Heart Failure

Agents that form the sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitor class – including canagliflozin (Invokana), dapagliflozin (Farxiga), and empagliflozin (Jardiance) – have show remarkably consistent cardiovascular efficacy and safety for treating patients with heart failure, chronic kidney disease, and higher-risk patients with type 2 diabetes.

But despite an essential role now established for drugs in the SGLT2 inhibitor class for patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction, progressive renal dysfunction, or – most recently – patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction, the scope may be less clear when using these agents in patients with type 2 diabetes because they fall across a broad spectrum of risk for cardiorenal disease.

“What makes patients with type 2 diabetes distinct from other patients in whom SGLT2 inhibitors have been studied, such as patients with heart failure, is that they have a much wider spectrum of risk. Low-risk patients with type 2 diabetes were not included in the SGLT2 inhibitor trials. Defining risk in patients with type 2 diabetes has the potential to inform prioritization” for treatment with an SGLT2 inhibitor, explained David D. Berg, MD, who has led one effort to develop risk scores that can risk-stratify patients with type 2 diabetes based on their vulnerability to incident heart failure and hospitalization for these episodes,

The hefty cost for these drugs, with retail prices that run over $6,000 annually for the most widely used and most potent agents in the class, has spurred researchers to try to find cost-effective ways to identify patients with type 2 diabetes who stand to benefit most from taking an SGLT2 inhibitor.
 

‘Cost must be considered’

“Cost must be considered, and at this point it’s probably more responsible on a societal level to advise using SGLT2 inhibitors mainly in patients [with type 2 diabetes] with compelling indications,” said Silvio Inzucchi, MD, professor and director of the Yale Medicine Diabetes Center in New Haven, Conn. Dr. Inzucchi added, however, that “I can easily foresee a day when these agents are considered foundational therapy for all patients with type 2 diabetes, after they go generic and cost is not a major issue. I’m starting to lean toward this very simplified approach, but the costs are prohibitive at this time.”

“If the SGLT2 inhibitors were available at a low cost, I’d argue that they should be used in all patients with type 2 diabetes who have no contraindications or tolerability issues; but we live in a world where they are not yet low cost,” agreed Mikhail N. Kosiborod, MD, a cardiologist and codirector of the Cardiometabolic Center of Excellence at Saint Luke’s Mid-America Heart Institute in Kansas City, Mo.

“We can’t give SGLT2 inhibitors to everyone with type 2 diabetes right now because that would be too costly; these agents are so expensive. You start by targeting the patients with the highest risk” for incident heart failure, said Ambarish Pandey, MD, a cardiologist at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas.

The spotlight the SGLT2 inhibitor class has received, based on its unexpectedly potent efficacy in cutting rates of acute heart failure episodes in patients with type 2 diabetes, has also sharply raised the profile of this complication of type 2 diabetes, an outcome that until recently many clinicians had largely ignored, overshadowed by a focus on adverse outcomes from atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease such as MIs and strokes.

“Results from the SGLT2 inhibitor trials have reignited interest in the relationship between type 2 diabetes and heart failure and have started to shift the mindset of clinicians toward thinking about reducing both atherothrombotic risk and heart failure risk in patients with type 2 diabetes,” said Dr. Berg, a cardiologist at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston.

“Prior to the SGLT2 inhibitor trials, heart failure was on the radar of diabetes clinicians only as something to watch for as a potential side effect of certain glucose-lowering therapies. Now that there are therapies that can lower heart failure hospitalization, it’s made us think more about heart failure, how common it is in patients with type 2 diabetes, and what can we do to lower this risk,” commented Alice Y.Y. Cheng, MD, a diabetes specialist at the University of Toronto.
 

Banking on biomarkers

Risk scores for assessing the likelihood of people developing incident heart failure date back more than a decade. More recent efforts have focused on patients with type 2 diabetes, starting with scores that relied entirely on clinical markers of risk such as prior heart failure, established coronary artery disease, and chronic kidney disease. Reports of two of these validated scores appeared in 2019, one from a team led by Dr. Berg and associates in 2019, and a second score developed by Dr. Pandey and associates.

More recently, both research teams behind these two scores validated newer versions that further refined assessment of patients with diabetes by including biomarkers of incipient heart failure, such as N-terminal of the prohormone brain natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP). The UT Southwestern group’s biomarker-based score relies on levels of NT-proBNP as well as on levels of high sensitivity troponin T (hsTnT) and C-reactive protein, plus ECG-based assessment of left ventricular hypertrophy to assess risk for incident heart failure. Developers reported in 2021 that this biomarker score could account for 74% (C-statistic) of the 5-year risk for heart failure among patients with diabetes.

The biomarker-based score devised by Dr. Berg and associates, relies on NT-proBNP, hsTnT, and a history of heart failure to predict the risk for a future hospitalization for heart failure. They reported in Diabetes Care that in validation testing this score accounted for 84% of the risk.

“I’m hopeful that both our original clinically-based risk score and our new biomarker-based score will be endorsed by professional society guidelines. The intent of the biomarker-based score is not to replace the clinical one,” Dr. Berg stressed in an interview. But he acknowledged that it uses biomarker values that currently are not routinely collected in U.S. practice. Biomarkers like NT-proBNP “are highly associated with future heart failure risk, but are not yet routinely assessed,” he said. Because of this, “widespread adoption of the [biomarker] risk tool will require some education.”

It may also require some sort of preliminary screening to determine the appropriateness of using it in a specific patient because of the relative expense of a test for NT-proBNP.

A Texas two-step process

“We can’t perform a [NT-proBNP] test on every patient with type 2 diabetes because cost is a huge barrier,” with a U.K. price of roughly £28 (about $40) per test, commented Naveed Sattar, MD, PhD, professor of metabolic medicine at the University of Glasgow. “NT-proBNP is the best biomarker by far to predict risk” for heart failure,” but “it’s too expensive. It’s not going to happen in everyone,” he said in an interview. He suggested taking a two-step approach to identify patients to test for NT-proBNP based on clinical measures like blood pressure, weight and height, lipid levels and renal function and the presence of suggestive symptoms like dyspnea, fatigue, and peripheral edema, an argument he recently spelled out in detail in an editorial he coauthored.

“More work is needed to define which patients would usefully have cardiac biomarkers measured,” Dr. Sattar wrote with his associate.

Two-step is the approach used in routine practice by clinicians at UT Southwestern Medical Center. “We screen all patients with type 2 diabetes and no diagnosed heart failure who are not already on an SGLT2 inhibitor” using their 2019 screening tool, called the WATCH-DM Risk score, said Dr. Pandey. Patients flagged at high risk by their clinical score receive an SGLT2 inhibitor (presuming no contraindications). The remaining patients with low or intermediate risk may then undergo biomarker-based assessment to find additional patients who warrant SGLT2 inhibitor treatment, he said in an interview.

Often, a record of the most important biomarker, NT-proBNP, is already in the patient’s record and less than a year old, in which case clinicians use that value. An NT-proBNP level of at least 125 pg/mL indicates increased risk in people with a body mass index of less than 30 kg/m², while for those with higher body mass indexes clinicians at Southwestern apply a threshold for higher risk of at least 100 pg/mL.

In addition to starting those patients on an SGLT2 inhibitor, the Southwestern protocol calls for intensified efforts at weight loss and improved fitness to further lower incident heart failure risk, and they are also considering targeting treatment with a glucagonlike peptide–1 receptor agonist to these patients as well. They have a research protocol in place, called WATCH-DM, that will prospectively assess the efficacy of this strategy.

Despite the cost, others also believe that the time is right for biomarker-based tests to boost access to the benefits that treatment with SGLT2 inhibitors can give patients with type 2 diabetes.

“In theory it’s reasonable” to use a risk score like the recent one reported by Dr. Berg and coauthors, said Vanita R. Aroda, MD, an endocrinologist and director of diabetes clinical research at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston. “We need to pay attention to heart failure as an outcome and use risk stratification” to decide which patients with type 2 diabetes but without established cardiovascular disease warrant treatment with an SGLT2 inhibitor, she said in an interview. “Given the data, we need more concrete recommendations” from medical societies on how to reasonably use biomarkers and imaging to identify patients with type 2 diabetes who are at increased risk for heart failure and hence would benefit from treatment. “This should be of high interest to guidelines committees,” she added.

The earlier version of Dr. Berg’s score, based exclusively on clinical observations and conventional measures like estimated glomerular filtration rate and urinary creatinine to albumin ratio, had overlap with established criteria for starting treatment with an SGLT2 inhibitor, such as the presence of chronic kidney disease, she noted. “A biomarker-based score may provide the additional level of discrimination needed to characterize risk and potential benefit.”
 

Asymptomatic diabetic cardiomyopathy

Dr. Aroda and several coauthors recently published a review that describes a subset of patients with type 2 diabetes who might get picked up by intensified screening for heart failure risk: those with asymptomatic diabetic cardiomyopathy, a clinical state that they said represents patients with stage B heart failure based on the new Universal Definition and Classification of Heart Failure. Until recently, these patients with type 2 diabetes and asymptomatic cardiomyopathy have mostly gone unrecognized.

A recent report from Dr. Pandey and associates reviewed records from 2,900 U.S. patients with diabetes and no symptoms who had been included in any of three cohort studies and found echocardiographic evidence of early-stage cardiomyopathy in as many as two-thirds. In an editorial about this report, Dr. Aroda and coauthors called these patients a potential “window of opportunity for prevention and treatment of heart failure.”

“There is evidence of structural cardiac changes that progress through the stages of heart failure,” and starting treatment with an SGLT2 inhibitor during an earlier stage can potentially slow or prevent this progression and thereby limit future functional decline, Dr. Aroda said.

Dr. Sattar agreed. Type 2 diabetes appears to help cause “fluid derangements” and abnormal hemodynamics that produces cardiac stress, changes in heart structure, and adverse remodeling of the heart, a process that “some call cardiomyopathy,” which is exacerbated by other pathologic forces that are also often present in these patients such as obesity and hypertension. SGLT2 inhibitors can help these patients by producing “reverse remodeling of the heart.”

“This process was neglected because for many years our focus was on ischemic heart disease in patients with type 2 diabetes. It was there in plain sight, but we were missing it,” explained Dr. Sattar. Having agents from the SGLT2 inhibitor class “has allowed us to better understand this mechanism.”

The SGLT2 inhibitors are “absolutely the driving reason” why the diabetes–heart failure link has become so important, said Dr. Inzucchi. Having drugs that reduce heart failure risk provided clinicians with a tool that has “changed our mindset.”

“Heart failure prevention has been largely neglected in patients with type 2 diabetes. Reprioritizing heart failure prevention to first and foremost among patients with type 2 diabetes is long overdue,” commented Gregg C. Fonarow, MD, professor and chief of cardiology at the University of California, Los Angeles.
 

Clinicians don’t like risk scores

Will systematic screening for heart failure risk in selected patients with type 2 diabetes take hold, and with it expanded and better-targeted use of SGLT2 inhibitors?

“I hope so,” said Dr. Kosiborod, but one challenge is that “for the most part clinicians don’t like using risk scores.” Only a few have ever been widely incorporated into practice; mostly they become tools for research. Plus, SGLT2 inhibitor uptake has in general been slow to catch on, which Dr. Kosiborod blames primarily on clinical inertia, a pervasive issue that has also hampered optimal use of drugs as commonplace as statins, ACE inhibitors, and angiotensin-receptor blockers.

“Given the avalanche of positive data, uptake of SGLT2 inhibitors will continue to improve and accelerate; but unfortunately, unless something dramatic happens we’ll likely see their continued underuse for several more years,” he predicted. “Designing better systems of care that prioritize prevention are absolutely needed to improve implementation of effective therapies, including SGLT2 inhibitors.”

Despite their underuse the SGLT2 inhibitor class has, in just 6 years since results from the EMPA-REG OUTCOME trial came out and launched the current treatment era, transformed thinking about the risk that heart failure poses to patients with type 2 diabetes and the need to manage this risk.

“I thank the SGLT2 inhibitors for raising awareness of heart failure risk in patients with diabetes,” and for giving clinicians a new way to mitigate this risk, said Dr. Cheng.

Dr. Berg has been a consultant to AstraZeneca, and received research grant support to his institution from AstraZeneca and Pfizer. Dr. Cheng has received personal fees from multiple pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Kosiborod has been an adviser and consultant to multiple pharmaceutical companies; has received research grants from AstraZeneca and Boehringer Ingelheim; and has received other research support from AstraZeneca. Dr. Pandey has been an adviser to Roche Diagnostics; has received nonfinancial support from Pfizer and Merck; and has received research support from Gilead Sciences, Myovista, and Applied Therapeutics. Dr. Sattar has received consulting honoraria from multiple pharmaceutical companies, and has received grant support from Boehringer Ingelheim, Roche Diagnostics, and Novartis. Dr. Aroda has been a consultant for several pharmaceutical companies; has a spouse employed with Janssen; and has received research support (institutional contracts) from multiple pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Fonarow has been a consultant to several pharmaceutical companies.

mzoler@mdedge.com

Agents that form the sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitor class – including canagliflozin (Invokana), dapagliflozin (Farxiga), and empagliflozin (Jardiance) – have show remarkably consistent cardiovascular efficacy and safety for treating patients with heart failure, chronic kidney disease, and higher-risk patients with type 2 diabetes.

But despite an essential role now established for drugs in the SGLT2 inhibitor class for patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction, progressive renal dysfunction, or – most recently – patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction, the scope may be less clear when using these agents in patients with type 2 diabetes because they fall across a broad spectrum of risk for cardiorenal disease.

“What makes patients with type 2 diabetes distinct from other patients in whom SGLT2 inhibitors have been studied, such as patients with heart failure, is that they have a much wider spectrum of risk. Low-risk patients with type 2 diabetes were not included in the SGLT2 inhibitor trials. Defining risk in patients with type 2 diabetes has the potential to inform prioritization” for treatment with an SGLT2 inhibitor, explained David D. Berg, MD, who has led one effort to develop risk scores that can risk-stratify patients with type 2 diabetes based on their vulnerability to incident heart failure and hospitalization for these episodes,

The hefty cost for these drugs, with retail prices that run over $6,000 annually for the most widely used and most potent agents in the class, has spurred researchers to try to find cost-effective ways to identify patients with type 2 diabetes who stand to benefit most from taking an SGLT2 inhibitor.
 

‘Cost must be considered’

“Cost must be considered, and at this point it’s probably more responsible on a societal level to advise using SGLT2 inhibitors mainly in patients [with type 2 diabetes] with compelling indications,” said Silvio Inzucchi, MD, professor and director of the Yale Medicine Diabetes Center in New Haven, Conn. Dr. Inzucchi added, however, that “I can easily foresee a day when these agents are considered foundational therapy for all patients with type 2 diabetes, after they go generic and cost is not a major issue. I’m starting to lean toward this very simplified approach, but the costs are prohibitive at this time.”

“If the SGLT2 inhibitors were available at a low cost, I’d argue that they should be used in all patients with type 2 diabetes who have no contraindications or tolerability issues; but we live in a world where they are not yet low cost,” agreed Mikhail N. Kosiborod, MD, a cardiologist and codirector of the Cardiometabolic Center of Excellence at Saint Luke’s Mid-America Heart Institute in Kansas City, Mo.

“We can’t give SGLT2 inhibitors to everyone with type 2 diabetes right now because that would be too costly; these agents are so expensive. You start by targeting the patients with the highest risk” for incident heart failure, said Ambarish Pandey, MD, a cardiologist at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas.

The spotlight the SGLT2 inhibitor class has received, based on its unexpectedly potent efficacy in cutting rates of acute heart failure episodes in patients with type 2 diabetes, has also sharply raised the profile of this complication of type 2 diabetes, an outcome that until recently many clinicians had largely ignored, overshadowed by a focus on adverse outcomes from atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease such as MIs and strokes.

“Results from the SGLT2 inhibitor trials have reignited interest in the relationship between type 2 diabetes and heart failure and have started to shift the mindset of clinicians toward thinking about reducing both atherothrombotic risk and heart failure risk in patients with type 2 diabetes,” said Dr. Berg, a cardiologist at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston.

“Prior to the SGLT2 inhibitor trials, heart failure was on the radar of diabetes clinicians only as something to watch for as a potential side effect of certain glucose-lowering therapies. Now that there are therapies that can lower heart failure hospitalization, it’s made us think more about heart failure, how common it is in patients with type 2 diabetes, and what can we do to lower this risk,” commented Alice Y.Y. Cheng, MD, a diabetes specialist at the University of Toronto.
 

Banking on biomarkers

Risk scores for assessing the likelihood of people developing incident heart failure date back more than a decade. More recent efforts have focused on patients with type 2 diabetes, starting with scores that relied entirely on clinical markers of risk such as prior heart failure, established coronary artery disease, and chronic kidney disease. Reports of two of these validated scores appeared in 2019, one from a team led by Dr. Berg and associates in 2019, and a second score developed by Dr. Pandey and associates.

More recently, both research teams behind these two scores validated newer versions that further refined assessment of patients with diabetes by including biomarkers of incipient heart failure, such as N-terminal of the prohormone brain natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP). The UT Southwestern group’s biomarker-based score relies on levels of NT-proBNP as well as on levels of high sensitivity troponin T (hsTnT) and C-reactive protein, plus ECG-based assessment of left ventricular hypertrophy to assess risk for incident heart failure. Developers reported in 2021 that this biomarker score could account for 74% (C-statistic) of the 5-year risk for heart failure among patients with diabetes.

The biomarker-based score devised by Dr. Berg and associates, relies on NT-proBNP, hsTnT, and a history of heart failure to predict the risk for a future hospitalization for heart failure. They reported in Diabetes Care that in validation testing this score accounted for 84% of the risk.

“I’m hopeful that both our original clinically-based risk score and our new biomarker-based score will be endorsed by professional society guidelines. The intent of the biomarker-based score is not to replace the clinical one,” Dr. Berg stressed in an interview. But he acknowledged that it uses biomarker values that currently are not routinely collected in U.S. practice. Biomarkers like NT-proBNP “are highly associated with future heart failure risk, but are not yet routinely assessed,” he said. Because of this, “widespread adoption of the [biomarker] risk tool will require some education.”

It may also require some sort of preliminary screening to determine the appropriateness of using it in a specific patient because of the relative expense of a test for NT-proBNP.

A Texas two-step process

“We can’t perform a [NT-proBNP] test on every patient with type 2 diabetes because cost is a huge barrier,” with a U.K. price of roughly £28 (about $40) per test, commented Naveed Sattar, MD, PhD, professor of metabolic medicine at the University of Glasgow. “NT-proBNP is the best biomarker by far to predict risk” for heart failure,” but “it’s too expensive. It’s not going to happen in everyone,” he said in an interview. He suggested taking a two-step approach to identify patients to test for NT-proBNP based on clinical measures like blood pressure, weight and height, lipid levels and renal function and the presence of suggestive symptoms like dyspnea, fatigue, and peripheral edema, an argument he recently spelled out in detail in an editorial he coauthored.

“More work is needed to define which patients would usefully have cardiac biomarkers measured,” Dr. Sattar wrote with his associate.

Two-step is the approach used in routine practice by clinicians at UT Southwestern Medical Center. “We screen all patients with type 2 diabetes and no diagnosed heart failure who are not already on an SGLT2 inhibitor” using their 2019 screening tool, called the WATCH-DM Risk score, said Dr. Pandey. Patients flagged at high risk by their clinical score receive an SGLT2 inhibitor (presuming no contraindications). The remaining patients with low or intermediate risk may then undergo biomarker-based assessment to find additional patients who warrant SGLT2 inhibitor treatment, he said in an interview.

Often, a record of the most important biomarker, NT-proBNP, is already in the patient’s record and less than a year old, in which case clinicians use that value. An NT-proBNP level of at least 125 pg/mL indicates increased risk in people with a body mass index of less than 30 kg/m², while for those with higher body mass indexes clinicians at Southwestern apply a threshold for higher risk of at least 100 pg/mL.

In addition to starting those patients on an SGLT2 inhibitor, the Southwestern protocol calls for intensified efforts at weight loss and improved fitness to further lower incident heart failure risk, and they are also considering targeting treatment with a glucagonlike peptide–1 receptor agonist to these patients as well. They have a research protocol in place, called WATCH-DM, that will prospectively assess the efficacy of this strategy.

Despite the cost, others also believe that the time is right for biomarker-based tests to boost access to the benefits that treatment with SGLT2 inhibitors can give patients with type 2 diabetes.

“In theory it’s reasonable” to use a risk score like the recent one reported by Dr. Berg and coauthors, said Vanita R. Aroda, MD, an endocrinologist and director of diabetes clinical research at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston. “We need to pay attention to heart failure as an outcome and use risk stratification” to decide which patients with type 2 diabetes but without established cardiovascular disease warrant treatment with an SGLT2 inhibitor, she said in an interview. “Given the data, we need more concrete recommendations” from medical societies on how to reasonably use biomarkers and imaging to identify patients with type 2 diabetes who are at increased risk for heart failure and hence would benefit from treatment. “This should be of high interest to guidelines committees,” she added.

The earlier version of Dr. Berg’s score, based exclusively on clinical observations and conventional measures like estimated glomerular filtration rate and urinary creatinine to albumin ratio, had overlap with established criteria for starting treatment with an SGLT2 inhibitor, such as the presence of chronic kidney disease, she noted. “A biomarker-based score may provide the additional level of discrimination needed to characterize risk and potential benefit.”
 

Asymptomatic diabetic cardiomyopathy

Dr. Aroda and several coauthors recently published a review that describes a subset of patients with type 2 diabetes who might get picked up by intensified screening for heart failure risk: those with asymptomatic diabetic cardiomyopathy, a clinical state that they said represents patients with stage B heart failure based on the new Universal Definition and Classification of Heart Failure. Until recently, these patients with type 2 diabetes and asymptomatic cardiomyopathy have mostly gone unrecognized.

A recent report from Dr. Pandey and associates reviewed records from 2,900 U.S. patients with diabetes and no symptoms who had been included in any of three cohort studies and found echocardiographic evidence of early-stage cardiomyopathy in as many as two-thirds. In an editorial about this report, Dr. Aroda and coauthors called these patients a potential “window of opportunity for prevention and treatment of heart failure.”

“There is evidence of structural cardiac changes that progress through the stages of heart failure,” and starting treatment with an SGLT2 inhibitor during an earlier stage can potentially slow or prevent this progression and thereby limit future functional decline, Dr. Aroda said.

Dr. Sattar agreed. Type 2 diabetes appears to help cause “fluid derangements” and abnormal hemodynamics that produces cardiac stress, changes in heart structure, and adverse remodeling of the heart, a process that “some call cardiomyopathy,” which is exacerbated by other pathologic forces that are also often present in these patients such as obesity and hypertension. SGLT2 inhibitors can help these patients by producing “reverse remodeling of the heart.”

“This process was neglected because for many years our focus was on ischemic heart disease in patients with type 2 diabetes. It was there in plain sight, but we were missing it,” explained Dr. Sattar. Having agents from the SGLT2 inhibitor class “has allowed us to better understand this mechanism.”

The SGLT2 inhibitors are “absolutely the driving reason” why the diabetes–heart failure link has become so important, said Dr. Inzucchi. Having drugs that reduce heart failure risk provided clinicians with a tool that has “changed our mindset.”

“Heart failure prevention has been largely neglected in patients with type 2 diabetes. Reprioritizing heart failure prevention to first and foremost among patients with type 2 diabetes is long overdue,” commented Gregg C. Fonarow, MD, professor and chief of cardiology at the University of California, Los Angeles.
 

Clinicians don’t like risk scores

Will systematic screening for heart failure risk in selected patients with type 2 diabetes take hold, and with it expanded and better-targeted use of SGLT2 inhibitors?

“I hope so,” said Dr. Kosiborod, but one challenge is that “for the most part clinicians don’t like using risk scores.” Only a few have ever been widely incorporated into practice; mostly they become tools for research. Plus, SGLT2 inhibitor uptake has in general been slow to catch on, which Dr. Kosiborod blames primarily on clinical inertia, a pervasive issue that has also hampered optimal use of drugs as commonplace as statins, ACE inhibitors, and angiotensin-receptor blockers.

“Given the avalanche of positive data, uptake of SGLT2 inhibitors will continue to improve and accelerate; but unfortunately, unless something dramatic happens we’ll likely see their continued underuse for several more years,” he predicted. “Designing better systems of care that prioritize prevention are absolutely needed to improve implementation of effective therapies, including SGLT2 inhibitors.”

Despite their underuse the SGLT2 inhibitor class has, in just 6 years since results from the EMPA-REG OUTCOME trial came out and launched the current treatment era, transformed thinking about the risk that heart failure poses to patients with type 2 diabetes and the need to manage this risk.

“I thank the SGLT2 inhibitors for raising awareness of heart failure risk in patients with diabetes,” and for giving clinicians a new way to mitigate this risk, said Dr. Cheng.

Dr. Berg has been a consultant to AstraZeneca, and received research grant support to his institution from AstraZeneca and Pfizer. Dr. Cheng has received personal fees from multiple pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Kosiborod has been an adviser and consultant to multiple pharmaceutical companies; has received research grants from AstraZeneca and Boehringer Ingelheim; and has received other research support from AstraZeneca. Dr. Pandey has been an adviser to Roche Diagnostics; has received nonfinancial support from Pfizer and Merck; and has received research support from Gilead Sciences, Myovista, and Applied Therapeutics. Dr. Sattar has received consulting honoraria from multiple pharmaceutical companies, and has received grant support from Boehringer Ingelheim, Roche Diagnostics, and Novartis. Dr. Aroda has been a consultant for several pharmaceutical companies; has a spouse employed with Janssen; and has received research support (institutional contracts) from multiple pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Fonarow has been a consultant to several pharmaceutical companies.

mzoler@mdedge.com

Agents that form the sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitor class – including canagliflozin (Invokana), dapagliflozin (Farxiga), and empagliflozin (Jardiance) – have show remarkably consistent cardiovascular efficacy and safety for treating patients with heart failure, chronic kidney disease, and higher-risk patients with type 2 diabetes.

But despite an essential role now established for drugs in the SGLT2 inhibitor class for patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction, progressive renal dysfunction, or – most recently – patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction, the scope may be less clear when using these agents in patients with type 2 diabetes because they fall across a broad spectrum of risk for cardiorenal disease.

“What makes patients with type 2 diabetes distinct from other patients in whom SGLT2 inhibitors have been studied, such as patients with heart failure, is that they have a much wider spectrum of risk. Low-risk patients with type 2 diabetes were not included in the SGLT2 inhibitor trials. Defining risk in patients with type 2 diabetes has the potential to inform prioritization” for treatment with an SGLT2 inhibitor, explained David D. Berg, MD, who has led one effort to develop risk scores that can risk-stratify patients with type 2 diabetes based on their vulnerability to incident heart failure and hospitalization for these episodes,

The hefty cost for these drugs, with retail prices that run over $6,000 annually for the most widely used and most potent agents in the class, has spurred researchers to try to find cost-effective ways to identify patients with type 2 diabetes who stand to benefit most from taking an SGLT2 inhibitor.
 

‘Cost must be considered’

“Cost must be considered, and at this point it’s probably more responsible on a societal level to advise using SGLT2 inhibitors mainly in patients [with type 2 diabetes] with compelling indications,” said Silvio Inzucchi, MD, professor and director of the Yale Medicine Diabetes Center in New Haven, Conn. Dr. Inzucchi added, however, that “I can easily foresee a day when these agents are considered foundational therapy for all patients with type 2 diabetes, after they go generic and cost is not a major issue. I’m starting to lean toward this very simplified approach, but the costs are prohibitive at this time.”

“If the SGLT2 inhibitors were available at a low cost, I’d argue that they should be used in all patients with type 2 diabetes who have no contraindications or tolerability issues; but we live in a world where they are not yet low cost,” agreed Mikhail N. Kosiborod, MD, a cardiologist and codirector of the Cardiometabolic Center of Excellence at Saint Luke’s Mid-America Heart Institute in Kansas City, Mo.

“We can’t give SGLT2 inhibitors to everyone with type 2 diabetes right now because that would be too costly; these agents are so expensive. You start by targeting the patients with the highest risk” for incident heart failure, said Ambarish Pandey, MD, a cardiologist at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas.

The spotlight the SGLT2 inhibitor class has received, based on its unexpectedly potent efficacy in cutting rates of acute heart failure episodes in patients with type 2 diabetes, has also sharply raised the profile of this complication of type 2 diabetes, an outcome that until recently many clinicians had largely ignored, overshadowed by a focus on adverse outcomes from atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease such as MIs and strokes.

“Results from the SGLT2 inhibitor trials have reignited interest in the relationship between type 2 diabetes and heart failure and have started to shift the mindset of clinicians toward thinking about reducing both atherothrombotic risk and heart failure risk in patients with type 2 diabetes,” said Dr. Berg, a cardiologist at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston.

“Prior to the SGLT2 inhibitor trials, heart failure was on the radar of diabetes clinicians only as something to watch for as a potential side effect of certain glucose-lowering therapies. Now that there are therapies that can lower heart failure hospitalization, it’s made us think more about heart failure, how common it is in patients with type 2 diabetes, and what can we do to lower this risk,” commented Alice Y.Y. Cheng, MD, a diabetes specialist at the University of Toronto.
 

Banking on biomarkers

Risk scores for assessing the likelihood of people developing incident heart failure date back more than a decade. More recent efforts have focused on patients with type 2 diabetes, starting with scores that relied entirely on clinical markers of risk such as prior heart failure, established coronary artery disease, and chronic kidney disease. Reports of two of these validated scores appeared in 2019, one from a team led by Dr. Berg and associates in 2019, and a second score developed by Dr. Pandey and associates.

More recently, both research teams behind these two scores validated newer versions that further refined assessment of patients with diabetes by including biomarkers of incipient heart failure, such as N-terminal of the prohormone brain natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP). The UT Southwestern group’s biomarker-based score relies on levels of NT-proBNP as well as on levels of high sensitivity troponin T (hsTnT) and C-reactive protein, plus ECG-based assessment of left ventricular hypertrophy to assess risk for incident heart failure. Developers reported in 2021 that this biomarker score could account for 74% (C-statistic) of the 5-year risk for heart failure among patients with diabetes.

The biomarker-based score devised by Dr. Berg and associates, relies on NT-proBNP, hsTnT, and a history of heart failure to predict the risk for a future hospitalization for heart failure. They reported in Diabetes Care that in validation testing this score accounted for 84% of the risk.

“I’m hopeful that both our original clinically-based risk score and our new biomarker-based score will be endorsed by professional society guidelines. The intent of the biomarker-based score is not to replace the clinical one,” Dr. Berg stressed in an interview. But he acknowledged that it uses biomarker values that currently are not routinely collected in U.S. practice. Biomarkers like NT-proBNP “are highly associated with future heart failure risk, but are not yet routinely assessed,” he said. Because of this, “widespread adoption of the [biomarker] risk tool will require some education.”

It may also require some sort of preliminary screening to determine the appropriateness of using it in a specific patient because of the relative expense of a test for NT-proBNP.

A Texas two-step process

“We can’t perform a [NT-proBNP] test on every patient with type 2 diabetes because cost is a huge barrier,” with a U.K. price of roughly £28 (about $40) per test, commented Naveed Sattar, MD, PhD, professor of metabolic medicine at the University of Glasgow. “NT-proBNP is the best biomarker by far to predict risk” for heart failure,” but “it’s too expensive. It’s not going to happen in everyone,” he said in an interview. He suggested taking a two-step approach to identify patients to test for NT-proBNP based on clinical measures like blood pressure, weight and height, lipid levels and renal function and the presence of suggestive symptoms like dyspnea, fatigue, and peripheral edema, an argument he recently spelled out in detail in an editorial he coauthored.

“More work is needed to define which patients would usefully have cardiac biomarkers measured,” Dr. Sattar wrote with his associate.

Two-step is the approach used in routine practice by clinicians at UT Southwestern Medical Center. “We screen all patients with type 2 diabetes and no diagnosed heart failure who are not already on an SGLT2 inhibitor” using their 2019 screening tool, called the WATCH-DM Risk score, said Dr. Pandey. Patients flagged at high risk by their clinical score receive an SGLT2 inhibitor (presuming no contraindications). The remaining patients with low or intermediate risk may then undergo biomarker-based assessment to find additional patients who warrant SGLT2 inhibitor treatment, he said in an interview.

Often, a record of the most important biomarker, NT-proBNP, is already in the patient’s record and less than a year old, in which case clinicians use that value. An NT-proBNP level of at least 125 pg/mL indicates increased risk in people with a body mass index of less than 30 kg/m², while for those with higher body mass indexes clinicians at Southwestern apply a threshold for higher risk of at least 100 pg/mL.

In addition to starting those patients on an SGLT2 inhibitor, the Southwestern protocol calls for intensified efforts at weight loss and improved fitness to further lower incident heart failure risk, and they are also considering targeting treatment with a glucagonlike peptide–1 receptor agonist to these patients as well. They have a research protocol in place, called WATCH-DM, that will prospectively assess the efficacy of this strategy.

Despite the cost, others also believe that the time is right for biomarker-based tests to boost access to the benefits that treatment with SGLT2 inhibitors can give patients with type 2 diabetes.

“In theory it’s reasonable” to use a risk score like the recent one reported by Dr. Berg and coauthors, said Vanita R. Aroda, MD, an endocrinologist and director of diabetes clinical research at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston. “We need to pay attention to heart failure as an outcome and use risk stratification” to decide which patients with type 2 diabetes but without established cardiovascular disease warrant treatment with an SGLT2 inhibitor, she said in an interview. “Given the data, we need more concrete recommendations” from medical societies on how to reasonably use biomarkers and imaging to identify patients with type 2 diabetes who are at increased risk for heart failure and hence would benefit from treatment. “This should be of high interest to guidelines committees,” she added.

The earlier version of Dr. Berg’s score, based exclusively on clinical observations and conventional measures like estimated glomerular filtration rate and urinary creatinine to albumin ratio, had overlap with established criteria for starting treatment with an SGLT2 inhibitor, such as the presence of chronic kidney disease, she noted. “A biomarker-based score may provide the additional level of discrimination needed to characterize risk and potential benefit.”
 

Asymptomatic diabetic cardiomyopathy

Dr. Aroda and several coauthors recently published a review that describes a subset of patients with type 2 diabetes who might get picked up by intensified screening for heart failure risk: those with asymptomatic diabetic cardiomyopathy, a clinical state that they said represents patients with stage B heart failure based on the new Universal Definition and Classification of Heart Failure. Until recently, these patients with type 2 diabetes and asymptomatic cardiomyopathy have mostly gone unrecognized.

A recent report from Dr. Pandey and associates reviewed records from 2,900 U.S. patients with diabetes and no symptoms who had been included in any of three cohort studies and found echocardiographic evidence of early-stage cardiomyopathy in as many as two-thirds. In an editorial about this report, Dr. Aroda and coauthors called these patients a potential “window of opportunity for prevention and treatment of heart failure.”

“There is evidence of structural cardiac changes that progress through the stages of heart failure,” and starting treatment with an SGLT2 inhibitor during an earlier stage can potentially slow or prevent this progression and thereby limit future functional decline, Dr. Aroda said.

Dr. Sattar agreed. Type 2 diabetes appears to help cause “fluid derangements” and abnormal hemodynamics that produces cardiac stress, changes in heart structure, and adverse remodeling of the heart, a process that “some call cardiomyopathy,” which is exacerbated by other pathologic forces that are also often present in these patients such as obesity and hypertension. SGLT2 inhibitors can help these patients by producing “reverse remodeling of the heart.”

“This process was neglected because for many years our focus was on ischemic heart disease in patients with type 2 diabetes. It was there in plain sight, but we were missing it,” explained Dr. Sattar. Having agents from the SGLT2 inhibitor class “has allowed us to better understand this mechanism.”

The SGLT2 inhibitors are “absolutely the driving reason” why the diabetes–heart failure link has become so important, said Dr. Inzucchi. Having drugs that reduce heart failure risk provided clinicians with a tool that has “changed our mindset.”

“Heart failure prevention has been largely neglected in patients with type 2 diabetes. Reprioritizing heart failure prevention to first and foremost among patients with type 2 diabetes is long overdue,” commented Gregg C. Fonarow, MD, professor and chief of cardiology at the University of California, Los Angeles.
 

Clinicians don’t like risk scores

Will systematic screening for heart failure risk in selected patients with type 2 diabetes take hold, and with it expanded and better-targeted use of SGLT2 inhibitors?

“I hope so,” said Dr. Kosiborod, but one challenge is that “for the most part clinicians don’t like using risk scores.” Only a few have ever been widely incorporated into practice; mostly they become tools for research. Plus, SGLT2 inhibitor uptake has in general been slow to catch on, which Dr. Kosiborod blames primarily on clinical inertia, a pervasive issue that has also hampered optimal use of drugs as commonplace as statins, ACE inhibitors, and angiotensin-receptor blockers.

“Given the avalanche of positive data, uptake of SGLT2 inhibitors will continue to improve and accelerate; but unfortunately, unless something dramatic happens we’ll likely see their continued underuse for several more years,” he predicted. “Designing better systems of care that prioritize prevention are absolutely needed to improve implementation of effective therapies, including SGLT2 inhibitors.”

Despite their underuse the SGLT2 inhibitor class has, in just 6 years since results from the EMPA-REG OUTCOME trial came out and launched the current treatment era, transformed thinking about the risk that heart failure poses to patients with type 2 diabetes and the need to manage this risk.

“I thank the SGLT2 inhibitors for raising awareness of heart failure risk in patients with diabetes,” and for giving clinicians a new way to mitigate this risk, said Dr. Cheng.

Dr. Berg has been a consultant to AstraZeneca, and received research grant support to his institution from AstraZeneca and Pfizer. Dr. Cheng has received personal fees from multiple pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Kosiborod has been an adviser and consultant to multiple pharmaceutical companies; has received research grants from AstraZeneca and Boehringer Ingelheim; and has received other research support from AstraZeneca. Dr. Pandey has been an adviser to Roche Diagnostics; has received nonfinancial support from Pfizer and Merck; and has received research support from Gilead Sciences, Myovista, and Applied Therapeutics. Dr. Sattar has received consulting honoraria from multiple pharmaceutical companies, and has received grant support from Boehringer Ingelheim, Roche Diagnostics, and Novartis. Dr. Aroda has been a consultant for several pharmaceutical companies; has a spouse employed with Janssen; and has received research support (institutional contracts) from multiple pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Fonarow has been a consultant to several pharmaceutical companies.

mzoler@mdedge.com

Lupin Pharmaceuticals is recalling all batches of irbesartan tablets USP 75 mg, 150 mg, and 300 mg and irbesartan and hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ) tablets USP 150 mg/12.5 mg and 300 mg/12.5 mg because of the potential presence of the N-nitrosoirbesartan impurity.

“As part of Lupin’s ongoing assessment, analysis revealed that certain tested active pharmaceutical ingredient (API) batches (but not finished product batches) were above the specification limit for the impurity, N-nitrosoirbesartan,” the company said in a news release posted on the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s website. It notes that the impurity is a “probable human carcinogen.”

Lupin discontinued the marketing of irbesartan and irbesartan/HCTZ tablets on Jan. 7, 2021. It says it “has received no reports of illness that appear to relate to this issue” and is issuing the recall out of “an abundance of caution.”

The company, however, goes on to note that from Oct. 8, 2018 (the earliest date of shipment from the manufacturing site of any of the affected batches) to September 30 of this year, Lupin received four reports of illness from irbesartan and 0 reports from irbesartan/HCTZ.

Irbesartan is an angiotensin II receptor blocker indicated for treatment of hypertension in patients with type 2 diabetes, elevated serum creatinine, and proteinuria.

Irbesartan/HCTZ tablets include irbesartan and hydrochlorothiazide, a thiazide diuretic, indicated for hypertension in patients not adequately controlled with monotherapy or as an initial therapy in patients likely to need multiple drugs to achieve blood pressure goals.

Lupin is notifying wholesalers, distributors, and retail outlets to immediately discontinue sales of the affected product lots and return them to the company. Specific lot numbers can be found here.

The company is advising patients to continue taking their medication and to contact their pharmacist, physician, or health care professional for advice regarding an alternative treatment.

Patients and physicians are also advised to report any adverse events or side effects related to the affected products to MedWatch, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s Safety Information and Adverse Event Reporting program.

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

Lupin Pharmaceuticals is recalling all batches of irbesartan tablets USP 75 mg, 150 mg, and 300 mg and irbesartan and hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ) tablets USP 150 mg/12.5 mg and 300 mg/12.5 mg because of the potential presence of the N-nitrosoirbesartan impurity.

“As part of Lupin’s ongoing assessment, analysis revealed that certain tested active pharmaceutical ingredient (API) batches (but not finished product batches) were above the specification limit for the impurity, N-nitrosoirbesartan,” the company said in a news release posted on the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s website. It notes that the impurity is a “probable human carcinogen.”

Lupin discontinued the marketing of irbesartan and irbesartan/HCTZ tablets on Jan. 7, 2021. It says it “has received no reports of illness that appear to relate to this issue” and is issuing the recall out of “an abundance of caution.”

The company, however, goes on to note that from Oct. 8, 2018 (the earliest date of shipment from the manufacturing site of any of the affected batches) to September 30 of this year, Lupin received four reports of illness from irbesartan and 0 reports from irbesartan/HCTZ.

Irbesartan is an angiotensin II receptor blocker indicated for treatment of hypertension in patients with type 2 diabetes, elevated serum creatinine, and proteinuria.

Irbesartan/HCTZ tablets include irbesartan and hydrochlorothiazide, a thiazide diuretic, indicated for hypertension in patients not adequately controlled with monotherapy or as an initial therapy in patients likely to need multiple drugs to achieve blood pressure goals.

Lupin is notifying wholesalers, distributors, and retail outlets to immediately discontinue sales of the affected product lots and return them to the company. Specific lot numbers can be found here.

The company is advising patients to continue taking their medication and to contact their pharmacist, physician, or health care professional for advice regarding an alternative treatment.

Patients and physicians are also advised to report any adverse events or side effects related to the affected products to MedWatch, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s Safety Information and Adverse Event Reporting program.

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

Lupin Pharmaceuticals is recalling all batches of irbesartan tablets USP 75 mg, 150 mg, and 300 mg and irbesartan and hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ) tablets USP 150 mg/12.5 mg and 300 mg/12.5 mg because of the potential presence of the N-nitrosoirbesartan impurity.

“As part of Lupin’s ongoing assessment, analysis revealed that certain tested active pharmaceutical ingredient (API) batches (but not finished product batches) were above the specification limit for the impurity, N-nitrosoirbesartan,” the company said in a news release posted on the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s website. It notes that the impurity is a “probable human carcinogen.”

Lupin discontinued the marketing of irbesartan and irbesartan/HCTZ tablets on Jan. 7, 2021. It says it “has received no reports of illness that appear to relate to this issue” and is issuing the recall out of “an abundance of caution.”

The company, however, goes on to note that from Oct. 8, 2018 (the earliest date of shipment from the manufacturing site of any of the affected batches) to September 30 of this year, Lupin received four reports of illness from irbesartan and 0 reports from irbesartan/HCTZ.

Irbesartan is an angiotensin II receptor blocker indicated for treatment of hypertension in patients with type 2 diabetes, elevated serum creatinine, and proteinuria.

Irbesartan/HCTZ tablets include irbesartan and hydrochlorothiazide, a thiazide diuretic, indicated for hypertension in patients not adequately controlled with monotherapy or as an initial therapy in patients likely to need multiple drugs to achieve blood pressure goals.

Lupin is notifying wholesalers, distributors, and retail outlets to immediately discontinue sales of the affected product lots and return them to the company. Specific lot numbers can be found here.

The company is advising patients to continue taking their medication and to contact their pharmacist, physician, or health care professional for advice regarding an alternative treatment.

Patients and physicians are also advised to report any adverse events or side effects related to the affected products to MedWatch, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s Safety Information and Adverse Event Reporting program.

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

Daily exposure to phthalates, which are synthetic chemicals founds in many consumer products, may lead to hundreds of thousands of early deaths each year among older adults in the United States, according to a new study published Oct. 12, 2021, in the peer-reviewed journal Environmental Pollution.

The chemicals are found in hundreds of types of products, including children’s toys, food storage containers, makeup, perfume, and shampoo. In the study, those with the highest levels of phthalates had a greater risk of death from any cause, especially heart disease.

“This study adds to the growing database on the impact of plastics on the human body and bolsters public health and business cases for reducing or eliminating the use of plastics,” Leonardo Trasande, MD, the lead author and a professor of environmental medicine and population health at New York University Langone Health, told CNN.

Dr. Trasande and colleagues measured the urine concentration of phthalates in more than 5,000 adults aged 55-64 and compared the levels with the risk of early death over an average of 10 years. The research team controlled for preexisting heart diseases, diabetes, cancer, poor eating habits, physical activity, body mass, and other known hormone disruptors such as bisphenol A, or BPA, an industrial chemical that’s been used since the 1950s to make certain plastics and resins, according to the Mayo Clinic

The research team found that phthalates could contribute to 91,000-107,000 premature deaths per year in the United States. These early deaths could cost the nation $40 billion to $47 billion each year in lost economic productivity.

Phthalates interrupt the body’s endocrine system and hormone production. Previous studies have found that the chemicals are linked with developmental, reproductive, and immune system problems, according to NYU Langone Health. They’ve also been linked with asthma, childhood obesity, heart issues, and cancer.

“These chemicals have a rap sheet,” Dr. Trasande told CNN. “And the fact of the matter is that when you look at the entire body of evidence, it provides a haunting pattern of concern.”

Phthalates are often called “everywhere chemicals” because they are so common, CNN reported. Also called “plasticizers,” they are added to products to make them more durable, including PVC plumbing, vinyl flooring, medical tubing, garden hoses, food packaging, detergents, clothing, furniture, and automotive materials.

People are often exposed when they breathe contaminated air or consume food that comes into contact with the chemical, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Children may be exposed by touching plastic items and putting their hands in their mouth.

Dr. Trasande told CNN that it’s possible to lessen exposure to phthalates and other endocrine disruptors such as BPA by using unscented lotions, laundry detergents, and cleaning supplies, as well as substituting glass, stainless steel, ceramic, and wood for plastic food storage.

“First, avoid plastics as much as you can. Never put plastic containers in the microwave or dishwasher, where the heat can break down the linings so they might be absorbed more readily,” he said. “In addition, cooking at home and reducing your use of processed foods can reduce the levels of the chemical exposures you come in contact with.”

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

Daily exposure to phthalates, which are synthetic chemicals founds in many consumer products, may lead to hundreds of thousands of early deaths each year among older adults in the United States, according to a new study published Oct. 12, 2021, in the peer-reviewed journal Environmental Pollution.

The chemicals are found in hundreds of types of products, including children’s toys, food storage containers, makeup, perfume, and shampoo. In the study, those with the highest levels of phthalates had a greater risk of death from any cause, especially heart disease.

“This study adds to the growing database on the impact of plastics on the human body and bolsters public health and business cases for reducing or eliminating the use of plastics,” Leonardo Trasande, MD, the lead author and a professor of environmental medicine and population health at New York University Langone Health, told CNN.

Dr. Trasande and colleagues measured the urine concentration of phthalates in more than 5,000 adults aged 55-64 and compared the levels with the risk of early death over an average of 10 years. The research team controlled for preexisting heart diseases, diabetes, cancer, poor eating habits, physical activity, body mass, and other known hormone disruptors such as bisphenol A, or BPA, an industrial chemical that’s been used since the 1950s to make certain plastics and resins, according to the Mayo Clinic

The research team found that phthalates could contribute to 91,000-107,000 premature deaths per year in the United States. These early deaths could cost the nation $40 billion to $47 billion each year in lost economic productivity.

Phthalates interrupt the body’s endocrine system and hormone production. Previous studies have found that the chemicals are linked with developmental, reproductive, and immune system problems, according to NYU Langone Health. They’ve also been linked with asthma, childhood obesity, heart issues, and cancer.

“These chemicals have a rap sheet,” Dr. Trasande told CNN. “And the fact of the matter is that when you look at the entire body of evidence, it provides a haunting pattern of concern.”

Phthalates are often called “everywhere chemicals” because they are so common, CNN reported. Also called “plasticizers,” they are added to products to make them more durable, including PVC plumbing, vinyl flooring, medical tubing, garden hoses, food packaging, detergents, clothing, furniture, and automotive materials.

People are often exposed when they breathe contaminated air or consume food that comes into contact with the chemical, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Children may be exposed by touching plastic items and putting their hands in their mouth.

Dr. Trasande told CNN that it’s possible to lessen exposure to phthalates and other endocrine disruptors such as BPA by using unscented lotions, laundry detergents, and cleaning supplies, as well as substituting glass, stainless steel, ceramic, and wood for plastic food storage.

“First, avoid plastics as much as you can. Never put plastic containers in the microwave or dishwasher, where the heat can break down the linings so they might be absorbed more readily,” he said. “In addition, cooking at home and reducing your use of processed foods can reduce the levels of the chemical exposures you come in contact with.”

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

Daily exposure to phthalates, which are synthetic chemicals founds in many consumer products, may lead to hundreds of thousands of early deaths each year among older adults in the United States, according to a new study published Oct. 12, 2021, in the peer-reviewed journal Environmental Pollution.

The chemicals are found in hundreds of types of products, including children’s toys, food storage containers, makeup, perfume, and shampoo. In the study, those with the highest levels of phthalates had a greater risk of death from any cause, especially heart disease.

“This study adds to the growing database on the impact of plastics on the human body and bolsters public health and business cases for reducing or eliminating the use of plastics,” Leonardo Trasande, MD, the lead author and a professor of environmental medicine and population health at New York University Langone Health, told CNN.

Dr. Trasande and colleagues measured the urine concentration of phthalates in more than 5,000 adults aged 55-64 and compared the levels with the risk of early death over an average of 10 years. The research team controlled for preexisting heart diseases, diabetes, cancer, poor eating habits, physical activity, body mass, and other known hormone disruptors such as bisphenol A, or BPA, an industrial chemical that’s been used since the 1950s to make certain plastics and resins, according to the Mayo Clinic

The research team found that phthalates could contribute to 91,000-107,000 premature deaths per year in the United States. These early deaths could cost the nation $40 billion to $47 billion each year in lost economic productivity.

Phthalates interrupt the body’s endocrine system and hormone production. Previous studies have found that the chemicals are linked with developmental, reproductive, and immune system problems, according to NYU Langone Health. They’ve also been linked with asthma, childhood obesity, heart issues, and cancer.

“These chemicals have a rap sheet,” Dr. Trasande told CNN. “And the fact of the matter is that when you look at the entire body of evidence, it provides a haunting pattern of concern.”

Phthalates are often called “everywhere chemicals” because they are so common, CNN reported. Also called “plasticizers,” they are added to products to make them more durable, including PVC plumbing, vinyl flooring, medical tubing, garden hoses, food packaging, detergents, clothing, furniture, and automotive materials.

People are often exposed when they breathe contaminated air or consume food that comes into contact with the chemical, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Children may be exposed by touching plastic items and putting their hands in their mouth.

Dr. Trasande told CNN that it’s possible to lessen exposure to phthalates and other endocrine disruptors such as BPA by using unscented lotions, laundry detergents, and cleaning supplies, as well as substituting glass, stainless steel, ceramic, and wood for plastic food storage.

“First, avoid plastics as much as you can. Never put plastic containers in the microwave or dishwasher, where the heat can break down the linings so they might be absorbed more readily,” he said. “In addition, cooking at home and reducing your use of processed foods can reduce the levels of the chemical exposures you come in contact with.”

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

Recent literature features new descriptions of myocarditis linked to the two available mRNA vaccines against SARS-CoV-2. They tell a story largely consistent with experience to date, and support what might be its most useful public health message: The associated myocarditis is usually mild and self-limiting, and is far less likely to occur than myocarditis or death in unvaccinated people with COVID-19.

In line with previous research, the new analyses suggest the myocarditis – with onset usually a few days to a week after injection – has an overall incidence that ranges from less than 1 to perhaps 3 per 100,000 people who received at least one of the full mRNA-vaccine regimen’s two injections. Also, as in earlier studies, the incidence climbed higher – sometimes sharply – in certain groups by age and sex, particularly in young men and older male teens.

The new studies “are confirmatory, in terms of the risk being low,” but underscore that clinicians still must be wary of myocarditis as a potential complication of the mRNA vaccines, Biykem Bozkurt, MD, PhD, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, told this news organization.

Dr. Bozkurt, a leading heart failure specialist and researcher, did not contribute to any of the new reports but does study the myocarditis of COVID-19 and was lead author on a recent review of the potential vaccine complication’s features and possible mechanisms.

In the new myocarditis reports, she observed, more than 90% of the cases were mild and “resolved on their own without a major adverse outcome.” Dr. Bozkurt emphasized the need for perspective regarding the risk. For example, the myocarditis associated with SARS-CoV-2 infection is not only more likely than the vaccine-related myocarditis, but it’s also usually far more severe.

Dr. Bozkurt pointed to a recent study in which the mRNA vaccines, compared with no vaccination, appeared to escalate the myocarditis risk by a factor of 3, whereas the risk for myocarditis in SARS-CoV-2 infection was increased 18 times.

In contrast, she observed, the new myocarditis cases reported this week feature a few that are novel or are at least very rare, including the case of a patient who developed cardiogenic shock and another with fulminant myocarditis who died.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in May publicly described the apparent link between myocarditis and the two available mRNA vaccines against SARS-CoV-2: BNT162b2 (Pfizer-BioNTech) and mRNA-1273 (Moderna). The next month, the Food and Drug Administration added a warning about the risk to the labeling.
 

Less than 1 case per 100,000

Fifteen confirmed cases of myocarditis were identified among about 2.4 million members of Kaiser Permanente Southern California aged 18 or older who received at least one injection of the Pfizer or Moderna mRNA vaccines between December 2020 and July 2021, in a report published in JAMA Internal Medicine. The study counted cases up to 10 days after the first or second injection, of which there were 2 and 13, respectively.

All eight patients who received the Pfizer BNT162b2 vaccine and the eight given the Moderna mRNA-1273 vaccine were male with a median age of 25 years (interquartile range, 20-32 years).

“The main takeaway messages from our study are that the incidence of myocarditis after COVID-19 mRNA vaccinations is very low, that this condition is primarily observed in young men within a few days after the second dose, and that most patients recover quickly,” senior author Mingsum Lee, MD, PhD, Kaiser Permanente Los Angeles Medical Center, told this news organization.

“The incidence of vaccine-related myocarditis was significantly lower than rates of COVID-19 hospitalization during the same period and population area,” she added.

The group saw a per-million incidence of 0.8 and 5.8 myocarditis cases in the 10 days after first and second injections, respectively. That made for an incidence of 0.58 per 100,000, or 1 case per 172,414 fully vaccinated adults.

The group also considered a cohort of 1,577,741 unvaccinated people with a median age of 39 years (interquartile range, 28-53 years) during the same period. Of the 75 cases of myocarditis, 52% were in men, they reported.

Comparing the vaccinated and unvaccinated cohorts, they saw a 10-day vaccine-associated myocarditis incidence rate ratio of 0.38 (95% confidence interval, 0.05-1.40; P = .15) after the first dose, and 2.7 (95% CI, 1.4-4.8; P = .004) after the second dose.

In a comparison of the vaccinated group with itself using data from a 10-day period in the previous year, the corresponding myocarditis IRRs were 1.0 (P > .99) and 3.3 (P = .03), respectively.

Dr. Lee said none of the 15 patients required admission to an intensive care unit. “All patients with myocarditis responded well to treatment and felt better quickly,” she noted.

Myocarditis after an mRNA vaccine injection is rare and, Dr. Lee said emphatically, and “the benefits of the COVID-19 vaccine greatly outweigh the risks.”
 

Sex- and age-stratified rates

In a separate analysis of 5,442,696 people given a first dose of the Pfizer BNT162b2 vaccine and 5,125,635 given a second dose, there were 142 cases of myocarditis with onset 21 days after dose 1 and 30 days after dose 2. Of those cases, 136 were documented as “definite or probable” in an Israeli Ministry of Health database that covered up to the end of May 2021.

There were also 40 cases among vaccinated people seen after the 30-day window, which were considered not related to the vaccination, and 101 cases among unvaccinated people; of the latter, 29 had confirmed diagnoses of COVID-19.

Of the 136 people with definite or probable cases, the myocarditis was “generally mild” in 129 and usually resolved on its own, notes the report on the study, published in the New England Journal of Medicine, with lead author Dror Mevorach, MD, Hadassah-Hebrew University Medical Center, Jerusalem.

The estimated myocarditis incidence after a second such vaccine dose across the entire Israeli population, based on the current study, was about one per 26,000 males and one per 218,000 females, the group writes. Those figures compare with one case per 10,857 among “the general unvaccinated population.”

Again, the risk was concentrated among younger men and male adolescents. In an analysis limited to vaccinated people aged 16-19 years, myocarditis in the 21 days after a second mRNA injection was seen in about one of 6,637 males and one of 99,853 females, the group reported.

The standardized incidence ratio of 5.34 (95% CI, 4.48-6.40) after a second injection, across all groups, “was driven mostly by the diagnosis of myocarditis in younger male recipients.” Among that male subgroup, the ratios by age group were 13.60 (95% CI, 9.30-19.20) for 16-19 years, 8.53 (95% CI, 5.57-12.50) for 20-24 years, and 6.96 (95% CI, 4.25-10.75) for 25-29 years.

Among people who received a second injection, compared with unvaccinated people, the 30-day rate ratio was 2.35 (95% CI, 1.10-5.02). Again, the effect was concentrated in males aged 16-19 years. Among them, the myocarditis rate ratios in the 30 days after a second mRNA vaccine injection were 8.96 (95% CI, 4.50-17.83) for the 16-19 years group, 6.13 (95% CI, 3.16-11.88) for the 20-24 group, and 3.58 (95% CI, 1.82-7.01) for 25-29 years.

Most of the patients with myocarditis showed “significant clinical improvement,” with a mean hospitalization time of only 3-4 days, the report notes. Treatment consisted of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs “with or without colchicine for presumed pericardial inflammation.”

However, seven patients (4.9%) developed important complications, including left-ventricular dysfunction, ventricular arrhythmias, and heart failure. Among them was a 22-year-old patient who died of fulminant myocarditis within 24 hours of diagnosis, the group wrote.
 

From an Israeli health care organization

Published by the same journal as the study by Dr. Menvorach and associates, an analysis of a separate database showed largely consistent findings among patients in the largest of Israel’s four health care organizations charged by the government to administer health services.

The report, with authors led by Guy Witberg, MD, Rabin Medical Center, Petah Tikva, Israel, focused on members of the health care organization aged 16 years or older who had received at least one Pfizer mRNA vaccine dose by the end of May 2021.

The cohorts from the two separate reports surely overlap substantially, as the Ministry of Health analysis from Dr. Mevorach and colleagues derived from a nationwide database, and – as Dr. Witberg and associates wrote – the health care organization providing their data covers 52% of the Israeli population.

Of 2,558,421 vaccinated people in the analysis, of whom 94% received two doses, 54 developed confirmed myocarditis in the 42 days after the first dose. Their median age was 27 years (interquartile range, 21-35 years) and all but three (94%) were male. Of those 54 cases, 41 were considered mild and 12 intermediate in severity, and one was fulminant with the patient in cardiogenic shock, the group writes. In addition, nonsustained ventricular tachycardia and atrial fibrillation developed in 5% and 3% of cases, respectively.

The estimated myocarditis incidence in the 42 days after administration of at least one mRNA vaccine dose was 2.13 per 100,000 vaccinated people. In that group, Dr. Witberg and colleagues note, the corresponding incidences per 100,000 were 4.12 and 0.23 for males and females, respectively.

Also in the current report, incidences per 100,000 vaccinated people aged 16-29 years, by sex, included 5.49 (95% CI, 3.59-7.39) overall, and 10.69 (95% CI, 6.93-14.46) for males (the highest rate in the report).

There was only one case in a female aged 16-29 years, and two cases in females 30 years or older.

Of note, some authors of the current study are also authors on the high-profile report from Noam Barda, MD, and colleagues published in the New England Journal of Medicine, that used the same database to arrive at an mRNA-vaccine-related incidence of myocarditis of 2.7 per 100,000. Eligibility criteria and follow-up time were different in that report, as were case ascertainment criteria.

The myocarditis risk associated with the two mRNA vaccines is small compared with “the morbidity and mortality of COVID-19 infection, in which up to 28% of hospitalized patients showed signs of myocardial injury,” wrote Vinay Guduguntla, MD, University of California, San Francisco, and Mitchell H. Katz, MD, NYC Health + Hospitals, New York, in an editorial accompanying the report from Dr. Lee and associates.

“Randomized clinical trials show that COVID-19 mRNA vaccines represent a safe and effective method of preventing infection,” they stated. “The identification of rare myocarditis does not change clinical decision-making.”

Dr. Bozkurt, who is immediate past president of the Heart Failure Society of America, has disclosed consulting for Bayer and scPharmaceuticals and serving on a clinical events committee for a trial supported by Abbott Pharmaceuticals and on a data and safety monitoring board for a trial supported by Liva Nova Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Lee and the report’s other authors had no disclosures. Dr. Mevorach discloses consulting for Enlivex Therapeutics; disclosures for the other authors are available at NEJM.org. Dr. Witberg said he has no interests to disclose; disclosures for the other authors are available at NEJM.org. Dr. Guduguntla is an editorial fellow and Dr. Katz a deputy editor at JAMA Internal Medicine; neither had disclosures.

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

Recent literature features new descriptions of myocarditis linked to the two available mRNA vaccines against SARS-CoV-2. They tell a story largely consistent with experience to date, and support what might be its most useful public health message: The associated myocarditis is usually mild and self-limiting, and is far less likely to occur than myocarditis or death in unvaccinated people with COVID-19.

In line with previous research, the new analyses suggest the myocarditis – with onset usually a few days to a week after injection – has an overall incidence that ranges from less than 1 to perhaps 3 per 100,000 people who received at least one of the full mRNA-vaccine regimen’s two injections. Also, as in earlier studies, the incidence climbed higher – sometimes sharply – in certain groups by age and sex, particularly in young men and older male teens.

The new studies “are confirmatory, in terms of the risk being low,” but underscore that clinicians still must be wary of myocarditis as a potential complication of the mRNA vaccines, Biykem Bozkurt, MD, PhD, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, told this news organization.

Dr. Bozkurt, a leading heart failure specialist and researcher, did not contribute to any of the new reports but does study the myocarditis of COVID-19 and was lead author on a recent review of the potential vaccine complication’s features and possible mechanisms.

In the new myocarditis reports, she observed, more than 90% of the cases were mild and “resolved on their own without a major adverse outcome.” Dr. Bozkurt emphasized the need for perspective regarding the risk. For example, the myocarditis associated with SARS-CoV-2 infection is not only more likely than the vaccine-related myocarditis, but it’s also usually far more severe.

Dr. Bozkurt pointed to a recent study in which the mRNA vaccines, compared with no vaccination, appeared to escalate the myocarditis risk by a factor of 3, whereas the risk for myocarditis in SARS-CoV-2 infection was increased 18 times.

In contrast, she observed, the new myocarditis cases reported this week feature a few that are novel or are at least very rare, including the case of a patient who developed cardiogenic shock and another with fulminant myocarditis who died.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in May publicly described the apparent link between myocarditis and the two available mRNA vaccines against SARS-CoV-2: BNT162b2 (Pfizer-BioNTech) and mRNA-1273 (Moderna). The next month, the Food and Drug Administration added a warning about the risk to the labeling.
 

Less than 1 case per 100,000

Fifteen confirmed cases of myocarditis were identified among about 2.4 million members of Kaiser Permanente Southern California aged 18 or older who received at least one injection of the Pfizer or Moderna mRNA vaccines between December 2020 and July 2021, in a report published in JAMA Internal Medicine. The study counted cases up to 10 days after the first or second injection, of which there were 2 and 13, respectively.

All eight patients who received the Pfizer BNT162b2 vaccine and the eight given the Moderna mRNA-1273 vaccine were male with a median age of 25 years (interquartile range, 20-32 years).

“The main takeaway messages from our study are that the incidence of myocarditis after COVID-19 mRNA vaccinations is very low, that this condition is primarily observed in young men within a few days after the second dose, and that most patients recover quickly,” senior author Mingsum Lee, MD, PhD, Kaiser Permanente Los Angeles Medical Center, told this news organization.

“The incidence of vaccine-related myocarditis was significantly lower than rates of COVID-19 hospitalization during the same period and population area,” she added.

The group saw a per-million incidence of 0.8 and 5.8 myocarditis cases in the 10 days after first and second injections, respectively. That made for an incidence of 0.58 per 100,000, or 1 case per 172,414 fully vaccinated adults.

The group also considered a cohort of 1,577,741 unvaccinated people with a median age of 39 years (interquartile range, 28-53 years) during the same period. Of the 75 cases of myocarditis, 52% were in men, they reported.

Comparing the vaccinated and unvaccinated cohorts, they saw a 10-day vaccine-associated myocarditis incidence rate ratio of 0.38 (95% confidence interval, 0.05-1.40; P = .15) after the first dose, and 2.7 (95% CI, 1.4-4.8; P = .004) after the second dose.

In a comparison of the vaccinated group with itself using data from a 10-day period in the previous year, the corresponding myocarditis IRRs were 1.0 (P > .99) and 3.3 (P = .03), respectively.

Dr. Lee said none of the 15 patients required admission to an intensive care unit. “All patients with myocarditis responded well to treatment and felt better quickly,” she noted.

Myocarditis after an mRNA vaccine injection is rare and, Dr. Lee said emphatically, and “the benefits of the COVID-19 vaccine greatly outweigh the risks.”
 

Sex- and age-stratified rates

In a separate analysis of 5,442,696 people given a first dose of the Pfizer BNT162b2 vaccine and 5,125,635 given a second dose, there were 142 cases of myocarditis with onset 21 days after dose 1 and 30 days after dose 2. Of those cases, 136 were documented as “definite or probable” in an Israeli Ministry of Health database that covered up to the end of May 2021.

There were also 40 cases among vaccinated people seen after the 30-day window, which were considered not related to the vaccination, and 101 cases among unvaccinated people; of the latter, 29 had confirmed diagnoses of COVID-19.

Of the 136 people with definite or probable cases, the myocarditis was “generally mild” in 129 and usually resolved on its own, notes the report on the study, published in the New England Journal of Medicine, with lead author Dror Mevorach, MD, Hadassah-Hebrew University Medical Center, Jerusalem.

The estimated myocarditis incidence after a second such vaccine dose across the entire Israeli population, based on the current study, was about one per 26,000 males and one per 218,000 females, the group writes. Those figures compare with one case per 10,857 among “the general unvaccinated population.”

Again, the risk was concentrated among younger men and male adolescents. In an analysis limited to vaccinated people aged 16-19 years, myocarditis in the 21 days after a second mRNA injection was seen in about one of 6,637 males and one of 99,853 females, the group reported.

The standardized incidence ratio of 5.34 (95% CI, 4.48-6.40) after a second injection, across all groups, “was driven mostly by the diagnosis of myocarditis in younger male recipients.” Among that male subgroup, the ratios by age group were 13.60 (95% CI, 9.30-19.20) for 16-19 years, 8.53 (95% CI, 5.57-12.50) for 20-24 years, and 6.96 (95% CI, 4.25-10.75) for 25-29 years.

Among people who received a second injection, compared with unvaccinated people, the 30-day rate ratio was 2.35 (95% CI, 1.10-5.02). Again, the effect was concentrated in males aged 16-19 years. Among them, the myocarditis rate ratios in the 30 days after a second mRNA vaccine injection were 8.96 (95% CI, 4.50-17.83) for the 16-19 years group, 6.13 (95% CI, 3.16-11.88) for the 20-24 group, and 3.58 (95% CI, 1.82-7.01) for 25-29 years.

Most of the patients with myocarditis showed “significant clinical improvement,” with a mean hospitalization time of only 3-4 days, the report notes. Treatment consisted of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs “with or without colchicine for presumed pericardial inflammation.”

However, seven patients (4.9%) developed important complications, including left-ventricular dysfunction, ventricular arrhythmias, and heart failure. Among them was a 22-year-old patient who died of fulminant myocarditis within 24 hours of diagnosis, the group wrote.
 

From an Israeli health care organization

Published by the same journal as the study by Dr. Menvorach and associates, an analysis of a separate database showed largely consistent findings among patients in the largest of Israel’s four health care organizations charged by the government to administer health services.

The report, with authors led by Guy Witberg, MD, Rabin Medical Center, Petah Tikva, Israel, focused on members of the health care organization aged 16 years or older who had received at least one Pfizer mRNA vaccine dose by the end of May 2021.

The cohorts from the two separate reports surely overlap substantially, as the Ministry of Health analysis from Dr. Mevorach and colleagues derived from a nationwide database, and – as Dr. Witberg and associates wrote – the health care organization providing their data covers 52% of the Israeli population.

Of 2,558,421 vaccinated people in the analysis, of whom 94% received two doses, 54 developed confirmed myocarditis in the 42 days after the first dose. Their median age was 27 years (interquartile range, 21-35 years) and all but three (94%) were male. Of those 54 cases, 41 were considered mild and 12 intermediate in severity, and one was fulminant with the patient in cardiogenic shock, the group writes. In addition, nonsustained ventricular tachycardia and atrial fibrillation developed in 5% and 3% of cases, respectively.

The estimated myocarditis incidence in the 42 days after administration of at least one mRNA vaccine dose was 2.13 per 100,000 vaccinated people. In that group, Dr. Witberg and colleagues note, the corresponding incidences per 100,000 were 4.12 and 0.23 for males and females, respectively.

Also in the current report, incidences per 100,000 vaccinated people aged 16-29 years, by sex, included 5.49 (95% CI, 3.59-7.39) overall, and 10.69 (95% CI, 6.93-14.46) for males (the highest rate in the report).

There was only one case in a female aged 16-29 years, and two cases in females 30 years or older.

Of note, some authors of the current study are also authors on the high-profile report from Noam Barda, MD, and colleagues published in the New England Journal of Medicine, that used the same database to arrive at an mRNA-vaccine-related incidence of myocarditis of 2.7 per 100,000. Eligibility criteria and follow-up time were different in that report, as were case ascertainment criteria.

The myocarditis risk associated with the two mRNA vaccines is small compared with “the morbidity and mortality of COVID-19 infection, in which up to 28% of hospitalized patients showed signs of myocardial injury,” wrote Vinay Guduguntla, MD, University of California, San Francisco, and Mitchell H. Katz, MD, NYC Health + Hospitals, New York, in an editorial accompanying the report from Dr. Lee and associates.

“Randomized clinical trials show that COVID-19 mRNA vaccines represent a safe and effective method of preventing infection,” they stated. “The identification of rare myocarditis does not change clinical decision-making.”

Dr. Bozkurt, who is immediate past president of the Heart Failure Society of America, has disclosed consulting for Bayer and scPharmaceuticals and serving on a clinical events committee for a trial supported by Abbott Pharmaceuticals and on a data and safety monitoring board for a trial supported by Liva Nova Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Lee and the report’s other authors had no disclosures. Dr. Mevorach discloses consulting for Enlivex Therapeutics; disclosures for the other authors are available at NEJM.org. Dr. Witberg said he has no interests to disclose; disclosures for the other authors are available at NEJM.org. Dr. Guduguntla is an editorial fellow and Dr. Katz a deputy editor at JAMA Internal Medicine; neither had disclosures.

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

Recent literature features new descriptions of myocarditis linked to the two available mRNA vaccines against SARS-CoV-2. They tell a story largely consistent with experience to date, and support what might be its most useful public health message: The associated myocarditis is usually mild and self-limiting, and is far less likely to occur than myocarditis or death in unvaccinated people with COVID-19.

In line with previous research, the new analyses suggest the myocarditis – with onset usually a few days to a week after injection – has an overall incidence that ranges from less than 1 to perhaps 3 per 100,000 people who received at least one of the full mRNA-vaccine regimen’s two injections. Also, as in earlier studies, the incidence climbed higher – sometimes sharply – in certain groups by age and sex, particularly in young men and older male teens.

The new studies “are confirmatory, in terms of the risk being low,” but underscore that clinicians still must be wary of myocarditis as a potential complication of the mRNA vaccines, Biykem Bozkurt, MD, PhD, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, told this news organization.

Dr. Bozkurt, a leading heart failure specialist and researcher, did not contribute to any of the new reports but does study the myocarditis of COVID-19 and was lead author on a recent review of the potential vaccine complication’s features and possible mechanisms.

In the new myocarditis reports, she observed, more than 90% of the cases were mild and “resolved on their own without a major adverse outcome.” Dr. Bozkurt emphasized the need for perspective regarding the risk. For example, the myocarditis associated with SARS-CoV-2 infection is not only more likely than the vaccine-related myocarditis, but it’s also usually far more severe.

Dr. Bozkurt pointed to a recent study in which the mRNA vaccines, compared with no vaccination, appeared to escalate the myocarditis risk by a factor of 3, whereas the risk for myocarditis in SARS-CoV-2 infection was increased 18 times.

In contrast, she observed, the new myocarditis cases reported this week feature a few that are novel or are at least very rare, including the case of a patient who developed cardiogenic shock and another with fulminant myocarditis who died.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in May publicly described the apparent link between myocarditis and the two available mRNA vaccines against SARS-CoV-2: BNT162b2 (Pfizer-BioNTech) and mRNA-1273 (Moderna). The next month, the Food and Drug Administration added a warning about the risk to the labeling.
 

Less than 1 case per 100,000

Fifteen confirmed cases of myocarditis were identified among about 2.4 million members of Kaiser Permanente Southern California aged 18 or older who received at least one injection of the Pfizer or Moderna mRNA vaccines between December 2020 and July 2021, in a report published in JAMA Internal Medicine. The study counted cases up to 10 days after the first or second injection, of which there were 2 and 13, respectively.

All eight patients who received the Pfizer BNT162b2 vaccine and the eight given the Moderna mRNA-1273 vaccine were male with a median age of 25 years (interquartile range, 20-32 years).

“The main takeaway messages from our study are that the incidence of myocarditis after COVID-19 mRNA vaccinations is very low, that this condition is primarily observed in young men within a few days after the second dose, and that most patients recover quickly,” senior author Mingsum Lee, MD, PhD, Kaiser Permanente Los Angeles Medical Center, told this news organization.

“The incidence of vaccine-related myocarditis was significantly lower than rates of COVID-19 hospitalization during the same period and population area,” she added.

The group saw a per-million incidence of 0.8 and 5.8 myocarditis cases in the 10 days after first and second injections, respectively. That made for an incidence of 0.58 per 100,000, or 1 case per 172,414 fully vaccinated adults.

The group also considered a cohort of 1,577,741 unvaccinated people with a median age of 39 years (interquartile range, 28-53 years) during the same period. Of the 75 cases of myocarditis, 52% were in men, they reported.

Comparing the vaccinated and unvaccinated cohorts, they saw a 10-day vaccine-associated myocarditis incidence rate ratio of 0.38 (95% confidence interval, 0.05-1.40; P = .15) after the first dose, and 2.7 (95% CI, 1.4-4.8; P = .004) after the second dose.

In a comparison of the vaccinated group with itself using data from a 10-day period in the previous year, the corresponding myocarditis IRRs were 1.0 (P > .99) and 3.3 (P = .03), respectively.

Dr. Lee said none of the 15 patients required admission to an intensive care unit. “All patients with myocarditis responded well to treatment and felt better quickly,” she noted.

Myocarditis after an mRNA vaccine injection is rare and, Dr. Lee said emphatically, and “the benefits of the COVID-19 vaccine greatly outweigh the risks.”
 

Sex- and age-stratified rates

In a separate analysis of 5,442,696 people given a first dose of the Pfizer BNT162b2 vaccine and 5,125,635 given a second dose, there were 142 cases of myocarditis with onset 21 days after dose 1 and 30 days after dose 2. Of those cases, 136 were documented as “definite or probable” in an Israeli Ministry of Health database that covered up to the end of May 2021.

There were also 40 cases among vaccinated people seen after the 30-day window, which were considered not related to the vaccination, and 101 cases among unvaccinated people; of the latter, 29 had confirmed diagnoses of COVID-19.

Of the 136 people with definite or probable cases, the myocarditis was “generally mild” in 129 and usually resolved on its own, notes the report on the study, published in the New England Journal of Medicine, with lead author Dror Mevorach, MD, Hadassah-Hebrew University Medical Center, Jerusalem.

The estimated myocarditis incidence after a second such vaccine dose across the entire Israeli population, based on the current study, was about one per 26,000 males and one per 218,000 females, the group writes. Those figures compare with one case per 10,857 among “the general unvaccinated population.”

Again, the risk was concentrated among younger men and male adolescents. In an analysis limited to vaccinated people aged 16-19 years, myocarditis in the 21 days after a second mRNA injection was seen in about one of 6,637 males and one of 99,853 females, the group reported.

The standardized incidence ratio of 5.34 (95% CI, 4.48-6.40) after a second injection, across all groups, “was driven mostly by the diagnosis of myocarditis in younger male recipients.” Among that male subgroup, the ratios by age group were 13.60 (95% CI, 9.30-19.20) for 16-19 years, 8.53 (95% CI, 5.57-12.50) for 20-24 years, and 6.96 (95% CI, 4.25-10.75) for 25-29 years.

Among people who received a second injection, compared with unvaccinated people, the 30-day rate ratio was 2.35 (95% CI, 1.10-5.02). Again, the effect was concentrated in males aged 16-19 years. Among them, the myocarditis rate ratios in the 30 days after a second mRNA vaccine injection were 8.96 (95% CI, 4.50-17.83) for the 16-19 years group, 6.13 (95% CI, 3.16-11.88) for the 20-24 group, and 3.58 (95% CI, 1.82-7.01) for 25-29 years.

Most of the patients with myocarditis showed “significant clinical improvement,” with a mean hospitalization time of only 3-4 days, the report notes. Treatment consisted of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs “with or without colchicine for presumed pericardial inflammation.”

However, seven patients (4.9%) developed important complications, including left-ventricular dysfunction, ventricular arrhythmias, and heart failure. Among them was a 22-year-old patient who died of fulminant myocarditis within 24 hours of diagnosis, the group wrote.
 

From an Israeli health care organization

Published by the same journal as the study by Dr. Menvorach and associates, an analysis of a separate database showed largely consistent findings among patients in the largest of Israel’s four health care organizations charged by the government to administer health services.

The report, with authors led by Guy Witberg, MD, Rabin Medical Center, Petah Tikva, Israel, focused on members of the health care organization aged 16 years or older who had received at least one Pfizer mRNA vaccine dose by the end of May 2021.

The cohorts from the two separate reports surely overlap substantially, as the Ministry of Health analysis from Dr. Mevorach and colleagues derived from a nationwide database, and – as Dr. Witberg and associates wrote – the health care organization providing their data covers 52% of the Israeli population.

Of 2,558,421 vaccinated people in the analysis, of whom 94% received two doses, 54 developed confirmed myocarditis in the 42 days after the first dose. Their median age was 27 years (interquartile range, 21-35 years) and all but three (94%) were male. Of those 54 cases, 41 were considered mild and 12 intermediate in severity, and one was fulminant with the patient in cardiogenic shock, the group writes. In addition, nonsustained ventricular tachycardia and atrial fibrillation developed in 5% and 3% of cases, respectively.

The estimated myocarditis incidence in the 42 days after administration of at least one mRNA vaccine dose was 2.13 per 100,000 vaccinated people. In that group, Dr. Witberg and colleagues note, the corresponding incidences per 100,000 were 4.12 and 0.23 for males and females, respectively.

Also in the current report, incidences per 100,000 vaccinated people aged 16-29 years, by sex, included 5.49 (95% CI, 3.59-7.39) overall, and 10.69 (95% CI, 6.93-14.46) for males (the highest rate in the report).

There was only one case in a female aged 16-29 years, and two cases in females 30 years or older.

Of note, some authors of the current study are also authors on the high-profile report from Noam Barda, MD, and colleagues published in the New England Journal of Medicine, that used the same database to arrive at an mRNA-vaccine-related incidence of myocarditis of 2.7 per 100,000. Eligibility criteria and follow-up time were different in that report, as were case ascertainment criteria.

The myocarditis risk associated with the two mRNA vaccines is small compared with “the morbidity and mortality of COVID-19 infection, in which up to 28% of hospitalized patients showed signs of myocardial injury,” wrote Vinay Guduguntla, MD, University of California, San Francisco, and Mitchell H. Katz, MD, NYC Health + Hospitals, New York, in an editorial accompanying the report from Dr. Lee and associates.

“Randomized clinical trials show that COVID-19 mRNA vaccines represent a safe and effective method of preventing infection,” they stated. “The identification of rare myocarditis does not change clinical decision-making.”

Dr. Bozkurt, who is immediate past president of the Heart Failure Society of America, has disclosed consulting for Bayer and scPharmaceuticals and serving on a clinical events committee for a trial supported by Abbott Pharmaceuticals and on a data and safety monitoring board for a trial supported by Liva Nova Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Lee and the report’s other authors had no disclosures. Dr. Mevorach discloses consulting for Enlivex Therapeutics; disclosures for the other authors are available at NEJM.org. Dr. Witberg said he has no interests to disclose; disclosures for the other authors are available at NEJM.org. Dr. Guduguntla is an editorial fellow and Dr. Katz a deputy editor at JAMA Internal Medicine; neither had disclosures.

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

The rapid transition to and reliance on telehealth to manage patients with heart failure during the COVID-19 pandemic does not appear to impact clinical outcomes, according to real-world data.

HF outpatients managed with telehealth visits did not show a significantly higher adjusted risk for subsequent ED visits, hospital admissions, intensive care use, or death at 30 and 90 days, the investigators reported in JACC: Heart Failure.

“Telehealth is safe and effective in probably some of our highest-risk patients who traditionally have needed hands-on, in-person assessment and evaluation – those patients who have heart failure – so we shouldn’t be afraid to use it all the time, not when needed as a minimum,” senior author Brett W. Sperry, MD, said in an interview.

Heart failure is a perfect case example to examine telehealth because the chronic condition not only requires continual assessment and medication adjustments, but HF patients are also particularly vulnerable to complications related to COVID-19 infection, he noted. A small, single-center report on telehealth early in Italy’s outbreak showed fewer HF hospitalizations and similar mortality, compared with in-person visits in 2019 but, overall, few data exist.

The current analysis took a wider sweep, comparing HF patients seen from March 15 to June 15, 2020 with those seen during the same time period in 2018 and 2019 at 16 cardiology clinics in Saint Luke’s Health System, which serves the Kansas City metro area and surrounding suburbs in Missouri and Kansas.

Among 8,263 unique patients and 15,421 visits identified, telehealth was not used in 2018 or 2019 but accounted for 88.5% of visits during the study period in 2020, 70% of which were by telephone and 30% of which were by video.

“We had zero telehealth before March 2020 and basically built an entire telehealth apparatus in a week or 2,” explained Dr. Sperry. “Initially it was a lot of telephone visits while we were getting the video stuff figured out, which is reflected in the paper, and then went to mostly video visits.”

Despite the pandemic, however, more outpatients were seen in 2020 than in 2018 and 2019 (4,063 vs. 3675 and 3,619 patients, respectively). This likely reflects the shift of personnel and resources from hospital duties to outpatient virtual visits, which were strongly recommended by the Heart Failure Society of America and other professional societies to manage patients during the pandemic, he said.

Unadjusted analyses demonstrated fewer ED visits and hospital admissions and more ICU admissions and all-cause mortality in 2020 than in previous years.

A propensity-matched analysis involving 4541 pairs of patients, however, showed admissions to the ED or hospital were lower after the telehealth visits than after in-person visits at 30 days (6.8% vs 10.4%; P < .001) and 90 days (17.9% vs. 23.3%; P < .001).

Among hospitalized patients, there was no difference between telehealth and in-patient visits in ICU admissions at 30 or 90 days. Mortality was also similar at 30 days (0.8% vs. 0.7%; P = .465) and 90 days (2.9% vs. 2.4%; P = .133).

Dr. Sperry said the pendulum has swung since 2020 and that the team is back to seeing most people in person, with about 15% of his clinic visits that day done via video. Standardized quality of life assessments prior to outpatient visits can help triage patients to telehealth in-patient visits, but in-person visits will still be needed for cases with greater acuity, older patients, and those with limited or no access to quality telephone videos or the internet.

“It isn’t for everyone,” Dr. Sperry said. “You’re going to need some kind of hybrid model with both in-person and video visits available and be able to offer both for patients and be able to titrate that as the pandemic changes in the future.”

Ankit Bhatia, MD, an advanced HF cardiologist at Christ Hospital in Cincinnati, who was not part of the study, said in an interview the use of telehealth in 85% of patients may be higher than the norm at most centers but that the study provides much-needed data.

“I’m really appreciative of a study like this because we were all in such a rush last year to get patients seen that very few people thought how could we design a study to really ensure we’re treating our patients within an equipoise with prior practices,” he said.

“The fact that they were able to do that [85%] and demonstrate in a propensity-matched analysis that outcomes were similar really just shows that telehealth is a strategy that we can use well in patients with heart failure to extend our ability to take care of them,” said Dr. Bhatia, a member of the American College of Cardiology Health Care Innovation Council.

Even beyond the pandemic, he said, the trend in health care is for patients to want health care delivered closer to home and for health care systems to become more patient centric. “This accelerated that but what I think this study showed me was that it’s okay to have this be part of my care model and I’m not sacrificing on my patient care if I choose to intersperse telehealth with inpatient visits.”

Besides the inherent limitations of retrospective studies, the authors noted that diagnoses in the study were based on ICD-10 codes and that subsequent ED visits or hospitalizations outside the single system may have been underreported. A further limitation is that they could not identify the cause of death or reasons for hospital encounters.

“Further data are needed to confirm the relative safety of a telehealth strategy in the HF population over a more sustained period of time, although we hypothesize that greater risks would be observed early after telehealth visits, where patients’ acuity might be misjudged,” they wrote.

Dr. Sperry is a consultant to Pfizer and Alnylam. Coauthor John A. Spertus is the principal investigator of grants from National Institutes of Health, Abbott Vascular, and the American College of Cardiology Foundation; is a consultant to Janssen, Novartis, Amgen, Myokardia, AstraZeneca, Bayer, and Merck; serves on the scientific advisory board of United Healthcare and the board of directors for Blue Cross Blue Shield of Kansas City; owns the copyright to the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire, Seattle Angina Questionnaire, and Peripheral Artery Questionnaire; and has an equity interest in Health Outcomes Sciences. All other authors and Dr. Bhatia reported no relevant conflicts.

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

The rapid transition to and reliance on telehealth to manage patients with heart failure during the COVID-19 pandemic does not appear to impact clinical outcomes, according to real-world data.

HF outpatients managed with telehealth visits did not show a significantly higher adjusted risk for subsequent ED visits, hospital admissions, intensive care use, or death at 30 and 90 days, the investigators reported in JACC: Heart Failure.

“Telehealth is safe and effective in probably some of our highest-risk patients who traditionally have needed hands-on, in-person assessment and evaluation – those patients who have heart failure – so we shouldn’t be afraid to use it all the time, not when needed as a minimum,” senior author Brett W. Sperry, MD, said in an interview.

Heart failure is a perfect case example to examine telehealth because the chronic condition not only requires continual assessment and medication adjustments, but HF patients are also particularly vulnerable to complications related to COVID-19 infection, he noted. A small, single-center report on telehealth early in Italy’s outbreak showed fewer HF hospitalizations and similar mortality, compared with in-person visits in 2019 but, overall, few data exist.

The current analysis took a wider sweep, comparing HF patients seen from March 15 to June 15, 2020 with those seen during the same time period in 2018 and 2019 at 16 cardiology clinics in Saint Luke’s Health System, which serves the Kansas City metro area and surrounding suburbs in Missouri and Kansas.

Among 8,263 unique patients and 15,421 visits identified, telehealth was not used in 2018 or 2019 but accounted for 88.5% of visits during the study period in 2020, 70% of which were by telephone and 30% of which were by video.

“We had zero telehealth before March 2020 and basically built an entire telehealth apparatus in a week or 2,” explained Dr. Sperry. “Initially it was a lot of telephone visits while we were getting the video stuff figured out, which is reflected in the paper, and then went to mostly video visits.”

Despite the pandemic, however, more outpatients were seen in 2020 than in 2018 and 2019 (4,063 vs. 3675 and 3,619 patients, respectively). This likely reflects the shift of personnel and resources from hospital duties to outpatient virtual visits, which were strongly recommended by the Heart Failure Society of America and other professional societies to manage patients during the pandemic, he said.

Unadjusted analyses demonstrated fewer ED visits and hospital admissions and more ICU admissions and all-cause mortality in 2020 than in previous years.

A propensity-matched analysis involving 4541 pairs of patients, however, showed admissions to the ED or hospital were lower after the telehealth visits than after in-person visits at 30 days (6.8% vs 10.4%; P < .001) and 90 days (17.9% vs. 23.3%; P < .001).

Among hospitalized patients, there was no difference between telehealth and in-patient visits in ICU admissions at 30 or 90 days. Mortality was also similar at 30 days (0.8% vs. 0.7%; P = .465) and 90 days (2.9% vs. 2.4%; P = .133).

Dr. Sperry said the pendulum has swung since 2020 and that the team is back to seeing most people in person, with about 15% of his clinic visits that day done via video. Standardized quality of life assessments prior to outpatient visits can help triage patients to telehealth in-patient visits, but in-person visits will still be needed for cases with greater acuity, older patients, and those with limited or no access to quality telephone videos or the internet.

“It isn’t for everyone,” Dr. Sperry said. “You’re going to need some kind of hybrid model with both in-person and video visits available and be able to offer both for patients and be able to titrate that as the pandemic changes in the future.”

Ankit Bhatia, MD, an advanced HF cardiologist at Christ Hospital in Cincinnati, who was not part of the study, said in an interview the use of telehealth in 85% of patients may be higher than the norm at most centers but that the study provides much-needed data.

“I’m really appreciative of a study like this because we were all in such a rush last year to get patients seen that very few people thought how could we design a study to really ensure we’re treating our patients within an equipoise with prior practices,” he said.

“The fact that they were able to do that [85%] and demonstrate in a propensity-matched analysis that outcomes were similar really just shows that telehealth is a strategy that we can use well in patients with heart failure to extend our ability to take care of them,” said Dr. Bhatia, a member of the American College of Cardiology Health Care Innovation Council.

Even beyond the pandemic, he said, the trend in health care is for patients to want health care delivered closer to home and for health care systems to become more patient centric. “This accelerated that but what I think this study showed me was that it’s okay to have this be part of my care model and I’m not sacrificing on my patient care if I choose to intersperse telehealth with inpatient visits.”

Besides the inherent limitations of retrospective studies, the authors noted that diagnoses in the study were based on ICD-10 codes and that subsequent ED visits or hospitalizations outside the single system may have been underreported. A further limitation is that they could not identify the cause of death or reasons for hospital encounters.

“Further data are needed to confirm the relative safety of a telehealth strategy in the HF population over a more sustained period of time, although we hypothesize that greater risks would be observed early after telehealth visits, where patients’ acuity might be misjudged,” they wrote.

Dr. Sperry is a consultant to Pfizer and Alnylam. Coauthor John A. Spertus is the principal investigator of grants from National Institutes of Health, Abbott Vascular, and the American College of Cardiology Foundation; is a consultant to Janssen, Novartis, Amgen, Myokardia, AstraZeneca, Bayer, and Merck; serves on the scientific advisory board of United Healthcare and the board of directors for Blue Cross Blue Shield of Kansas City; owns the copyright to the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire, Seattle Angina Questionnaire, and Peripheral Artery Questionnaire; and has an equity interest in Health Outcomes Sciences. All other authors and Dr. Bhatia reported no relevant conflicts.

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

The rapid transition to and reliance on telehealth to manage patients with heart failure during the COVID-19 pandemic does not appear to impact clinical outcomes, according to real-world data.

HF outpatients managed with telehealth visits did not show a significantly higher adjusted risk for subsequent ED visits, hospital admissions, intensive care use, or death at 30 and 90 days, the investigators reported in JACC: Heart Failure.

“Telehealth is safe and effective in probably some of our highest-risk patients who traditionally have needed hands-on, in-person assessment and evaluation – those patients who have heart failure – so we shouldn’t be afraid to use it all the time, not when needed as a minimum,” senior author Brett W. Sperry, MD, said in an interview.

Heart failure is a perfect case example to examine telehealth because the chronic condition not only requires continual assessment and medication adjustments, but HF patients are also particularly vulnerable to complications related to COVID-19 infection, he noted. A small, single-center report on telehealth early in Italy’s outbreak showed fewer HF hospitalizations and similar mortality, compared with in-person visits in 2019 but, overall, few data exist.

The current analysis took a wider sweep, comparing HF patients seen from March 15 to June 15, 2020 with those seen during the same time period in 2018 and 2019 at 16 cardiology clinics in Saint Luke’s Health System, which serves the Kansas City metro area and surrounding suburbs in Missouri and Kansas.

Among 8,263 unique patients and 15,421 visits identified, telehealth was not used in 2018 or 2019 but accounted for 88.5% of visits during the study period in 2020, 70% of which were by telephone and 30% of which were by video.

“We had zero telehealth before March 2020 and basically built an entire telehealth apparatus in a week or 2,” explained Dr. Sperry. “Initially it was a lot of telephone visits while we were getting the video stuff figured out, which is reflected in the paper, and then went to mostly video visits.”

Despite the pandemic, however, more outpatients were seen in 2020 than in 2018 and 2019 (4,063 vs. 3675 and 3,619 patients, respectively). This likely reflects the shift of personnel and resources from hospital duties to outpatient virtual visits, which were strongly recommended by the Heart Failure Society of America and other professional societies to manage patients during the pandemic, he said.

Unadjusted analyses demonstrated fewer ED visits and hospital admissions and more ICU admissions and all-cause mortality in 2020 than in previous years.

A propensity-matched analysis involving 4541 pairs of patients, however, showed admissions to the ED or hospital were lower after the telehealth visits than after in-person visits at 30 days (6.8% vs 10.4%; P < .001) and 90 days (17.9% vs. 23.3%; P < .001).

Among hospitalized patients, there was no difference between telehealth and in-patient visits in ICU admissions at 30 or 90 days. Mortality was also similar at 30 days (0.8% vs. 0.7%; P = .465) and 90 days (2.9% vs. 2.4%; P = .133).

Dr. Sperry said the pendulum has swung since 2020 and that the team is back to seeing most people in person, with about 15% of his clinic visits that day done via video. Standardized quality of life assessments prior to outpatient visits can help triage patients to telehealth in-patient visits, but in-person visits will still be needed for cases with greater acuity, older patients, and those with limited or no access to quality telephone videos or the internet.

“It isn’t for everyone,” Dr. Sperry said. “You’re going to need some kind of hybrid model with both in-person and video visits available and be able to offer both for patients and be able to titrate that as the pandemic changes in the future.”

Ankit Bhatia, MD, an advanced HF cardiologist at Christ Hospital in Cincinnati, who was not part of the study, said in an interview the use of telehealth in 85% of patients may be higher than the norm at most centers but that the study provides much-needed data.

“I’m really appreciative of a study like this because we were all in such a rush last year to get patients seen that very few people thought how could we design a study to really ensure we’re treating our patients within an equipoise with prior practices,” he said.

“The fact that they were able to do that [85%] and demonstrate in a propensity-matched analysis that outcomes were similar really just shows that telehealth is a strategy that we can use well in patients with heart failure to extend our ability to take care of them,” said Dr. Bhatia, a member of the American College of Cardiology Health Care Innovation Council.

Even beyond the pandemic, he said, the trend in health care is for patients to want health care delivered closer to home and for health care systems to become more patient centric. “This accelerated that but what I think this study showed me was that it’s okay to have this be part of my care model and I’m not sacrificing on my patient care if I choose to intersperse telehealth with inpatient visits.”

Besides the inherent limitations of retrospective studies, the authors noted that diagnoses in the study were based on ICD-10 codes and that subsequent ED visits or hospitalizations outside the single system may have been underreported. A further limitation is that they could not identify the cause of death or reasons for hospital encounters.

“Further data are needed to confirm the relative safety of a telehealth strategy in the HF population over a more sustained period of time, although we hypothesize that greater risks would be observed early after telehealth visits, where patients’ acuity might be misjudged,” they wrote.

Dr. Sperry is a consultant to Pfizer and Alnylam. Coauthor John A. Spertus is the principal investigator of grants from National Institutes of Health, Abbott Vascular, and the American College of Cardiology Foundation; is a consultant to Janssen, Novartis, Amgen, Myokardia, AstraZeneca, Bayer, and Merck; serves on the scientific advisory board of United Healthcare and the board of directors for Blue Cross Blue Shield of Kansas City; owns the copyright to the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire, Seattle Angina Questionnaire, and Peripheral Artery Questionnaire; and has an equity interest in Health Outcomes Sciences. All other authors and Dr. Bhatia reported no relevant conflicts.

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

Carrying excess weight is associated with an increased risk for certain heart problems even when there are no metabolic disturbances, data from a large French longitudinal study have shown.

In an analysis of almost 3 million people with no prior heart issues, there was a 34% increased risk for developing heart failure and a 33% increased risk for developing atrial fibrillation, it was reported at the annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes.

There appeared to be no increase in the risk for heart attacks, ischemic stroke, or cardiovascular death, but the study’s 5-year follow-up period may have been too short to see such differences.

“Our findings highlight the importance of preventing poor metabolic health,” study investigator Laurent Fauchier, MD, PhD, of Centre Hospitalier Universitaire Trousseau (France), observed in a press release that highlighted his EASD presentation.

“Encouraging weight loss in people with obesity, regardless of whether or not they are ‘metabolically healthy,’ will help prevent atrial fibrillation and heart failure,” he suggested.
 

‘Metabolically healthy obesity’ – a misnomer?

‘Metabolically healthy obesity’, or MHO, has been suggested as a term to describe those who have a body mass index greater than 30 mg/m² but no obvious metabolic abnormalities, such as hypertension, dyslipidemia, or diabetes. It’s a term that could cover around a third of people with obesity, but it’s one that not everyone agrees with.

“I don’t feel the label ‘MHO’ is useful,” Frederick Ho, PhD, who is part of team at the University of Glasgow (Scotland) that has done similar research in a U.K. population, said in an interview.

Courtesy Dr. Ho

“Even if – and this is a big if– [people with obesity] are at no higher risk of heart attack or stroke, they are still at higher risk of many other diseases, including heart failure and respiratory diseases. The term ‘healthy’ is sometimes interpreted as no additional health risk at all, which is not true,” Dr. Ho, a research fellow in public health, qualified.
 

Hospital discharge records checked

For their analysis Dr. Fauchier and coinvestigators obtained the medical records of all patients who had been discharged from French hospitals in 2013 and who had at least 5 years’ worth of follow-up data. For inclusion, there had to be no prior history of major cardiovascular events (MACE), which included myocardial infarction (MI), heart failure, and ischemic stroke. Patients who were underweight or malnourished were excluded.

In all, around 2.8 million patients were included for the analysis, of whom 9.5% (n = 272,838) were classified as being obese and the remainder as ‘nonobese’ (n = 2,600,201). Patients were then subdivided according to whether they had diabetes, hypertension, and hyperlipidemia, with those who did not have any of these conditions being classified as ‘metabolically healthy’ and those who had all three as ‘metabolically unhealthy.’

The results, published in Diabetes, Obesity and Metabolism, showed that just under a third (32.8%) of the obese patients were ‘metabolically healthy,’ compared with 72.7% of those who were not obese.

The adjusted hazard ratio (aHR) for experiencing MACE with heart failure was 1.22 comparing those who were obese and ‘metabolically healthy’ with those who were not obese and had no metabolic abnormalities (95% confidence interval, 1.19-1.24). Corresponding aHRs for new-onset heart failure and new-onset atrial fibrillation were 1.34 (CI, 1.31-1.37) and 1.33 (CI, 1.30-1.37). For MI, ischemic stroke, and cardiovascular death aHRs were a respective 0.92 (CI, 0.87-0.98), 0.93 (CI, 0.88-0.98), and 0.99 (CI, 0.93-1.0).
 

Findings consistent with UK Biobank data

While these are observational associations that do not show cause and effect, they do agree with other recently published data from the UK Biobank as Dr. Ho pointed out. These data are “quite interesting and partly consistent with what we found previously, e.g., a higher heart failure risk,” he said.

“We’d expect people with ‘metabolically healthy’ obesity to develop heart attack and stroke a little later than those who were initially metabolically unhealthy,” Dr. Ho noted, observing that the study was very large, but it does has a relatively short period of follow up.

“This is partly because quite a few of those with ‘MHO’ would become metabolically unhealthy after a few years,” Dr. Ho added.

Importantly, he noted, “this study has omitted several important confounders, such as physical activity and diet, which are both strong predictors of MHO and cardiovascular outcomes.”

Naveed Sattar, FMedSci, FRCPath, FRCPGlas, FRSE, professor and honorary consultant in cardiovascular and medical sciences at the University of Glasgow, with whom Dr. Ho has collaborated, gave his thoughts on the topic in an interview.

“Carrying excess weight can give considerable risks for conditions such as heart failure or respiratory disease in ways (not yet fully understood) that are not captured by metabolic health factors,” he said.

“This means that even if someone were to be labeled as living with metabolically healthy obesity, losing weight may still benefit that individual in many ways and reduce their risk of several other important health outcomes. They may also feel better.” 

Furthermore, he added: “Our Glasgow team has therefore strongly cautioned on the use of the term metabolically healthy obesity, and these new data do not change our view.”

Dr. Fauchier has acted as a speaker or consultant for AstraZeneca, Bayer, Bristol Myers Squibb Pfizer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Medtronic, Novartis, and XO. Dr. Ho had no relevant conflicts of interest. Dr. Sattar has received grants and personal fees from Boehringer Ingelheim, and personal fees from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Eli Lilly, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Pfizer, and Sanofi.

Carrying excess weight is associated with an increased risk for certain heart problems even when there are no metabolic disturbances, data from a large French longitudinal study have shown.

In an analysis of almost 3 million people with no prior heart issues, there was a 34% increased risk for developing heart failure and a 33% increased risk for developing atrial fibrillation, it was reported at the annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes.

There appeared to be no increase in the risk for heart attacks, ischemic stroke, or cardiovascular death, but the study’s 5-year follow-up period may have been too short to see such differences.

“Our findings highlight the importance of preventing poor metabolic health,” study investigator Laurent Fauchier, MD, PhD, of Centre Hospitalier Universitaire Trousseau (France), observed in a press release that highlighted his EASD presentation.

“Encouraging weight loss in people with obesity, regardless of whether or not they are ‘metabolically healthy,’ will help prevent atrial fibrillation and heart failure,” he suggested.
 

‘Metabolically healthy obesity’ – a misnomer?

‘Metabolically healthy obesity’, or MHO, has been suggested as a term to describe those who have a body mass index greater than 30 mg/m² but no obvious metabolic abnormalities, such as hypertension, dyslipidemia, or diabetes. It’s a term that could cover around a third of people with obesity, but it’s one that not everyone agrees with.

“I don’t feel the label ‘MHO’ is useful,” Frederick Ho, PhD, who is part of team at the University of Glasgow (Scotland) that has done similar research in a U.K. population, said in an interview.

Courtesy Dr. Ho

“Even if – and this is a big if– [people with obesity] are at no higher risk of heart attack or stroke, they are still at higher risk of many other diseases, including heart failure and respiratory diseases. The term ‘healthy’ is sometimes interpreted as no additional health risk at all, which is not true,” Dr. Ho, a research fellow in public health, qualified.
 

Hospital discharge records checked

For their analysis Dr. Fauchier and coinvestigators obtained the medical records of all patients who had been discharged from French hospitals in 2013 and who had at least 5 years’ worth of follow-up data. For inclusion, there had to be no prior history of major cardiovascular events (MACE), which included myocardial infarction (MI), heart failure, and ischemic stroke. Patients who were underweight or malnourished were excluded.

In all, around 2.8 million patients were included for the analysis, of whom 9.5% (n = 272,838) were classified as being obese and the remainder as ‘nonobese’ (n = 2,600,201). Patients were then subdivided according to whether they had diabetes, hypertension, and hyperlipidemia, with those who did not have any of these conditions being classified as ‘metabolically healthy’ and those who had all three as ‘metabolically unhealthy.’

The results, published in Diabetes, Obesity and Metabolism, showed that just under a third (32.8%) of the obese patients were ‘metabolically healthy,’ compared with 72.7% of those who were not obese.

The adjusted hazard ratio (aHR) for experiencing MACE with heart failure was 1.22 comparing those who were obese and ‘metabolically healthy’ with those who were not obese and had no metabolic abnormalities (95% confidence interval, 1.19-1.24). Corresponding aHRs for new-onset heart failure and new-onset atrial fibrillation were 1.34 (CI, 1.31-1.37) and 1.33 (CI, 1.30-1.37). For MI, ischemic stroke, and cardiovascular death aHRs were a respective 0.92 (CI, 0.87-0.98), 0.93 (CI, 0.88-0.98), and 0.99 (CI, 0.93-1.0).
 

Findings consistent with UK Biobank data

While these are observational associations that do not show cause and effect, they do agree with other recently published data from the UK Biobank as Dr. Ho pointed out. These data are “quite interesting and partly consistent with what we found previously, e.g., a higher heart failure risk,” he said.

“We’d expect people with ‘metabolically healthy’ obesity to develop heart attack and stroke a little later than those who were initially metabolically unhealthy,” Dr. Ho noted, observing that the study was very large, but it does has a relatively short period of follow up.

“This is partly because quite a few of those with ‘MHO’ would become metabolically unhealthy after a few years,” Dr. Ho added.

Importantly, he noted, “this study has omitted several important confounders, such as physical activity and diet, which are both strong predictors of MHO and cardiovascular outcomes.”

Naveed Sattar, FMedSci, FRCPath, FRCPGlas, FRSE, professor and honorary consultant in cardiovascular and medical sciences at the University of Glasgow, with whom Dr. Ho has collaborated, gave his thoughts on the topic in an interview.

“Carrying excess weight can give considerable risks for conditions such as heart failure or respiratory disease in ways (not yet fully understood) that are not captured by metabolic health factors,” he said.

“This means that even if someone were to be labeled as living with metabolically healthy obesity, losing weight may still benefit that individual in many ways and reduce their risk of several other important health outcomes. They may also feel better.” 

Furthermore, he added: “Our Glasgow team has therefore strongly cautioned on the use of the term metabolically healthy obesity, and these new data do not change our view.”

Dr. Fauchier has acted as a speaker or consultant for AstraZeneca, Bayer, Bristol Myers Squibb Pfizer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Medtronic, Novartis, and XO. Dr. Ho had no relevant conflicts of interest. Dr. Sattar has received grants and personal fees from Boehringer Ingelheim, and personal fees from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Eli Lilly, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Pfizer, and Sanofi.

Carrying excess weight is associated with an increased risk for certain heart problems even when there are no metabolic disturbances, data from a large French longitudinal study have shown.

In an analysis of almost 3 million people with no prior heart issues, there was a 34% increased risk for developing heart failure and a 33% increased risk for developing atrial fibrillation, it was reported at the annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes.

There appeared to be no increase in the risk for heart attacks, ischemic stroke, or cardiovascular death, but the study’s 5-year follow-up period may have been too short to see such differences.

“Our findings highlight the importance of preventing poor metabolic health,” study investigator Laurent Fauchier, MD, PhD, of Centre Hospitalier Universitaire Trousseau (France), observed in a press release that highlighted his EASD presentation.

“Encouraging weight loss in people with obesity, regardless of whether or not they are ‘metabolically healthy,’ will help prevent atrial fibrillation and heart failure,” he suggested.
 

‘Metabolically healthy obesity’ – a misnomer?

‘Metabolically healthy obesity’, or MHO, has been suggested as a term to describe those who have a body mass index greater than 30 mg/m² but no obvious metabolic abnormalities, such as hypertension, dyslipidemia, or diabetes. It’s a term that could cover around a third of people with obesity, but it’s one that not everyone agrees with.

“I don’t feel the label ‘MHO’ is useful,” Frederick Ho, PhD, who is part of team at the University of Glasgow (Scotland) that has done similar research in a U.K. population, said in an interview.

Courtesy Dr. Ho

“Even if – and this is a big if– [people with obesity] are at no higher risk of heart attack or stroke, they are still at higher risk of many other diseases, including heart failure and respiratory diseases. The term ‘healthy’ is sometimes interpreted as no additional health risk at all, which is not true,” Dr. Ho, a research fellow in public health, qualified.
 

Hospital discharge records checked

For their analysis Dr. Fauchier and coinvestigators obtained the medical records of all patients who had been discharged from French hospitals in 2013 and who had at least 5 years’ worth of follow-up data. For inclusion, there had to be no prior history of major cardiovascular events (MACE), which included myocardial infarction (MI), heart failure, and ischemic stroke. Patients who were underweight or malnourished were excluded.

In all, around 2.8 million patients were included for the analysis, of whom 9.5% (n = 272,838) were classified as being obese and the remainder as ‘nonobese’ (n = 2,600,201). Patients were then subdivided according to whether they had diabetes, hypertension, and hyperlipidemia, with those who did not have any of these conditions being classified as ‘metabolically healthy’ and those who had all three as ‘metabolically unhealthy.’

The results, published in Diabetes, Obesity and Metabolism, showed that just under a third (32.8%) of the obese patients were ‘metabolically healthy,’ compared with 72.7% of those who were not obese.

The adjusted hazard ratio (aHR) for experiencing MACE with heart failure was 1.22 comparing those who were obese and ‘metabolically healthy’ with those who were not obese and had no metabolic abnormalities (95% confidence interval, 1.19-1.24). Corresponding aHRs for new-onset heart failure and new-onset atrial fibrillation were 1.34 (CI, 1.31-1.37) and 1.33 (CI, 1.30-1.37). For MI, ischemic stroke, and cardiovascular death aHRs were a respective 0.92 (CI, 0.87-0.98), 0.93 (CI, 0.88-0.98), and 0.99 (CI, 0.93-1.0).
 

Findings consistent with UK Biobank data

While these are observational associations that do not show cause and effect, they do agree with other recently published data from the UK Biobank as Dr. Ho pointed out. These data are “quite interesting and partly consistent with what we found previously, e.g., a higher heart failure risk,” he said.

“We’d expect people with ‘metabolically healthy’ obesity to develop heart attack and stroke a little later than those who were initially metabolically unhealthy,” Dr. Ho noted, observing that the study was very large, but it does has a relatively short period of follow up.

“This is partly because quite a few of those with ‘MHO’ would become metabolically unhealthy after a few years,” Dr. Ho added.

Importantly, he noted, “this study has omitted several important confounders, such as physical activity and diet, which are both strong predictors of MHO and cardiovascular outcomes.”

Naveed Sattar, FMedSci, FRCPath, FRCPGlas, FRSE, professor and honorary consultant in cardiovascular and medical sciences at the University of Glasgow, with whom Dr. Ho has collaborated, gave his thoughts on the topic in an interview.

“Carrying excess weight can give considerable risks for conditions such as heart failure or respiratory disease in ways (not yet fully understood) that are not captured by metabolic health factors,” he said.

“This means that even if someone were to be labeled as living with metabolically healthy obesity, losing weight may still benefit that individual in many ways and reduce their risk of several other important health outcomes. They may also feel better.” 

Furthermore, he added: “Our Glasgow team has therefore strongly cautioned on the use of the term metabolically healthy obesity, and these new data do not change our view.”

Dr. Fauchier has acted as a speaker or consultant for AstraZeneca, Bayer, Bristol Myers Squibb Pfizer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Medtronic, Novartis, and XO. Dr. Ho had no relevant conflicts of interest. Dr. Sattar has received grants and personal fees from Boehringer Ingelheim, and personal fees from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Eli Lilly, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Pfizer, and Sanofi.

When it comes to protecting diabetic hearts, sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 (SGLT2) inhibitors may have a slight edge over glucagonlike peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs) according to the results of large, population-based, observational cohort study.

Around a 30% reduction in the risk for being hospitalized for heart failure was achieved in people with type 2 diabetes who were treated with a SGLT2 inhibitor over a GLP-1 RA regardless of whether the patients had a preexisting heart condition.

The findings, published in the Annals of Internal Medicine, also showed a 10% lower risk for myocardial infarction or stroke among those treated with a SGLT2 inhibitor who had preexisting cardiovascular disease (CVD), although there was no difference in risk between the two classes of drugs in those without preexisting CVD.

“These findings are important as they suggest that SGLT2 [inhibitors] and GLP-1 RA offer similar benefits in preventing myocardial infarction and stroke in patients with diabetes,” said study investigator Elisabetta Patorno, MD, DrPH, of Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School in Boston, in an interview.

They also show “that SGLT2 [inhibitors] offer greater efficacy in preventing heart failure, which supports the existing guidelines,” she added.

Paul S. Jellinger, MD, MACE, of the Center for Diabetes and Endocrine Care in Hollywood, Fla., said these data were likely to be “additive to guidelines but not transformative.” The overall analysis results were “not surprising.” It was not unexpected that SGLT2 inhibitors provided a robust chronic heart failure (CHF) benefit, particularly in individuals with history of CVD, he said.

Dr. Jellinger, a clinical endocrinologist and professor of clinical medicine on the voluntary faculty at the University of Miami, observed, however, that “the similar CVD benefit in both drug classes in patients without known CVD adds to our knowledge in this somewhat controversial area and may be useful to the clinician in evaluating therapy in a diabetic individual without evidence of or at high risk for CHF.”

Furthermore, “the study also reminds us that, as demonstrated in published meta-analysis, there is also a modest CHF benefit associated with GLP-1 RA treatment particularly in patients with a history of CVD.”
 

Addressing the knowledge gap

Thanks to the results of many large-scale, prospective, cardiovascular outcomes studies, both SGLT2 inhibitors and GLP1 RA have been recommended as treatment for people with diabetes who have established CVD. But with no direct head-to-head trials having been conducted, there is a gap in knowledge and there is currently little guidance for physicians on which drug class to choose for an individual patient.

To try to clarify things, Dr. Patorno and associates looked at data from more than 370,000 people with type 2 diabetes who had been treated between April 2013 and December 2017 with either a SGLT2 inhibitor (canagliflozin, dapagliflozin, or empagliflozin) or GLP-1 RA (albiglutide, dulaglutide, exenatide, or liraglutide).

One-to-one propensity score matching was used to create the study groups: participants were first grouped according to their history of CVD, and then by the class of drug they had been prescribed. The primary outcomes were hospitalization for MI, stroke, or heart failure.

Comparing the initiation of a SGLT2 inhibitor with GLP-1 RA therapy, the hazard ratios (HRs) for MI or stroke in patients with and without a history of CVD were a respective 0.90 (95% CI, 0.82 to 0.98) and 1.07 (0.97 to 1.18).

The corresponding hazard ratios for heart failure hospitalizations were 0.71 (0.64 to 0.79) and 0.69 (0.56 to 0.85).
 

Real-world studies are of ‘increasing value’

“As in other not-randomized studies based on real-world data, residual confounding cannot be completely ruled out,” Dr. Patorno acknowledged. She added, however that “state-of-the-art methodological strategies were implemented to minimize this possibility.”

Limitations notwithstanding, “real world studies are demonstrating increasing value,” observed Dr. Jellinger. Further large-scale cardiovascular outcomes trials that directly compare these two drug classes “are unlikely given the depth of information available now,” Dr. Jellinger suggested.

“This head-to-head retrospective study may be as close as we get and does represent the first effort at a comparison of these two classes.”

Dr. Patorno said of the potential clinical implications: “Because the two classes are equally effective for stroke and myocardial infarction, but the SGLT2 inhibitors are superior for heart failure, when considered in aggregate, SGLT2 inhibitors are likely to prevent more of these adverse cardiovascular events than GLP-1 RA.”

The study received no commercial funding and was supported by the Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School Division of Pharmacoepidemiology and Pharmacoeconomics.

Dr. Patorno reported no conflicts of interest. Dr. Jellinger is on the speaker’s bureau for Astra Zeneca, Amgen, and Esperion, and has served on advisory boards for Corcept and Regeneron.

When it comes to protecting diabetic hearts, sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 (SGLT2) inhibitors may have a slight edge over glucagonlike peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs) according to the results of large, population-based, observational cohort study.

Around a 30% reduction in the risk for being hospitalized for heart failure was achieved in people with type 2 diabetes who were treated with a SGLT2 inhibitor over a GLP-1 RA regardless of whether the patients had a preexisting heart condition.

The findings, published in the Annals of Internal Medicine, also showed a 10% lower risk for myocardial infarction or stroke among those treated with a SGLT2 inhibitor who had preexisting cardiovascular disease (CVD), although there was no difference in risk between the two classes of drugs in those without preexisting CVD.

“These findings are important as they suggest that SGLT2 [inhibitors] and GLP-1 RA offer similar benefits in preventing myocardial infarction and stroke in patients with diabetes,” said study investigator Elisabetta Patorno, MD, DrPH, of Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School in Boston, in an interview.

They also show “that SGLT2 [inhibitors] offer greater efficacy in preventing heart failure, which supports the existing guidelines,” she added.

Paul S. Jellinger, MD, MACE, of the Center for Diabetes and Endocrine Care in Hollywood, Fla., said these data were likely to be “additive to guidelines but not transformative.” The overall analysis results were “not surprising.” It was not unexpected that SGLT2 inhibitors provided a robust chronic heart failure (CHF) benefit, particularly in individuals with history of CVD, he said.

Dr. Jellinger, a clinical endocrinologist and professor of clinical medicine on the voluntary faculty at the University of Miami, observed, however, that “the similar CVD benefit in both drug classes in patients without known CVD adds to our knowledge in this somewhat controversial area and may be useful to the clinician in evaluating therapy in a diabetic individual without evidence of or at high risk for CHF.”

Furthermore, “the study also reminds us that, as demonstrated in published meta-analysis, there is also a modest CHF benefit associated with GLP-1 RA treatment particularly in patients with a history of CVD.”
 

Addressing the knowledge gap

Thanks to the results of many large-scale, prospective, cardiovascular outcomes studies, both SGLT2 inhibitors and GLP1 RA have been recommended as treatment for people with diabetes who have established CVD. But with no direct head-to-head trials having been conducted, there is a gap in knowledge and there is currently little guidance for physicians on which drug class to choose for an individual patient.

To try to clarify things, Dr. Patorno and associates looked at data from more than 370,000 people with type 2 diabetes who had been treated between April 2013 and December 2017 with either a SGLT2 inhibitor (canagliflozin, dapagliflozin, or empagliflozin) or GLP-1 RA (albiglutide, dulaglutide, exenatide, or liraglutide).

One-to-one propensity score matching was used to create the study groups: participants were first grouped according to their history of CVD, and then by the class of drug they had been prescribed. The primary outcomes were hospitalization for MI, stroke, or heart failure.

Comparing the initiation of a SGLT2 inhibitor with GLP-1 RA therapy, the hazard ratios (HRs) for MI or stroke in patients with and without a history of CVD were a respective 0.90 (95% CI, 0.82 to 0.98) and 1.07 (0.97 to 1.18).

The corresponding hazard ratios for heart failure hospitalizations were 0.71 (0.64 to 0.79) and 0.69 (0.56 to 0.85).
 

Real-world studies are of ‘increasing value’

“As in other not-randomized studies based on real-world data, residual confounding cannot be completely ruled out,” Dr. Patorno acknowledged. She added, however that “state-of-the-art methodological strategies were implemented to minimize this possibility.”

Limitations notwithstanding, “real world studies are demonstrating increasing value,” observed Dr. Jellinger. Further large-scale cardiovascular outcomes trials that directly compare these two drug classes “are unlikely given the depth of information available now,” Dr. Jellinger suggested.

“This head-to-head retrospective study may be as close as we get and does represent the first effort at a comparison of these two classes.”

Dr. Patorno said of the potential clinical implications: “Because the two classes are equally effective for stroke and myocardial infarction, but the SGLT2 inhibitors are superior for heart failure, when considered in aggregate, SGLT2 inhibitors are likely to prevent more of these adverse cardiovascular events than GLP-1 RA.”

The study received no commercial funding and was supported by the Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School Division of Pharmacoepidemiology and Pharmacoeconomics.

Dr. Patorno reported no conflicts of interest. Dr. Jellinger is on the speaker’s bureau for Astra Zeneca, Amgen, and Esperion, and has served on advisory boards for Corcept and Regeneron.

When it comes to protecting diabetic hearts, sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 (SGLT2) inhibitors may have a slight edge over glucagonlike peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs) according to the results of large, population-based, observational cohort study.

Around a 30% reduction in the risk for being hospitalized for heart failure was achieved in people with type 2 diabetes who were treated with a SGLT2 inhibitor over a GLP-1 RA regardless of whether the patients had a preexisting heart condition.

The findings, published in the Annals of Internal Medicine, also showed a 10% lower risk for myocardial infarction or stroke among those treated with a SGLT2 inhibitor who had preexisting cardiovascular disease (CVD), although there was no difference in risk between the two classes of drugs in those without preexisting CVD.

“These findings are important as they suggest that SGLT2 [inhibitors] and GLP-1 RA offer similar benefits in preventing myocardial infarction and stroke in patients with diabetes,” said study investigator Elisabetta Patorno, MD, DrPH, of Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School in Boston, in an interview.

They also show “that SGLT2 [inhibitors] offer greater efficacy in preventing heart failure, which supports the existing guidelines,” she added.

Paul S. Jellinger, MD, MACE, of the Center for Diabetes and Endocrine Care in Hollywood, Fla., said these data were likely to be “additive to guidelines but not transformative.” The overall analysis results were “not surprising.” It was not unexpected that SGLT2 inhibitors provided a robust chronic heart failure (CHF) benefit, particularly in individuals with history of CVD, he said.

Dr. Jellinger, a clinical endocrinologist and professor of clinical medicine on the voluntary faculty at the University of Miami, observed, however, that “the similar CVD benefit in both drug classes in patients without known CVD adds to our knowledge in this somewhat controversial area and may be useful to the clinician in evaluating therapy in a diabetic individual without evidence of or at high risk for CHF.”

Furthermore, “the study also reminds us that, as demonstrated in published meta-analysis, there is also a modest CHF benefit associated with GLP-1 RA treatment particularly in patients with a history of CVD.”
 

Addressing the knowledge gap

Thanks to the results of many large-scale, prospective, cardiovascular outcomes studies, both SGLT2 inhibitors and GLP1 RA have been recommended as treatment for people with diabetes who have established CVD. But with no direct head-to-head trials having been conducted, there is a gap in knowledge and there is currently little guidance for physicians on which drug class to choose for an individual patient.

To try to clarify things, Dr. Patorno and associates looked at data from more than 370,000 people with type 2 diabetes who had been treated between April 2013 and December 2017 with either a SGLT2 inhibitor (canagliflozin, dapagliflozin, or empagliflozin) or GLP-1 RA (albiglutide, dulaglutide, exenatide, or liraglutide).

One-to-one propensity score matching was used to create the study groups: participants were first grouped according to their history of CVD, and then by the class of drug they had been prescribed. The primary outcomes were hospitalization for MI, stroke, or heart failure.

Comparing the initiation of a SGLT2 inhibitor with GLP-1 RA therapy, the hazard ratios (HRs) for MI or stroke in patients with and without a history of CVD were a respective 0.90 (95% CI, 0.82 to 0.98) and 1.07 (0.97 to 1.18).

The corresponding hazard ratios for heart failure hospitalizations were 0.71 (0.64 to 0.79) and 0.69 (0.56 to 0.85).
 

Real-world studies are of ‘increasing value’

“As in other not-randomized studies based on real-world data, residual confounding cannot be completely ruled out,” Dr. Patorno acknowledged. She added, however that “state-of-the-art methodological strategies were implemented to minimize this possibility.”

Limitations notwithstanding, “real world studies are demonstrating increasing value,” observed Dr. Jellinger. Further large-scale cardiovascular outcomes trials that directly compare these two drug classes “are unlikely given the depth of information available now,” Dr. Jellinger suggested.

“This head-to-head retrospective study may be as close as we get and does represent the first effort at a comparison of these two classes.”

Dr. Patorno said of the potential clinical implications: “Because the two classes are equally effective for stroke and myocardial infarction, but the SGLT2 inhibitors are superior for heart failure, when considered in aggregate, SGLT2 inhibitors are likely to prevent more of these adverse cardiovascular events than GLP-1 RA.”

The study received no commercial funding and was supported by the Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School Division of Pharmacoepidemiology and Pharmacoeconomics.

Dr. Patorno reported no conflicts of interest. Dr. Jellinger is on the speaker’s bureau for Astra Zeneca, Amgen, and Esperion, and has served on advisory boards for Corcept and Regeneron.

A large multicenter study provides further evidence supporting the rationale for multidisciplinary teams for cardiogenic shock, one of the most lethal diseases in cardiovascular medicine.

The analysis of 24 critical care ICUs in the Critical Care Cardiology Trials Network showed that the presence of a shock team was independently associated with a 28% lower risk for CICU mortality (23% vs. 29%; odds ratio, 0.72; P = .016).

Patients treated by a shock team also had significantly shorter CICU stays and less need for mechanical ventilation or renal replacement therapy, as reported in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

“It’s observational, but the association that we’re seeing here, just because of our sample size, is the strongest that’s been published yet,” lead author Alexander Papolos, MD, MedStar Washington Hospital Center, said in an interview.

Although a causal relationship cannot be drawn, the authors suggest several factors that could explain the findings, including a shock team’s ability to rapidly diagnose and treat cardiogenic shock before multiorgan dysfunction occurs.

Centers with shock teams also used significantly more pulmonary artery catheters (60% vs. 49%; adjusted OR, 1.86; P < .001) and placed them earlier (0.3 vs. 0.66 days; P = .019).

Pulmonary artery catheter (PAC) use has declined after earlier trials like ESCAPE showed little or no benefit in other acutely ill patient groups, but positive results have been reported recently in cardiogenic shock, where a PAC is needed to determine the severity of the lesion and the phenotype, Dr. Papolos observed.

A 2018 study showed PAC use was tied to increased survival among patients with acute myocardial infarction cardiogenic shock (AMI-CS) supported with the Impella (Abiomed) device. Additionally, a 2021 study by the Cardiogenic Shock Working Group demonstrated a dose-dependent survival response based on the completeness of hemodynamic assessment by PAC prior to initiating mechanical circulatory support (MCS).

A third factor might be that a structured, team-based evaluation can facilitate timely and optimal MCS device selection, deployment, and management, suggested Dr. Papolos.

Centers with shock teams used more advanced types of MCS – defined as Impella, TandemHeart (LivaNova), extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, and temporary or durable surgical ventricular assist devices – than those without a shock team (53% vs. 43%; adjusted OR, 1.73; P = .005) and did so more often as the initial device (42% vs. 28%; P = .002).

Overall MCS use was lower at shock team centers (35% vs. 43%), driven by less frequent use of intra-aortic balloon pumps (58% vs. 72%).

“The standard, basic MCS has always been the balloon pump because it’s something that’s easy to put in at the cath lab or at the bedside,” Dr. Papolos said. “So, if you take away having all of the information and having the right people at the table to discuss what the best level of support is, then you’re going to end up with balloon pumps, and that’s what we saw here.”

The study involved 6,872 consecutive medical admissions at 24 level 1 CICU centers during an annual 2-month period from 2017 to 2019. Of these, 1,242 admissions were for cardiogenic shock and 546 (44%) were treated at one of 10 centers with a shock team.

Shock team centers had higher-acuity patients than centers without a shock team (Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score, 4 vs. 3) but a similar proportion of patients with AMI-CS (27% vs. 28%).

Among all admissions, CICU mortality was not significantly different between centers with and without a shock team.

For cardiogenic shock patients treated at centers with and without a shock team, the median CICU stay was 4.0 and 5.1 days, respectively, mechanical ventilation was used in 41% and 52%, respectively, and new renal replacement therapy in 11% and 19%, respectively (P < .001 for all).

Shock team centers used significantly more PACs for AMI-CS and non–AMI-CS admissions; advanced MCS therapy was also greater in the AMI-CS subgroup.

Lower CICU mortality at shock team centers persisted among patients with non-AMI-CS (adjusted OR, 0.67; P = .017) and AMI-CS (adjusted OR, 0.79; P = .344).

“This analysis supports that all AHA level 1 cardiac ICUs should strongly consider having a shock team,” Dr. Papolos said.

Evidence from single centers and the National Cardiogenic Shock Initiative has shown improved survival with a cardiogenic shock algorithm, but this is the first report specifically comparing no shock teams with shock teams, Perwaiz Meraj, MD, Northwell Health, Manhansett, N.Y., told this news organization.

“People may say that it’s just another paper that’s saying, ‘shock teams, shock teams, rah, rah, rah,’ but it’s important for all of us to really take a close look under the covers and see how are we best managing these patients, what teams are we putting together, and to create systems of care, where if you’re at a center that really doesn’t have the capabilities of doing this, then you should partner up with a center that does,” he said.

Notably, the 10 shock teams were present only in medium or large urban, academic medical centers with more than 500 beds. Although they followed individual protocols, survey results show service-line representation, structure, and operations were similar across centers.

They all had a centralized way to activate the shock team, the service was 24/7, and members came from areas such as critical care cardiology (100%), cardiac surgery (100%), interventional cardiology (90%), advanced heart failure (80%), and extracorporeal membrane oxygenation service (70%).

Limitations of the study include the possibility of residual confounding, the fact that the registry did not capture patients with cardiogenic shock managed outside the CICU or the time of onset of cardiogenic shock, and data were limited on inotropic strategies, sedation practices, and ventilator management, the authors wrote.

“Although many critics will continue to discuss the lack of randomized controlled trials in cardiogenic shock, this paper supports the process previously outlined of a multidisciplinary team-based approach improving survival,” Dr. Meraj and William W. O’Neill, MD, director of the Center for Structural Heart Disease and Henry Ford Health System, Detroit, and the force behind the National Cardiogenic Shock Initiative, wrote in an accompanying editorial.

They point out that the report doesn’t address the escalation of care based on invasive hemodynamics in the CICU and the protocols to prevent acute vascular/limb complications (ALI) that can arise from the use of MCS.

“Many procedural techniques and novel CICU models exist to mitigate the risk of ALI in CS patients with MCS,” they wrote. “Finally, escalation of care and support is vital to the continued success of any shock team and center.”

One coauthor has served as a consultant to Abbott. Another has served as a consultant to the Abiomed critical care advisory board. All other authors reported having no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Meraj has received research and grant funding from Abiomed, Medtronic, CSI, and Boston Scientific. Dr. O’Neill has received consulting/speaker honoraria from Abiomed, Boston Scientific, and Abbott.

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

A large multicenter study provides further evidence supporting the rationale for multidisciplinary teams for cardiogenic shock, one of the most lethal diseases in cardiovascular medicine.

The analysis of 24 critical care ICUs in the Critical Care Cardiology Trials Network showed that the presence of a shock team was independently associated with a 28% lower risk for CICU mortality (23% vs. 29%; odds ratio, 0.72; P = .016).

Patients treated by a shock team also had significantly shorter CICU stays and less need for mechanical ventilation or renal replacement therapy, as reported in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

“It’s observational, but the association that we’re seeing here, just because of our sample size, is the strongest that’s been published yet,” lead author Alexander Papolos, MD, MedStar Washington Hospital Center, said in an interview.

Although a causal relationship cannot be drawn, the authors suggest several factors that could explain the findings, including a shock team’s ability to rapidly diagnose and treat cardiogenic shock before multiorgan dysfunction occurs.

Centers with shock teams also used significantly more pulmonary artery catheters (60% vs. 49%; adjusted OR, 1.86; P < .001) and placed them earlier (0.3 vs. 0.66 days; P = .019).

Pulmonary artery catheter (PAC) use has declined after earlier trials like ESCAPE showed little or no benefit in other acutely ill patient groups, but positive results have been reported recently in cardiogenic shock, where a PAC is needed to determine the severity of the lesion and the phenotype, Dr. Papolos observed.

A 2018 study showed PAC use was tied to increased survival among patients with acute myocardial infarction cardiogenic shock (AMI-CS) supported with the Impella (Abiomed) device. Additionally, a 2021 study by the Cardiogenic Shock Working Group demonstrated a dose-dependent survival response based on the completeness of hemodynamic assessment by PAC prior to initiating mechanical circulatory support (MCS).

A third factor might be that a structured, team-based evaluation can facilitate timely and optimal MCS device selection, deployment, and management, suggested Dr. Papolos.

Centers with shock teams used more advanced types of MCS – defined as Impella, TandemHeart (LivaNova), extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, and temporary or durable surgical ventricular assist devices – than those without a shock team (53% vs. 43%; adjusted OR, 1.73; P = .005) and did so more often as the initial device (42% vs. 28%; P = .002).

Overall MCS use was lower at shock team centers (35% vs. 43%), driven by less frequent use of intra-aortic balloon pumps (58% vs. 72%).

“The standard, basic MCS has always been the balloon pump because it’s something that’s easy to put in at the cath lab or at the bedside,” Dr. Papolos said. “So, if you take away having all of the information and having the right people at the table to discuss what the best level of support is, then you’re going to end up with balloon pumps, and that’s what we saw here.”

The study involved 6,872 consecutive medical admissions at 24 level 1 CICU centers during an annual 2-month period from 2017 to 2019. Of these, 1,242 admissions were for cardiogenic shock and 546 (44%) were treated at one of 10 centers with a shock team.

Shock team centers had higher-acuity patients than centers without a shock team (Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score, 4 vs. 3) but a similar proportion of patients with AMI-CS (27% vs. 28%).

Among all admissions, CICU mortality was not significantly different between centers with and without a shock team.

For cardiogenic shock patients treated at centers with and without a shock team, the median CICU stay was 4.0 and 5.1 days, respectively, mechanical ventilation was used in 41% and 52%, respectively, and new renal replacement therapy in 11% and 19%, respectively (P < .001 for all).

Shock team centers used significantly more PACs for AMI-CS and non–AMI-CS admissions; advanced MCS therapy was also greater in the AMI-CS subgroup.

Lower CICU mortality at shock team centers persisted among patients with non-AMI-CS (adjusted OR, 0.67; P = .017) and AMI-CS (adjusted OR, 0.79; P = .344).

“This analysis supports that all AHA level 1 cardiac ICUs should strongly consider having a shock team,” Dr. Papolos said.

Evidence from single centers and the National Cardiogenic Shock Initiative has shown improved survival with a cardiogenic shock algorithm, but this is the first report specifically comparing no shock teams with shock teams, Perwaiz Meraj, MD, Northwell Health, Manhansett, N.Y., told this news organization.

“People may say that it’s just another paper that’s saying, ‘shock teams, shock teams, rah, rah, rah,’ but it’s important for all of us to really take a close look under the covers and see how are we best managing these patients, what teams are we putting together, and to create systems of care, where if you’re at a center that really doesn’t have the capabilities of doing this, then you should partner up with a center that does,” he said.

Notably, the 10 shock teams were present only in medium or large urban, academic medical centers with more than 500 beds. Although they followed individual protocols, survey results show service-line representation, structure, and operations were similar across centers.

They all had a centralized way to activate the shock team, the service was 24/7, and members came from areas such as critical care cardiology (100%), cardiac surgery (100%), interventional cardiology (90%), advanced heart failure (80%), and extracorporeal membrane oxygenation service (70%).

Limitations of the study include the possibility of residual confounding, the fact that the registry did not capture patients with cardiogenic shock managed outside the CICU or the time of onset of cardiogenic shock, and data were limited on inotropic strategies, sedation practices, and ventilator management, the authors wrote.

“Although many critics will continue to discuss the lack of randomized controlled trials in cardiogenic shock, this paper supports the process previously outlined of a multidisciplinary team-based approach improving survival,” Dr. Meraj and William W. O’Neill, MD, director of the Center for Structural Heart Disease and Henry Ford Health System, Detroit, and the force behind the National Cardiogenic Shock Initiative, wrote in an accompanying editorial.

They point out that the report doesn’t address the escalation of care based on invasive hemodynamics in the CICU and the protocols to prevent acute vascular/limb complications (ALI) that can arise from the use of MCS.

“Many procedural techniques and novel CICU models exist to mitigate the risk of ALI in CS patients with MCS,” they wrote. “Finally, escalation of care and support is vital to the continued success of any shock team and center.”

One coauthor has served as a consultant to Abbott. Another has served as a consultant to the Abiomed critical care advisory board. All other authors reported having no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Meraj has received research and grant funding from Abiomed, Medtronic, CSI, and Boston Scientific. Dr. O’Neill has received consulting/speaker honoraria from Abiomed, Boston Scientific, and Abbott.

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

A large multicenter study provides further evidence supporting the rationale for multidisciplinary teams for cardiogenic shock, one of the most lethal diseases in cardiovascular medicine.

The analysis of 24 critical care ICUs in the Critical Care Cardiology Trials Network showed that the presence of a shock team was independently associated with a 28% lower risk for CICU mortality (23% vs. 29%; odds ratio, 0.72; P = .016).

Patients treated by a shock team also had significantly shorter CICU stays and less need for mechanical ventilation or renal replacement therapy, as reported in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

“It’s observational, but the association that we’re seeing here, just because of our sample size, is the strongest that’s been published yet,” lead author Alexander Papolos, MD, MedStar Washington Hospital Center, said in an interview.

Although a causal relationship cannot be drawn, the authors suggest several factors that could explain the findings, including a shock team’s ability to rapidly diagnose and treat cardiogenic shock before multiorgan dysfunction occurs.

Centers with shock teams also used significantly more pulmonary artery catheters (60% vs. 49%; adjusted OR, 1.86; P < .001) and placed them earlier (0.3 vs. 0.66 days; P = .019).

Pulmonary artery catheter (PAC) use has declined after earlier trials like ESCAPE showed little or no benefit in other acutely ill patient groups, but positive results have been reported recently in cardiogenic shock, where a PAC is needed to determine the severity of the lesion and the phenotype, Dr. Papolos observed.

A 2018 study showed PAC use was tied to increased survival among patients with acute myocardial infarction cardiogenic shock (AMI-CS) supported with the Impella (Abiomed) device. Additionally, a 2021 study by the Cardiogenic Shock Working Group demonstrated a dose-dependent survival response based on the completeness of hemodynamic assessment by PAC prior to initiating mechanical circulatory support (MCS).

A third factor might be that a structured, team-based evaluation can facilitate timely and optimal MCS device selection, deployment, and management, suggested Dr. Papolos.

Centers with shock teams used more advanced types of MCS – defined as Impella, TandemHeart (LivaNova), extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, and temporary or durable surgical ventricular assist devices – than those without a shock team (53% vs. 43%; adjusted OR, 1.73; P = .005) and did so more often as the initial device (42% vs. 28%; P = .002).

Overall MCS use was lower at shock team centers (35% vs. 43%), driven by less frequent use of intra-aortic balloon pumps (58% vs. 72%).

“The standard, basic MCS has always been the balloon pump because it’s something that’s easy to put in at the cath lab or at the bedside,” Dr. Papolos said. “So, if you take away having all of the information and having the right people at the table to discuss what the best level of support is, then you’re going to end up with balloon pumps, and that’s what we saw here.”

The study involved 6,872 consecutive medical admissions at 24 level 1 CICU centers during an annual 2-month period from 2017 to 2019. Of these, 1,242 admissions were for cardiogenic shock and 546 (44%) were treated at one of 10 centers with a shock team.

Shock team centers had higher-acuity patients than centers without a shock team (Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score, 4 vs. 3) but a similar proportion of patients with AMI-CS (27% vs. 28%).

Among all admissions, CICU mortality was not significantly different between centers with and without a shock team.

For cardiogenic shock patients treated at centers with and without a shock team, the median CICU stay was 4.0 and 5.1 days, respectively, mechanical ventilation was used in 41% and 52%, respectively, and new renal replacement therapy in 11% and 19%, respectively (P < .001 for all).

Shock team centers used significantly more PACs for AMI-CS and non–AMI-CS admissions; advanced MCS therapy was also greater in the AMI-CS subgroup.

Lower CICU mortality at shock team centers persisted among patients with non-AMI-CS (adjusted OR, 0.67; P = .017) and AMI-CS (adjusted OR, 0.79; P = .344).

“This analysis supports that all AHA level 1 cardiac ICUs should strongly consider having a shock team,” Dr. Papolos said.

Evidence from single centers and the National Cardiogenic Shock Initiative has shown improved survival with a cardiogenic shock algorithm, but this is the first report specifically comparing no shock teams with shock teams, Perwaiz Meraj, MD, Northwell Health, Manhansett, N.Y., told this news organization.

“People may say that it’s just another paper that’s saying, ‘shock teams, shock teams, rah, rah, rah,’ but it’s important for all of us to really take a close look under the covers and see how are we best managing these patients, what teams are we putting together, and to create systems of care, where if you’re at a center that really doesn’t have the capabilities of doing this, then you should partner up with a center that does,” he said.

Notably, the 10 shock teams were present only in medium or large urban, academic medical centers with more than 500 beds. Although they followed individual protocols, survey results show service-line representation, structure, and operations were similar across centers.

They all had a centralized way to activate the shock team, the service was 24/7, and members came from areas such as critical care cardiology (100%), cardiac surgery (100%), interventional cardiology (90%), advanced heart failure (80%), and extracorporeal membrane oxygenation service (70%).

Limitations of the study include the possibility of residual confounding, the fact that the registry did not capture patients with cardiogenic shock managed outside the CICU or the time of onset of cardiogenic shock, and data were limited on inotropic strategies, sedation practices, and ventilator management, the authors wrote.

“Although many critics will continue to discuss the lack of randomized controlled trials in cardiogenic shock, this paper supports the process previously outlined of a multidisciplinary team-based approach improving survival,” Dr. Meraj and William W. O’Neill, MD, director of the Center for Structural Heart Disease and Henry Ford Health System, Detroit, and the force behind the National Cardiogenic Shock Initiative, wrote in an accompanying editorial.

They point out that the report doesn’t address the escalation of care based on invasive hemodynamics in the CICU and the protocols to prevent acute vascular/limb complications (ALI) that can arise from the use of MCS.

“Many procedural techniques and novel CICU models exist to mitigate the risk of ALI in CS patients with MCS,” they wrote. “Finally, escalation of care and support is vital to the continued success of any shock team and center.”

One coauthor has served as a consultant to Abbott. Another has served as a consultant to the Abiomed critical care advisory board. All other authors reported having no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Meraj has received research and grant funding from Abiomed, Medtronic, CSI, and Boston Scientific. Dr. O’Neill has received consulting/speaker honoraria from Abiomed, Boston Scientific, and Abbott.

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

Whereas previous scientific statements from the American Heart Association have addressed how diet, physical activity, and weight control can help prevent and manage hypertension, a new AHA statement focuses on obesity-related hypertension. 

verbaska_studio/thinkstockphotos

The document, which was published online Sept. 20, 2021, in Hypertension, also identifies knowledge gaps and suggests future research directions.

“Given [that] obesity is a major risk factor for hypertension, and hypertension is one of the greatest (if not the greatest) attributable risk factors for most cardiovascular diseases, we thought it was important to focus on weight loss strategies and update what we know about the treatment options that are available to treat obesity hypertension,” writing group chair Michael E. Hall, MD, told this news organization. 

“Medical and surgical strategies may help with long-term weight and blood pressure improvement, in addition to a heart-healthy diet and physical activity,” he noted in a press release from the AHA. “We often don’t consider medications or metabolic surgery until after there has been target organ damage, such as heart injury or having a stroke.”

However, by acting earlier, “we may be able to prevent these complications,” added Dr. Hall, associate division director for cardiovascular diseases at the University of Mississippi Medical Center in Jackson.

“This is not a call for greater use of one specific therapy,” he clarified. “However, we do know that more aggressive treatments including antiobesity medications or metabolic surgery are underutilized.”

According to Dr. Hall, “we treat the secondary problem [i.e., the hypertension or diabetes], but we are not treating the root cause [obesity] as aggressively.”

“Hopefully this statement will increase awareness that there are several [treatment] options [and] bring attention to this major health issue,” he said.

He added that the most important question, in his mind, is how best to tackle obesity among children and adolescents to lower their risk of hypertension and other associated complications.

The statement is aimed at both primary care providers and specialists.
 

Diet, physical activity help, but weight regain common

Losing 5%-10% of body weight can lead to a more than 5–mm Hg reduction in systolic blood pressure and a 4–mm Hg reduction in diastolic blood pressure, the statement notes. Losing 10 kg may lower systolic blood pressure by 5-20 mm Hg.

To manage weight, control hypertension, and reduce the risk of cardiovascular disease, guidelines recommend the Mediterranean diet or the Dietary Approaches to Stop Hypertension (DASH) diet, which both emphasize fruits, vegetables, legumes, nuts, and seeds, with moderate intake of fish, seafood, poultry, and dairy, and low intake of red and processed meats and sweets. The Mediterranean diet also includes olive oil and moderate consumption of (mainly red) wine.  

The effect of intermittent fasting on blood pressure control is not clear, the statement noted.

It added that typically 150-225 minutes and 225-420 minutes of physical activity per week can produce weight loss of 2-3 kg or 5-7.5 kg respectively, and 200-300 minutes of physical activity per week is needed to maintain this weight loss.

“Successful weight-loss maintenance over years therefore typically requires high levels of [physical activity] and limited sedentary time, frequent weight monitoring, and high levels of dietary restraint,” and weight regain is common, the authors summarize.
 

Other options to address obesity, hypertension

Weight-loss pharmacotherapies and metabolic surgery are other options to treat obesity and lower hypertension.

The statement reports that four drugs are approved by the Food and Drug Administration for long-term weight loss: Orlistat (Xenical, Alli), phentermine/topiramate extended release (Qsymia), naltrexone/bupropion (Contrave), and liraglutide 3.0 mg (Saxenda). On June 4, the FDA approved a fifth drug, semaglutide (Wegovy).

The long-term effects of antiobesity medications on blood pressure are mixed.

However, “prescription rates for these drugs remain low, likely because of limited insurance coverage and low levels of clinical proficiency with treating obesity,” Dr. Hall and colleagues write.

Metabolic surgery could be a weight loss option for certain patients, and it is associated with blood pressure lowering.

In the 100-patient Gastric Bypass to Treat Obese Patients With Steady Hypertension (GATEWAY) trial, published in Circulation in 2018, more patients in the Roux-en-Y gastric-bypass group than the control group (84% vs. 13%) met the primary outcome of a 30% or greater reduction in the number of blood pressure-lowering medications at 12 months while maintaining an office blood pressure less than 140/90 mm Hg.

Unanswered questions, future research directions

In 2015-2016, an estimated 18.5% of U.S. children and adolescents aged 2-19 years had obesity, the statement notes. Children with obesity have a twofold increased risk of incident hypertension, and those with severe obesity have an over fourfold increased risk of this outcome, compared with children who have a healthy weight.

Dr. Hall and colleagues emphasized that, “as the prevalence of obesity continues to increase, hypertension and associated cardiorenal diseases will also increase unless more effective strategies to prevent and treat obesity are developed.”

They identified 17 unanswered questions (knowledge gaps) that can guide the direction of future research. These include:

• What new strategies and science-based guidelines are needed to curb the growing evidence of childhood obesity?
• Does intentional weight loss with pharmacotherapy or metabolic surgery in childhood and early adulthood prevent hypertension and subsequent target organ damage in later life?
• What is the optimal amount of time that clinicians should allow before recommending more aggressive weight management strategies (that is, antiobesity medications or metabolic surgery) or hypertension strategies beyond lifestyle changes?

“To me,” Dr. Hall said, “addressing childhood obesity hypertension and determining optimal timing of antiobesity therapies are the most important [issues]. Certainly, these therapies (i.e., diets, medications, surgeries) have some risks, but we don’t have a clear understanding if their benefits outweigh these risks in younger obese people or whether initiating these therapies before the onset of target organ damage such as heart failure” outweigh the risks.

Dr. Hall has reported no relevant financial relationships. Disclosures for the other authors are listed with the article.

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

Whereas previous scientific statements from the American Heart Association have addressed how diet, physical activity, and weight control can help prevent and manage hypertension, a new AHA statement focuses on obesity-related hypertension. 

verbaska_studio/thinkstockphotos

The document, which was published online Sept. 20, 2021, in Hypertension, also identifies knowledge gaps and suggests future research directions.

“Given [that] obesity is a major risk factor for hypertension, and hypertension is one of the greatest (if not the greatest) attributable risk factors for most cardiovascular diseases, we thought it was important to focus on weight loss strategies and update what we know about the treatment options that are available to treat obesity hypertension,” writing group chair Michael E. Hall, MD, told this news organization. 

“Medical and surgical strategies may help with long-term weight and blood pressure improvement, in addition to a heart-healthy diet and physical activity,” he noted in a press release from the AHA. “We often don’t consider medications or metabolic surgery until after there has been target organ damage, such as heart injury or having a stroke.”

However, by acting earlier, “we may be able to prevent these complications,” added Dr. Hall, associate division director for cardiovascular diseases at the University of Mississippi Medical Center in Jackson.

“This is not a call for greater use of one specific therapy,” he clarified. “However, we do know that more aggressive treatments including antiobesity medications or metabolic surgery are underutilized.”

According to Dr. Hall, “we treat the secondary problem [i.e., the hypertension or diabetes], but we are not treating the root cause [obesity] as aggressively.”

“Hopefully this statement will increase awareness that there are several [treatment] options [and] bring attention to this major health issue,” he said.

He added that the most important question, in his mind, is how best to tackle obesity among children and adolescents to lower their risk of hypertension and other associated complications.

The statement is aimed at both primary care providers and specialists.
 

Diet, physical activity help, but weight regain common

Losing 5%-10% of body weight can lead to a more than 5–mm Hg reduction in systolic blood pressure and a 4–mm Hg reduction in diastolic blood pressure, the statement notes. Losing 10 kg may lower systolic blood pressure by 5-20 mm Hg.

To manage weight, control hypertension, and reduce the risk of cardiovascular disease, guidelines recommend the Mediterranean diet or the Dietary Approaches to Stop Hypertension (DASH) diet, which both emphasize fruits, vegetables, legumes, nuts, and seeds, with moderate intake of fish, seafood, poultry, and dairy, and low intake of red and processed meats and sweets. The Mediterranean diet also includes olive oil and moderate consumption of (mainly red) wine.  

The effect of intermittent fasting on blood pressure control is not clear, the statement noted.

It added that typically 150-225 minutes and 225-420 minutes of physical activity per week can produce weight loss of 2-3 kg or 5-7.5 kg respectively, and 200-300 minutes of physical activity per week is needed to maintain this weight loss.

“Successful weight-loss maintenance over years therefore typically requires high levels of [physical activity] and limited sedentary time, frequent weight monitoring, and high levels of dietary restraint,” and weight regain is common, the authors summarize.
 

Other options to address obesity, hypertension

Weight-loss pharmacotherapies and metabolic surgery are other options to treat obesity and lower hypertension.

The statement reports that four drugs are approved by the Food and Drug Administration for long-term weight loss: Orlistat (Xenical, Alli), phentermine/topiramate extended release (Qsymia), naltrexone/bupropion (Contrave), and liraglutide 3.0 mg (Saxenda). On June 4, the FDA approved a fifth drug, semaglutide (Wegovy).

The long-term effects of antiobesity medications on blood pressure are mixed.

However, “prescription rates for these drugs remain low, likely because of limited insurance coverage and low levels of clinical proficiency with treating obesity,” Dr. Hall and colleagues write.

Metabolic surgery could be a weight loss option for certain patients, and it is associated with blood pressure lowering.

In the 100-patient Gastric Bypass to Treat Obese Patients With Steady Hypertension (GATEWAY) trial, published in Circulation in 2018, more patients in the Roux-en-Y gastric-bypass group than the control group (84% vs. 13%) met the primary outcome of a 30% or greater reduction in the number of blood pressure-lowering medications at 12 months while maintaining an office blood pressure less than 140/90 mm Hg.

Unanswered questions, future research directions

In 2015-2016, an estimated 18.5% of U.S. children and adolescents aged 2-19 years had obesity, the statement notes. Children with obesity have a twofold increased risk of incident hypertension, and those with severe obesity have an over fourfold increased risk of this outcome, compared with children who have a healthy weight.

Dr. Hall and colleagues emphasized that, “as the prevalence of obesity continues to increase, hypertension and associated cardiorenal diseases will also increase unless more effective strategies to prevent and treat obesity are developed.”

They identified 17 unanswered questions (knowledge gaps) that can guide the direction of future research. These include:

• What new strategies and science-based guidelines are needed to curb the growing evidence of childhood obesity?
• Does intentional weight loss with pharmacotherapy or metabolic surgery in childhood and early adulthood prevent hypertension and subsequent target organ damage in later life?
• What is the optimal amount of time that clinicians should allow before recommending more aggressive weight management strategies (that is, antiobesity medications or metabolic surgery) or hypertension strategies beyond lifestyle changes?

“To me,” Dr. Hall said, “addressing childhood obesity hypertension and determining optimal timing of antiobesity therapies are the most important [issues]. Certainly, these therapies (i.e., diets, medications, surgeries) have some risks, but we don’t have a clear understanding if their benefits outweigh these risks in younger obese people or whether initiating these therapies before the onset of target organ damage such as heart failure” outweigh the risks.

Dr. Hall has reported no relevant financial relationships. Disclosures for the other authors are listed with the article.

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

Whereas previous scientific statements from the American Heart Association have addressed how diet, physical activity, and weight control can help prevent and manage hypertension, a new AHA statement focuses on obesity-related hypertension. 

verbaska_studio/thinkstockphotos

The document, which was published online Sept. 20, 2021, in Hypertension, also identifies knowledge gaps and suggests future research directions.

“Given [that] obesity is a major risk factor for hypertension, and hypertension is one of the greatest (if not the greatest) attributable risk factors for most cardiovascular diseases, we thought it was important to focus on weight loss strategies and update what we know about the treatment options that are available to treat obesity hypertension,” writing group chair Michael E. Hall, MD, told this news organization. 

“Medical and surgical strategies may help with long-term weight and blood pressure improvement, in addition to a heart-healthy diet and physical activity,” he noted in a press release from the AHA. “We often don’t consider medications or metabolic surgery until after there has been target organ damage, such as heart injury or having a stroke.”

However, by acting earlier, “we may be able to prevent these complications,” added Dr. Hall, associate division director for cardiovascular diseases at the University of Mississippi Medical Center in Jackson.

“This is not a call for greater use of one specific therapy,” he clarified. “However, we do know that more aggressive treatments including antiobesity medications or metabolic surgery are underutilized.”

According to Dr. Hall, “we treat the secondary problem [i.e., the hypertension or diabetes], but we are not treating the root cause [obesity] as aggressively.”

“Hopefully this statement will increase awareness that there are several [treatment] options [and] bring attention to this major health issue,” he said.

He added that the most important question, in his mind, is how best to tackle obesity among children and adolescents to lower their risk of hypertension and other associated complications.

The statement is aimed at both primary care providers and specialists.
 

Diet, physical activity help, but weight regain common

Losing 5%-10% of body weight can lead to a more than 5–mm Hg reduction in systolic blood pressure and a 4–mm Hg reduction in diastolic blood pressure, the statement notes. Losing 10 kg may lower systolic blood pressure by 5-20 mm Hg.

To manage weight, control hypertension, and reduce the risk of cardiovascular disease, guidelines recommend the Mediterranean diet or the Dietary Approaches to Stop Hypertension (DASH) diet, which both emphasize fruits, vegetables, legumes, nuts, and seeds, with moderate intake of fish, seafood, poultry, and dairy, and low intake of red and processed meats and sweets. The Mediterranean diet also includes olive oil and moderate consumption of (mainly red) wine.  

The effect of intermittent fasting on blood pressure control is not clear, the statement noted.

It added that typically 150-225 minutes and 225-420 minutes of physical activity per week can produce weight loss of 2-3 kg or 5-7.5 kg respectively, and 200-300 minutes of physical activity per week is needed to maintain this weight loss.

“Successful weight-loss maintenance over years therefore typically requires high levels of [physical activity] and limited sedentary time, frequent weight monitoring, and high levels of dietary restraint,” and weight regain is common, the authors summarize.
 

Other options to address obesity, hypertension

Weight-loss pharmacotherapies and metabolic surgery are other options to treat obesity and lower hypertension.

The statement reports that four drugs are approved by the Food and Drug Administration for long-term weight loss: Orlistat (Xenical, Alli), phentermine/topiramate extended release (Qsymia), naltrexone/bupropion (Contrave), and liraglutide 3.0 mg (Saxenda). On June 4, the FDA approved a fifth drug, semaglutide (Wegovy).

The long-term effects of antiobesity medications on blood pressure are mixed.

However, “prescription rates for these drugs remain low, likely because of limited insurance coverage and low levels of clinical proficiency with treating obesity,” Dr. Hall and colleagues write.

Metabolic surgery could be a weight loss option for certain patients, and it is associated with blood pressure lowering.

In the 100-patient Gastric Bypass to Treat Obese Patients With Steady Hypertension (GATEWAY) trial, published in Circulation in 2018, more patients in the Roux-en-Y gastric-bypass group than the control group (84% vs. 13%) met the primary outcome of a 30% or greater reduction in the number of blood pressure-lowering medications at 12 months while maintaining an office blood pressure less than 140/90 mm Hg.

Unanswered questions, future research directions

In 2015-2016, an estimated 18.5% of U.S. children and adolescents aged 2-19 years had obesity, the statement notes. Children with obesity have a twofold increased risk of incident hypertension, and those with severe obesity have an over fourfold increased risk of this outcome, compared with children who have a healthy weight.

Dr. Hall and colleagues emphasized that, “as the prevalence of obesity continues to increase, hypertension and associated cardiorenal diseases will also increase unless more effective strategies to prevent and treat obesity are developed.”

They identified 17 unanswered questions (knowledge gaps) that can guide the direction of future research. These include:

• What new strategies and science-based guidelines are needed to curb the growing evidence of childhood obesity?
• Does intentional weight loss with pharmacotherapy or metabolic surgery in childhood and early adulthood prevent hypertension and subsequent target organ damage in later life?
• What is the optimal amount of time that clinicians should allow before recommending more aggressive weight management strategies (that is, antiobesity medications or metabolic surgery) or hypertension strategies beyond lifestyle changes?

“To me,” Dr. Hall said, “addressing childhood obesity hypertension and determining optimal timing of antiobesity therapies are the most important [issues]. Certainly, these therapies (i.e., diets, medications, surgeries) have some risks, but we don’t have a clear understanding if their benefits outweigh these risks in younger obese people or whether initiating these therapies before the onset of target organ damage such as heart failure” outweigh the risks.

Dr. Hall has reported no relevant financial relationships. Disclosures for the other authors are listed with the article.

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