3-member independent adjudication committee blinded to the initial diagnostic work-up. The primary outcome was the rate of adjudicated VTE events during the 3-month follow-up period. PE was diagnosed in 28 patients (7.1%) and excluded in 367 (clinical probability score and negative D-dimer test result [n = 46], negative CTPA result [n = 290], normal or low-probability V/Q scan [n = 17], and other reason [n = 14]). Twenty-two women received anticoagulation during the follow-up period for other reasons (mainly history of previous VTE disease). No symptomatic VTE events occurred in any of the women after the diagnostic work-up was negative, including among those patients who were ruled out with only the clinical prediction tool and a negative D-dimer test result (rate 0.0%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.0%-1%).

WHAT’S NEW

Clinical probability and D-dimer rule out PE in pregnant women

This study ruled out PE in patients with low/intermediate risk as determined by the revised Geneva score and a D-dimer test, enabling patients to avoid further diagnostic testing. This low-cost strategy can be applied easily to the pregnant population.

CAVEATS

Additional research is still needed

From the results of this study, 11.6% of patients (n = 46) had a PE ruled out utilizing the revised Geneva score in conjunction with a D-dimer test result, with avoidance of chest imaging. However, this study was powered for the entire treatment algorithm and was not specifically powered for patients with low- or intermediate-risk pretest probability scores. Since this is the first published prospective diagnostic study of VTE in pregnancy, further research is needed to confirm the findings that a clinical prediction tool and a negative D-dimer test result can safely rule out PE in pregnant women.

This strategy ruled out PE in patients with low/ intermediate risk as determined by the revised Geneva score and a D-dimer test, enabling patients to avoid further diagnostic testing.

In addition, further research is needed to determine pregnancy-adapted D-dimer cut-off values, as the researchers of this study noted that < 500 mcg/L was useful in the first and second trimester, but that levels increased as gestational age increased.

CHALLENGES TO IMPLEMENTATION

None to speak of

Implementing a diagnostic algorithm that incorporates sequential assessment of pretest clinical probability based on the revised Geneva score and a D-dimer measurement should be relatively easy to implement, as both methods are readily available and relatively inexpensive.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

The PURLs Surveillance System was supported in part by Grant Number UL1RR024999 from the National Center For Research Resources, a Clinical Translational Science Award to the University of Chicago. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Center For Research Resources or the National Institutes of Health.

ILLUSTRATIVE CASE

A 28-year-old G2P1001 at 28 weeks’ gestation presents to your clinic with 1 day of dyspnea and palpitations. Her pregnancy has been otherwise uncomplicated. She reports worsening dyspnea with mild exertion but denies other symptoms, including leg swelling.

The current incidence of venous thromboembolism (VTE) in pregnant women is estimated to be a relatively low 5 to 12 events per 10,000 pregnancies, yet the condition is the leading cause of maternal mortality in developed countries.^2,3,4 Currently, there are conflicting recommendations among relevant organization guidelines regarding the use of D-dimer testing to aid in the diagnosis of pulmonary embolism (PE) during pregnancy. Both the Working Group in Women’s Health of the Society of Thrombosis and Haemostasis (GTH) and the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) recommend using D-dimer testing to rule out PE in pregnant women (ESC Class IIa, level of evidence B based on small studies, retrospective studies, and observational studies; GTH provides no grade).^5,6

Conversely, the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists (RCOG), the Society of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists of Canada (SOGC), and the American Thoracic Society (ATS)/Society of Thoracic Radiology recommend against the use of D-dimer testing in pregnant women because pregnant women were excluded from D-dimer validation studies (RCOG and SOGC Grade D; ATS weak recommendation).^4,7,8 The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists does not have specific recommendations regarding the use of D-dimer testing during pregnancy, but has endorsed the ATS guidelines.^4,9 In addition, SOGC recommends against the use of clinical prediction scores (Grade D), and RCOG states that there is no evidence to support their use (Grade C).^7,8 The remaining societies do not make a recommendation for or against the use of clinical prediction scores because of the absence of high-quality evidence regarding their use in the pregnant patient population.^4,5,6

STUDY SUMMARY

Prospective validation of a strategy to diagnose PE in pregnant women

This multicenter, multinational, prospective diagnostic study involving 395 pregnant women evaluated the accuracy of PE diagnosis across 11 centers in France and Switzerland from August 2008 through July 2016.¹ Patients with clinically suspected PE were evaluated in emergency departments. Patients were tested according to a diagnostic algorithm that included pretest clinical probability using the revised Geneva Score for Pulmonary Embolism (www.mdcalc.com/geneva-score-revised-pulmonary-­embolism), a clinical prediction tool that uses patient history, presenting symptoms, and clinical signs to classify patients as being at low (0-3/25), intermediate (4-10/25), or high (≥ 11/25) risk;¹⁰ high-sensitivity D-dimer testing; bilateral lower limb compression ultrasonography (CUS); computed tomography pulmonary angiography (CTPA); and a ventilation-perfusion (V/Q) scan.

PE was excluded in patients who had a low or intermediate pretest clinical probability score and a negative D-dimer test result (< 500 mcg/L). Patients with a high pretest probability score or positive D-dimer test result underwent CUS, and, if negative, subsequent CTPA. A V/Q scan was performed if the CTPA was inconclusive. If the work-up was negative, PE was excluded.

Untreated pregnant women had clinical follow-up at 3 months. Any cases of suspected VTE were evaluated by a 3-member independent adjudication committee blinded to the initial diagnostic work-up. The primary outcome was the rate of adjudicated VTE events during the 3-month follow-up period. PE was diagnosed in 28 patients (7.1%) and excluded in 367 (clinical probability score and negative D-dimer test result [n = 46], negative CTPA result [n = 290], normal or low-probability V/Q scan [n = 17], and other reason [n = 14]). Twenty-two women received anticoagulation during the follow-up period for other reasons (mainly history of previous VTE disease). No symptomatic VTE events occurred in any of the women after the diagnostic work-up was negative, including among those patients who were ruled out with only the clinical prediction tool and a negative D-dimer test result (rate 0.0%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.0%-1%).

WHAT’S NEW

Clinical probability and D-dimer rule out PE in pregnant women

This study ruled out PE in patients with low/intermediate risk as determined by the revised Geneva score and a D-dimer test, enabling patients to avoid further diagnostic testing. This low-cost strategy can be applied easily to the pregnant population.

CAVEATS

Additional research is still needed

From the results of this study, 11.6% of patients (n = 46) had a PE ruled out utilizing the revised Geneva score in conjunction with a D-dimer test result, with avoidance of chest imaging. However, this study was powered for the entire treatment algorithm and was not specifically powered for patients with low- or intermediate-risk pretest probability scores. Since this is the first published prospective diagnostic study of VTE in pregnancy, further research is needed to confirm the findings that a clinical prediction tool and a negative D-dimer test result can safely rule out PE in pregnant women.

This strategy ruled out PE in patients with low/ intermediate risk as determined by the revised Geneva score and a D-dimer test, enabling patients to avoid further diagnostic testing.

In addition, further research is needed to determine pregnancy-adapted D-dimer cut-off values, as the researchers of this study noted that < 500 mcg/L was useful in the first and second trimester, but that levels increased as gestational age increased.

CHALLENGES TO IMPLEMENTATION

None to speak of

Implementing a diagnostic algorithm that incorporates sequential assessment of pretest clinical probability based on the revised Geneva score and a D-dimer measurement should be relatively easy to implement, as both methods are readily available and relatively inexpensive.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

The PURLs Surveillance System was supported in part by Grant Number UL1RR024999 from the National Center For Research Resources, a Clinical Translational Science Award to the University of Chicago. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Center For Research Resources or the National Institutes of Health.

ILLUSTRATIVE CASE

A 54-year-old White woman presents to your office with new-onset hypertension. As you are discussing options for treatment, she mentions she would prefer once-daily dosing to help her remember to take her medication. She also wants to know what the best time of day is to take her medication to reduce her risk of cardiovascular disease (CVD). What do you advise?

The burden of hypertension is significant and growing in the United States. The 2017 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association (ACC/AHA) guidelines reported that more than 108 million people were affected in 2015-2016—up from 87 million in 1999-2000.² Yet control of hypertension is improving among those receiving antihypertension pharmacotherapy. As reported in the ACC/AHA guidelines, data from the 2016 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) indicate an increase of controlled hypertension among those receiving treatment from 25.6% (1999-2000) to 43.5% (2015-2016).²

Chronotherapy involves the administration of medication in coordination with the body’s circadian rhythms to maximize therapeutic effectiveness and/or minimize adverse effects. It is not a new concept as it applies to hypertension. Circadian rhythm–­dependent mechanisms influence the natural rise and fall of blood pressure (BP).¹ The ­renin-­angiotensin-aldosterone system, known to be most active at night, is a target mechanism for BP control.¹ Angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors and angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARBs) are more effective (alone or in combination with other agents) at reducing BP during sleep and wakefulness when they are taken at night.^3,4 Additional prospective clinical trials and systematic reviews have documented improved BP during sleep and on 24-hour ambulatory monitoring when antihypertensives are taken at bedtime.^3-5

However, there have been few long-term studies assessing the effects of bedtime administration of antihypertensive medication on CVD risk reduction with patient-oriented outcomes.^6,7 Additionally, no studies have evaluated morning vs bedtime administration of antihypertensive medication for CVD risk reduction in a primary care setting. The 2019 ACC/AHA guideline on the primary prevention of CVD offers no recommendation regarding when to take antihypertensive medication.⁸ Timing of medication administration also is not addressed in the NHANES study of hypertension awareness, treatment, and control in US adults.⁹

This study sought to determine in a primary care setting whether taking antihypertensives at bedtime, as opposed to upon waking, more effectively reduces CVD risk.

STUDY SUMMARY

PM vs AM antihypertensive dosing reduces CV events

This prospective, randomized, open-label, blinded endpoint trial of antihypertensive medication administration timing was part of a large, multicenter Spanish study investigating ambulatory BP monitoring (ABPM) as a routine diagnostic tool.

A simple change in administration time has the potential to significantly improve the lives of our patients by reducing the risk for cardiovascular events and their medication burden.

Study participants were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to 2 treatment arms; participants either took all of their BP medications in the morning upon waking (n = 9532) or right before bedtime (n = 9552). The study was conducted in a primary care clinical setting. It included adult participants (age ≥ 18 years) with hypertension (defined as having at least 1 of the following benchmarks: awake systolic BP [SBP] mean ≥ 135 mm Hg, awake diastolic BP (DBP) mean ≥ 85 mm Hg, asleep SBP mean ≥ 120 mm Hg, asleep DBP mean ≥ 70 mm Hg as corroborated by 48-hour ABPM) who were taking at least 1 antihypertensive medication.

Continue to: Any antihypertension medication...

Any antihypertension medication included in the Spanish national formulary was allowed (exact agents were not delineated, but the following classes were included: ARB, ACE inhibitor, calcium channel blocker [CCB], beta-blocker, and/or diuretic). All BP medications had to be dosed once daily for inclusion. Exclusion criteria included pregnancy, night or rotating-shift work, alcohol or other substance dependence, acquired immunodeficiency syndrome, preexisting CVD (unstable angina, heart failure, arrhythmia, kidney failure, and retinopathy), inability to tolerate ABPM, and inability to comply with required 1-year follow-up.

Upon enrollment and at every subsequent clinic visit (scheduled at least annually), participants underwent 48-hour ABPM. Those with uncontrolled BP or elevated CVD risk had scheduled follow-up and ABPM more frequently. The primary outcome was a composite of CVD events including new-onset myocardial infarction, coronary revascularization, heart failure, ischemic stroke, hemorrhagic stroke, and CVD death. Secondary endpoints were individually analyzed primary outcomes of CVD events. The typical patient at baseline was 60.5 years of age with a body mass index of 29.7, an almost 9-year duration of hypertension, and a baseline office BP of 149/86 mm Hg. The patient break-out by antihypertensive class (awakening vs bedtime groups) was as follows: ARB (53% vs 53%), ACE inhibitor (25% vs 23%), CCB (33% vs 37%), beta-blocker (22% vs 18%), and diuretic (47% vs 40%).

See “It’s time to change when BP meds are taken” for more on the controversy that surrounded the initial release of this study.

During the median 6.3-year patient follow-up period, 1752 participants experienced a total of 2454 CVD events. Patients in the bedtime administration group, compared with those in the morning group, showed significantly lower risk for a CVD event (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.55; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.50-0.61; P < .001). Also, there was a lower risk for individual CVD events in the bedtime administration group: CVD death (HR = 0.44; 95% CI, 0.34-0.56), myocardial infarction (HR = 0.66; 95% CI, 0.52-0.84), coronary revascularization (HR = 0.60; 95% CI, 0.47-0.75), heart failure (HR = 0.58; 95% CI, 0.49-0.70), and stroke (HR = 0.51; 95% CI, 0.41-0.63). This difference remained after correction for multiple potential confounders. There were no differences in adverse events, such as sleep-time hypotension, between groups.

WHAT’S NEW

First RCT in primary care to show dosing time change reduces CV risk

This is the first randomized controlled trial (RCT) performed in a primary care setting to compare before-bedtime to upon-waking administration of antihypertensive medications using clinically significant endpoints. The study demonstrates that a simple change in administration time has the potential to significantly improve the lives of our patients by reducing the risk for cardiovascular events and their medication burden.

CAVEATS

Homogenous population and exclusions limit generalizability

Because the study population consisted of white Spanish men and women, the results may not be generalizable beyond that ethnic group. In addition, the study exclusions limit interpretation in night/rotating-shift employees, patients with secondary hypertension, and those with CVD, chronic kidney disease, or severe retinopathy looking to reduce their risk.

Continue to: CHALLENGES TO IMPLEMENTATION

Nighttime urination could lead to nonadherence

Taking diuretics at bedtime may result in unwanted nighttime awakenings for visits to the bathroom, which could lead to nonadherence in some patients.

ACKNOWLEDGMENT

The PURLs Surveillance System was supported in part by Grant Number UL1RR024999 from the National Center For Research Resources, a Clinical Translational Science Award to the University of Chicago. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Center For Research Resources or the National Institutes of Health.

ILLUSTRATIVE CASE

A 54-year-old White woman presents to your office with new-onset hypertension. As you are discussing options for treatment, she mentions she would prefer once-daily dosing to help her remember to take her medication. She also wants to know what the best time of day is to take her medication to reduce her risk of cardiovascular disease (CVD). What do you advise?

The burden of hypertension is significant and growing in the United States. The 2017 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association (ACC/AHA) guidelines reported that more than 108 million people were affected in 2015-2016—up from 87 million in 1999-2000.² Yet control of hypertension is improving among those receiving antihypertension pharmacotherapy. As reported in the ACC/AHA guidelines, data from the 2016 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) indicate an increase of controlled hypertension among those receiving treatment from 25.6% (1999-2000) to 43.5% (2015-2016).²

Chronotherapy involves the administration of medication in coordination with the body’s circadian rhythms to maximize therapeutic effectiveness and/or minimize adverse effects. It is not a new concept as it applies to hypertension. Circadian rhythm–­dependent mechanisms influence the natural rise and fall of blood pressure (BP).¹ The ­renin-­angiotensin-aldosterone system, known to be most active at night, is a target mechanism for BP control.¹ Angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors and angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARBs) are more effective (alone or in combination with other agents) at reducing BP during sleep and wakefulness when they are taken at night.^3,4 Additional prospective clinical trials and systematic reviews have documented improved BP during sleep and on 24-hour ambulatory monitoring when antihypertensives are taken at bedtime.^3-5

However, there have been few long-term studies assessing the effects of bedtime administration of antihypertensive medication on CVD risk reduction with patient-oriented outcomes.^6,7 Additionally, no studies have evaluated morning vs bedtime administration of antihypertensive medication for CVD risk reduction in a primary care setting. The 2019 ACC/AHA guideline on the primary prevention of CVD offers no recommendation regarding when to take antihypertensive medication.⁸ Timing of medication administration also is not addressed in the NHANES study of hypertension awareness, treatment, and control in US adults.⁹

This study sought to determine in a primary care setting whether taking antihypertensives at bedtime, as opposed to upon waking, more effectively reduces CVD risk.

STUDY SUMMARY

PM vs AM antihypertensive dosing reduces CV events

This prospective, randomized, open-label, blinded endpoint trial of antihypertensive medication administration timing was part of a large, multicenter Spanish study investigating ambulatory BP monitoring (ABPM) as a routine diagnostic tool.

A simple change in administration time has the potential to significantly improve the lives of our patients by reducing the risk for cardiovascular events and their medication burden.

Study participants were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to 2 treatment arms; participants either took all of their BP medications in the morning upon waking (n = 9532) or right before bedtime (n = 9552). The study was conducted in a primary care clinical setting. It included adult participants (age ≥ 18 years) with hypertension (defined as having at least 1 of the following benchmarks: awake systolic BP [SBP] mean ≥ 135 mm Hg, awake diastolic BP (DBP) mean ≥ 85 mm Hg, asleep SBP mean ≥ 120 mm Hg, asleep DBP mean ≥ 70 mm Hg as corroborated by 48-hour ABPM) who were taking at least 1 antihypertensive medication.

Continue to: Any antihypertension medication...

Any antihypertension medication included in the Spanish national formulary was allowed (exact agents were not delineated, but the following classes were included: ARB, ACE inhibitor, calcium channel blocker [CCB], beta-blocker, and/or diuretic). All BP medications had to be dosed once daily for inclusion. Exclusion criteria included pregnancy, night or rotating-shift work, alcohol or other substance dependence, acquired immunodeficiency syndrome, preexisting CVD (unstable angina, heart failure, arrhythmia, kidney failure, and retinopathy), inability to tolerate ABPM, and inability to comply with required 1-year follow-up.

Upon enrollment and at every subsequent clinic visit (scheduled at least annually), participants underwent 48-hour ABPM. Those with uncontrolled BP or elevated CVD risk had scheduled follow-up and ABPM more frequently. The primary outcome was a composite of CVD events including new-onset myocardial infarction, coronary revascularization, heart failure, ischemic stroke, hemorrhagic stroke, and CVD death. Secondary endpoints were individually analyzed primary outcomes of CVD events. The typical patient at baseline was 60.5 years of age with a body mass index of 29.7, an almost 9-year duration of hypertension, and a baseline office BP of 149/86 mm Hg. The patient break-out by antihypertensive class (awakening vs bedtime groups) was as follows: ARB (53% vs 53%), ACE inhibitor (25% vs 23%), CCB (33% vs 37%), beta-blocker (22% vs 18%), and diuretic (47% vs 40%).

See “It’s time to change when BP meds are taken” for more on the controversy that surrounded the initial release of this study.

During the median 6.3-year patient follow-up period, 1752 participants experienced a total of 2454 CVD events. Patients in the bedtime administration group, compared with those in the morning group, showed significantly lower risk for a CVD event (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.55; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.50-0.61; P < .001). Also, there was a lower risk for individual CVD events in the bedtime administration group: CVD death (HR = 0.44; 95% CI, 0.34-0.56), myocardial infarction (HR = 0.66; 95% CI, 0.52-0.84), coronary revascularization (HR = 0.60; 95% CI, 0.47-0.75), heart failure (HR = 0.58; 95% CI, 0.49-0.70), and stroke (HR = 0.51; 95% CI, 0.41-0.63). This difference remained after correction for multiple potential confounders. There were no differences in adverse events, such as sleep-time hypotension, between groups.

WHAT’S NEW

First RCT in primary care to show dosing time change reduces CV risk

This is the first randomized controlled trial (RCT) performed in a primary care setting to compare before-bedtime to upon-waking administration of antihypertensive medications using clinically significant endpoints. The study demonstrates that a simple change in administration time has the potential to significantly improve the lives of our patients by reducing the risk for cardiovascular events and their medication burden.

CAVEATS

Homogenous population and exclusions limit generalizability

Because the study population consisted of white Spanish men and women, the results may not be generalizable beyond that ethnic group. In addition, the study exclusions limit interpretation in night/rotating-shift employees, patients with secondary hypertension, and those with CVD, chronic kidney disease, or severe retinopathy looking to reduce their risk.

Continue to: CHALLENGES TO IMPLEMENTATION

Nighttime urination could lead to nonadherence

Taking diuretics at bedtime may result in unwanted nighttime awakenings for visits to the bathroom, which could lead to nonadherence in some patients.

ACKNOWLEDGMENT

The PURLs Surveillance System was supported in part by Grant Number UL1RR024999 from the National Center For Research Resources, a Clinical Translational Science Award to the University of Chicago. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Center For Research Resources or the National Institutes of Health.

ILLUSTRATIVE CASE

A 54-year-old White woman presents to your office with new-onset hypertension. As you are discussing options for treatment, she mentions she would prefer once-daily dosing to help her remember to take her medication. She also wants to know what the best time of day is to take her medication to reduce her risk of cardiovascular disease (CVD). What do you advise?

The burden of hypertension is significant and growing in the United States. The 2017 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association (ACC/AHA) guidelines reported that more than 108 million people were affected in 2015-2016—up from 87 million in 1999-2000.² Yet control of hypertension is improving among those receiving antihypertension pharmacotherapy. As reported in the ACC/AHA guidelines, data from the 2016 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) indicate an increase of controlled hypertension among those receiving treatment from 25.6% (1999-2000) to 43.5% (2015-2016).²

Chronotherapy involves the administration of medication in coordination with the body’s circadian rhythms to maximize therapeutic effectiveness and/or minimize adverse effects. It is not a new concept as it applies to hypertension. Circadian rhythm–­dependent mechanisms influence the natural rise and fall of blood pressure (BP).¹ The ­renin-­angiotensin-aldosterone system, known to be most active at night, is a target mechanism for BP control.¹ Angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors and angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARBs) are more effective (alone or in combination with other agents) at reducing BP during sleep and wakefulness when they are taken at night.^3,4 Additional prospective clinical trials and systematic reviews have documented improved BP during sleep and on 24-hour ambulatory monitoring when antihypertensives are taken at bedtime.^3-5

However, there have been few long-term studies assessing the effects of bedtime administration of antihypertensive medication on CVD risk reduction with patient-oriented outcomes.^6,7 Additionally, no studies have evaluated morning vs bedtime administration of antihypertensive medication for CVD risk reduction in a primary care setting. The 2019 ACC/AHA guideline on the primary prevention of CVD offers no recommendation regarding when to take antihypertensive medication.⁸ Timing of medication administration also is not addressed in the NHANES study of hypertension awareness, treatment, and control in US adults.⁹

This study sought to determine in a primary care setting whether taking antihypertensives at bedtime, as opposed to upon waking, more effectively reduces CVD risk.

STUDY SUMMARY

PM vs AM antihypertensive dosing reduces CV events

This prospective, randomized, open-label, blinded endpoint trial of antihypertensive medication administration timing was part of a large, multicenter Spanish study investigating ambulatory BP monitoring (ABPM) as a routine diagnostic tool.

A simple change in administration time has the potential to significantly improve the lives of our patients by reducing the risk for cardiovascular events and their medication burden.

Study participants were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to 2 treatment arms; participants either took all of their BP medications in the morning upon waking (n = 9532) or right before bedtime (n = 9552). The study was conducted in a primary care clinical setting. It included adult participants (age ≥ 18 years) with hypertension (defined as having at least 1 of the following benchmarks: awake systolic BP [SBP] mean ≥ 135 mm Hg, awake diastolic BP (DBP) mean ≥ 85 mm Hg, asleep SBP mean ≥ 120 mm Hg, asleep DBP mean ≥ 70 mm Hg as corroborated by 48-hour ABPM) who were taking at least 1 antihypertensive medication.

Continue to: Any antihypertension medication...

Any antihypertension medication included in the Spanish national formulary was allowed (exact agents were not delineated, but the following classes were included: ARB, ACE inhibitor, calcium channel blocker [CCB], beta-blocker, and/or diuretic). All BP medications had to be dosed once daily for inclusion. Exclusion criteria included pregnancy, night or rotating-shift work, alcohol or other substance dependence, acquired immunodeficiency syndrome, preexisting CVD (unstable angina, heart failure, arrhythmia, kidney failure, and retinopathy), inability to tolerate ABPM, and inability to comply with required 1-year follow-up.

Upon enrollment and at every subsequent clinic visit (scheduled at least annually), participants underwent 48-hour ABPM. Those with uncontrolled BP or elevated CVD risk had scheduled follow-up and ABPM more frequently. The primary outcome was a composite of CVD events including new-onset myocardial infarction, coronary revascularization, heart failure, ischemic stroke, hemorrhagic stroke, and CVD death. Secondary endpoints were individually analyzed primary outcomes of CVD events. The typical patient at baseline was 60.5 years of age with a body mass index of 29.7, an almost 9-year duration of hypertension, and a baseline office BP of 149/86 mm Hg. The patient break-out by antihypertensive class (awakening vs bedtime groups) was as follows: ARB (53% vs 53%), ACE inhibitor (25% vs 23%), CCB (33% vs 37%), beta-blocker (22% vs 18%), and diuretic (47% vs 40%).

See “It’s time to change when BP meds are taken” for more on the controversy that surrounded the initial release of this study.

During the median 6.3-year patient follow-up period, 1752 participants experienced a total of 2454 CVD events. Patients in the bedtime administration group, compared with those in the morning group, showed significantly lower risk for a CVD event (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.55; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.50-0.61; P < .001). Also, there was a lower risk for individual CVD events in the bedtime administration group: CVD death (HR = 0.44; 95% CI, 0.34-0.56), myocardial infarction (HR = 0.66; 95% CI, 0.52-0.84), coronary revascularization (HR = 0.60; 95% CI, 0.47-0.75), heart failure (HR = 0.58; 95% CI, 0.49-0.70), and stroke (HR = 0.51; 95% CI, 0.41-0.63). This difference remained after correction for multiple potential confounders. There were no differences in adverse events, such as sleep-time hypotension, between groups.

WHAT’S NEW

First RCT in primary care to show dosing time change reduces CV risk

This is the first randomized controlled trial (RCT) performed in a primary care setting to compare before-bedtime to upon-waking administration of antihypertensive medications using clinically significant endpoints. The study demonstrates that a simple change in administration time has the potential to significantly improve the lives of our patients by reducing the risk for cardiovascular events and their medication burden.

CAVEATS

Homogenous population and exclusions limit generalizability

Because the study population consisted of white Spanish men and women, the results may not be generalizable beyond that ethnic group. In addition, the study exclusions limit interpretation in night/rotating-shift employees, patients with secondary hypertension, and those with CVD, chronic kidney disease, or severe retinopathy looking to reduce their risk.

Continue to: CHALLENGES TO IMPLEMENTATION

Nighttime urination could lead to nonadherence

Taking diuretics at bedtime may result in unwanted nighttime awakenings for visits to the bathroom, which could lead to nonadherence in some patients.

ACKNOWLEDGMENT

The PURLs Surveillance System was supported in part by Grant Number UL1RR024999 from the National Center For Research Resources, a Clinical Translational Science Award to the University of Chicago. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Center For Research Resources or the National Institutes of Health.