Search This Blog

Saturday, April 2, 2022

Celsius aims to cool down inflammation with new investors and more pharma deals

 Broad Institute spinout Celsius Therapeutics is turning up the heat on the financing front as it looks to ice the symptoms of inflammatory bowel disease.


The Cambridge, MA biotech has added $83 million in new financing — a mixture of a Series A extension and Series B funds — to chase its vision of precision therapies across autoimmune diseases and cancer. The Third Rock- and GV-backed startup, founded in 2018, brought in new investors like Amgen Ventures, Amplitude Ventures and Fast Track Initiative.


Keep an eye on Fast Track, the Tokyo VC firm that’s “very plugged into Japanese pharma companies and the Japanese business environment,” Celsius CEO Tariq Kassum told Endpoints News. Prior to his roles at Celsius and Obsidian Therapeutics, Kassum held multiple director and senior director positions at Takeda and its Millennium unit from 2009 to 2016.


“Certainly from my experience at Takeda, I have a lot of respect for” pharmas and academic institutions in Japan, Kassum said. Celsius is “talking to all kinds of pharma companies” about partnerships, including ones in Japan, the CEO added.


Celsius will deploy the new funds on bringing its first treatment into the clinic in early 2023. The first stop? IBD. Only 20% to 30% of patients experience sustained remission from approved drugs in the IBD space, Kassum said.


In steps Celsius’ anti-TREM-1 antibody, named CEL383. After an initial healthy volunteer study, Celsius wants to enable “patient selection and patient stratification,” as part of its precision therapeutics mission for the drug, Kassum said. He noted the precision medicine thesis of Casdin Capital, the Series B lead investor.


“The future of treatment of autoimmune disease is being able to identify subsets of patients who can respond to your therapy,” the CEO said.


Celsius chose TREM-1 based on the biotech’s single-cell analysis on hundreds of clinical samples, which is the result of collaborations with the University of Oxford, Cleveland Clinic, LMU University Hospital Munich and other academic institutions. The myeloid target plays a role in IBD by boosting inflammation “at the intersection of the microbiome and the immune system,” the company said.


TREM-1 is the basis of French startup Inotrem, which is studying nangibotide, an inhibitor of the pathway, in multiple mid-stage studies in patients with septic shock and Covid-19. Inotrem is expanding its anti-TREM-1 work with a monoclonal antibody, yet to be tested in humans. Also in the TREM-1 space is Pionyr, half-owned by Gilead, which is testing a mAb in patients with advanced solid tumors in a Phase Ia/Ib study.


Covid-19 roundup: Inotrem loads up on French funding to take septic shock candidate to the next stage; Belgian woman dies after being infected with 2 variants of concern

On the partnership side, Celsius said Thursday that it’s made progress on its $700 million colorectal cancer collaboration with Servier. The French pharma has selected the first target candidate in the three-program deal, a step that provides “great validation” for Celsius’ platform, Kassum said.


Celsius also has a partnership with J&J’s Janssen, but the biotech is more tight-lipped about this tie-up. Kassum said Celsius is performing analyses on certain Janssen clinical trials, declining to disclose which ones. The companies said in July 2019 that Celsius would use single-cell genomics and machine learning to “identify predictive biomarkers of response” in Janssen’s Phase IIa VEGA study.


That trial showed a combo therapy of Tremfya and Simponi ARIA led to better clinical response at week 12 versus either as a solo treatment in patients with ulcerative colitis, Janssen said last month.

https://endpts.com/celsius-aims-to-cool-down-inflammation-with-new-investors-and-more-pharma-collabs/

Dems fractured on response to end of Title 42

 The Biden administration’s decision to end to Title 42, a Trump-era policy restricting asylum claims, garnered a fractured response from Democratic lawmakers, advocates and the administration itself.  

Progressives and immigration advocates lauded the decision, arguing it was long overdue after President Biden pledged to end the rule during his 2020 campaign.  

However, moderate Senate Democrats issued a rebuke of the recission, claiming that the administration is not ready to manage a surge of migrants they say will come once the rule is nixed. 

The administration rescinded the rule on Friday, and administration officials distanced themselves politically from the decision, which they said was motivated by public health considerations. 

Under Title 42, which is slated to end May 23, migrants at the border were summarily expelled from the country, rather than being processed under regular immigration rules and allowed to exercise their right to claim asylum. 

The Biden administration used Title 42 around 1.7 million times, sometimes returning individuals back to Mexico on the same day, sometimes taking weeks to repatriate men, women and children to dangerous conditions in Haiti. 

While some Democrats openly celebrated the administration’s decision and called it a win, top Biden administration officials adopted a much more somber tone, warning the move could trigger an influx of migrants. 

“We have put in place a comprehensive, whole-of-government strategy to manage any potential increase in the number of migrants encountered at our border,” said Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas in a statement. 

Technically, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) Rochelle Wollensky had sole authority to keep or remove Title 42, but few observers believe health care to be the true reasoning behind the policy. 

“It was increasingly hard to hear anybody with a straight face say this is completely about public health and not about immigration,” said Theresa Cardinal Brown, managing director of immigration and cross-border policy at the Bipartisan Policy Center. 

Brown added that migrants were expelled under Title 42 depending on various factors like their place of origin, “without regard to, honestly, the health risks from any particular group.” 

Still, top administration officials defended the sanitary reasoning both for keeping Title 42 for so long, and for announcing its upcoming end. 

“Title 42 is not an immigration authority, but rather a public health authority used by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to protect against the spread of communicable disease. Title 42 remains in place until May 23 and, until then, [the Department of Homeland Security] will continue to expel single adults and families encountered at the Southwest border,” said Mayorkas. 

Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) was a leading critic of the Biden administration’s continued use of Title 42. 

Those critics were quiet shortly after the announcement, while other Democrats who were more reserved in picking a fight with the White House quickly came out to cheer the decision. 

“Today is a bright spot in our nation’s history with the end of the Trump-initiated Title 42 policy,” said Congressional Hispanic Caucus (CHC) Chair Rep. Raúl Ruiz (D-Calif.) in a statement. 

“The CHC repeatedly called for the end of this policy, which was fueled by Trump’s anti-immigrant hate and fear agenda that used the pandemic as an excuse to deny asylum seekers their legal right to due process,” he added. 

Progressives also celebrated the decision, crediting the Biden administration with doing the “right” and “moral” thing.  

“This is a momentous day for immigrant rights activists, and immigrants and refugees everywhere. Title 42 was a cruel and discriminatory policy that circumvented U.S. law, preventing people from accessing protections established by Congress,” said Congressional Progressive Caucus Chair Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.) in a statement. 

“Today is the product of years of advocacy from both inside and outside Congress. I’m thrilled to see the Biden Administration do the right and moral thing by ending this extremely harmful, xenophobic, and shortsighted policy that disproportionately impacted Black and Brown migrants,” added Jayapal. 

Other progressives celebrated the announcement, withholding praise for administration officials. 

“After consistently calling on President Biden to end Title 42, I’m relieved to see the Administration has finally heeded our calls. Asylum seekers and their allies in the movement and in Congress have been organizing day in and day out to repeal this harmful policy,” said Rep. Ayanna Pressley (D-Mass.) 

“This long-overdue action will undoubtedly save lives and is a critical step towards building a fair and effective asylum system for all,” she added. 

Rep. Raúl Grijalva (D-Ariz.) took on a more diplomatic tone, neither celebrating nor criticizing the administration, but calling for a border management reset.

“The Biden administration must use this transition period to continue to address the longstanding backlog in the courts and the implementation of a comprehensive immigration plan that addresses not only enforcement, but rebuilds an asylum-seeking system that is just and humane,” said Grijalva in a statement. 

Some Democrats, however, came out hard against the rescission of Title 42, arguing that move would be disastrous for border management. 

Sen. Joe Manchin called its striking “a frightening decision” for an administration “nowhere near prepared” for an influx at the border. 

Both of Arizona’s Democratic senators sounded similar notes.  

“This is the wrong decision. It’s unacceptable to end Title 42 without a plan and coordination in place to ensure a secure, orderly, and humane process at the border,” Sen. Mark Kelly wrote. 

Sen. Kyrsten Sinema said the decision to end Title 42 “despite not yet having a comprehensive plan ready shows a lack of understanding about the crisis at our border.” 

Sen. Maggie Hassan (D-N.H.) who is up for reelection this year, also weighed in on Title 42 twice this week, saying Biden lifting the order “prematurely” would likely lead to a migrant surge “that the administration does not appear to be ready for.” 

Democratic Sens. Bob Menendez (N.J.) and Corey Booker (N.J. stated that while they supported the end of Title 42, but believed that it should be done in phases.

“While we support ending Title 42, extending this policy until the end of May will only incentivize more irregular migration to the border and create an unnecessary bottleneck effect when it finally sunsets,” they wrote.

“We hope the administration will expand exemptions to the original order and start lifting Title 42 in phases,” they added.

But amid the varied reactions, there is little data on whether the end of Title 42 will in fact cause a surge of migrants at the border, or how the Department of Homeland Security will deal with changing migration patterns.  

“As an immigration person, I’m thinking I still have no idea what’s going to happen to any individual person encountered,” said Brown, a former policy advisor at Customs and Border Protection (CBP). 

https://thehill.com/latino/3257470-democrats-fractured-on-response-to-end-of-title-42/

WHO suspends UN supply of Bharat Biotech's Covaxin vaccine for COVID-19

 

The World Health Organization said on Saturday it has suspended supply through United Nations agencies of COVID-19 vaccine Covaxin, produced by India's Bharat Biotech, to allow the manufacturer to upgrade facilities and address deficiencies found in an inspection.

The WHO asked countries that have received the vaccine to take appropriate actions, according to the statement, but did not specify what the appropriate actions would be.

The WHO said the vaccine is effective and no safety concerns exist, but the suspension of production for export will result in the interruption of Covaxin supply. It said the suspension is in response to the outcomes of WHO post emergency use listing (EUL) inspection conducted from March 14 to 22, and the vaccine maker has indicated its commitment to suspend production of Covaxin for export.

Bharat Biotech did not immediately respond to a request for comment sent outside business hours.

On Friday, the vaccine manufacturer said it was slowing production of Covaxin, as demand was dropping along with a fall in infections and wider immunisation coverage in the country.

The WHO said that the company has "committed to comply by addressing the GMP deficiencies and is developing a corrective and preventive action plan, for submission to the Drugs Controller General of India (DCGI)and WHO".

https://www.marketscreener.com/news/latest/WHO-suspends-UN-supply-of-Bharat-Biotech-s-Covaxin-vaccine-for-COVID-19--39951991/

Chronic Hypertension and Pregnancy

 

Contribution To Literature:

The CHAP trial showed that antihypertensive therapy improves pregnancy outcomes among pregnant women with mild chronic hypertension.

Description:

The goal of the trial was to evaluate antihypertensive therapy compared with control among pregnant women with mild chronic hypertension.

Study Design

  • Randomized
  • Parallel
  • Open-label

Pregnant individuals with mild chronic hypertension were randomized to a blood pressure goal <140/90 mm Hg (active treatment) (n = 1,208) versus control (n = 1,200). In the control group, antihypertensive therapy was withheld unless the blood pressure was ≥160/105 mm Hg.

In the active treatment group, patients received standard first-line antihypertensive agents in pregnancy (labetalol or extended-release nifedipine); however, amlodipine or methyldopa could also be used, if needed. The medication was titrated to the maximum dose, as necessary, before starting a second agent.

  • Total number of enrollees: 2,408
  • Duration of follow-up: 34 weeks
  • Mean patient age: 32 years
  • Percentage with diabetes: 15.8%

Inclusion criteria:

  • Pregnant women with mild chronic hypertension
  • Known chronic hypertension was confirmed by elevated blood pressure and previous/current antihypertensive therapy, while new chronic hypertension was defined as systolic blood pressure ≥140 mm Hg or diastolic blood pressure ≥90 on ≥2 occasions ≥4 hours apart
  • Gestational age <23 weeks

Exclusion criteria:

  • Need for >1 antihypertensive medication, secondary hypertension, multiple fetuses, high-risk illnesses, or complications that could warrant treatment at a lower blood pressure level
  • Obstetric conditions that increase fetal risk
  • Contraindications to first-line antihypertensive drugs in pregnancy

Other salient features/characteristics:

  • Non-Hispanic black women: 48%
  • Mean body mass index: 37.5 kg/m2
  • Mean systolic blood pressure between randomization and delivery: 129.5 mm Hg in the active treatment group vs. 132.6 mm Hg in the control group

Principal Findings:

The primary outcome, composite of pre-eclampsia with severe features, medically indicated preterm birth at <35 weeks’ gestation, placental abruption, or fetal/neonatal death, occurred in 30.2% of the active treatment group vs. 37.0% of the control group (p < 0.001).

Secondary outcomes:

  • The safety outcome, small-for-gestational-age birth weight below the 10th percentile for gestational age: 11.2% in the active treatment group vs. 10.4% in the control group (p = 0.56)
  • Pre-eclampsia with severe features: 23.3% in the active treatment group vs. 29.1% in the control group
  • Fatal/neonatal death: 3.5% in the active treatment group vs. 4.3% in the control group

Interpretation:

Among pregnant women with mild chronic hypertension, antihypertensive therapy targeted to a blood pressure <140/90 mm Hg reduced the incidence of adverse pregnancy outcomes compared with usual care. Active treatment improved outcomes without increasing the risk for low birth weight. A large proportion of non-Hispanic blacks were enrolled in this trial.

References:

Tita AT, Szychowski JM, Boggess K, et al., on behalf of the Chronic Hypertension and Pregnancy (CHAP) Trial Consortium. Treatment for Mild Chronic Hypertension During Pregnancy. N Engl J Med 2022;Apr 2:[Epub ahead of print].

https://www.acc.org/Latest-in-Cardiology/Clinical-Trials/2022/04/01/03/19/CHAP?utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter_post&utm_campaign=acc22

An Overview of Aphasia: The Condition Causing Bruce Willis to Step Away from Acting

 This week, the world was shook by the news that Bruce Willis’ acting  career is in jeopardy due cognitive impairment caused by aphasia. The 67-year-old renowned Hollywood star – known for his roles in such blockbusters as “Die Hard” and “The Sixth Sense” – is stepping away from acting, as announced by his ex-wife, Demi Moore, in an Instagram post on Wednesday.

“To Bruce’s amazing supporters, as a family we wanted to share that our beloved Bruce has been experiencing some health issues and has recently been diagnosed with aphasia, which is impacting his cognitive abilities,” Moore posted. “As a result of this and with much consideration Bruce is stepping away from the career that has meant so much to him.”

What is Aphasia?

Aphasia, as explained by Mayo Clinic, is a condition that affects one’s ability to communicate. It typically occurs following a stroke or head injury, but can also be spurred on by a slow-growing brain tumor or degenerative, permanent brain damage. The condition’s severity is dependent on a myriad of factors, including the severity of the brain damage. As noted by the American Speech-Language-Hearing Association, aphasia affects ~1 million people, or 1 in 250 in the United States today, with no discernible differences found in incidence between men and women.

People suffering from aphasia may:

  • Speak in short or incomplete sentences
  • Speak incoherently
  • Display mental confusion
  • Write sentences that don’t make sense
  • Make up words
  • Have difficulty understanding spoken words
  • Provide unreliable answers to simple “yes or no” questions
  • Demonstrate difficulty following fast speech

Willis’ aphasia symptoms have unfortunately manifested while on movie sets in recent years. The LA Times reported that on the set of “Hard Kill” two years ago, Willis allegedly misfired a gun off cue, according to the outlet, which cited two sources close to the incident.

How is Aphasia Diagnosed and Treated?

Identifying aphasia falls heavily in the realm of speech-language pathologists (SLPs), who play a significant role in screening, assessment, and diagnosis. SLPs screen individuals who present with language and communication difficulties and determine the need for further testing and/or referral for additional services. They also consult with other professionals to facilitate optimal treatment plans, provide treatment, and document patient progress. Making an accurate diagnosis for aphasia also includes the use of imaging procedures such as computer tomography, magnetic resonance imaging, and positron emission tomography.

Treatment for aphasia is individually-based, and depends on such factors as age, overall health, extent of the disorder, and tolerance for specific medications, therapies, and procedures. The condition is treated using speech-language therapy, individualized and group therapy, and nonverbal communication therapies (e.g., computers or pictures).

Outlook for Aphasia Patients

Fortunately, according to Johns Hopkins Medicine, “some people with aphasia recover completely without treatment.” However, for others, remnants of the disease are permanent. Treatments are often successful in helping patients recover some speech and language functions over time, but some communication problems may always persist. Computers can help aphasia patients effectively communicate, and of course, new innovations are constantly being developed.

From everybody here at DocWire News, we wish Bruce Willis the best, and hope for a full recovery.

https://www.docwirenews.com/latest-neurology-news/an-overview-of-aphasia-the-condition-causing-bruce-willis-to-step-away-from-acting/

New HF Guidelines Stress Four-Drug Approach

 New heart failure guidelines released in the United States today stress a four-drug-class approach in patients with reduced ejection fraction, define a new category of “mildly reduced” heart failure, and celebrate new options for patients who have heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) or amyloidosis, along with a number of other key updates.

The document was simultaneously published in the journals and on the websites of the three societies behind today’s update: the American College of Cardiology (ACC), the American Heart Association (AHA), and the Heart Failure Society of America (HFSA). “The 2022 guideline is intended to provide patient-centric recommendations for clinicians to prevent, diagnose, and manage patients with heart failure,” the authors state.

The last full set of HF guidelines published by these societies dates back to 2013, with a “focused update” released in 2017. Of note, the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) released its newest heart failure guidelines last fall during the ESC Congress. There are many areas of overlap between the two documents.

But as Biykem Bozkurt, MD, PhD (Baylor College of Medicine, Houston TX), writing committee vice chair for the US guidelines, pointed out to TCTMD, EMPEROR-Preserved came out just 1 hour after the release of the ESC guidelines—long past the cutoff for the writing committee to consider the data. As such, a crucial difference between the European and American recommendations is the newer advice for HFpEF patients.

“For the first time we have a therapy, and consideration of other therapies, that improve outcomes in patients with heart failure with preserved EF,” Bozkurt told TCTMD. “And that makes for exciting times for us.”

Other major highlights in the 2022 guidelines include the emphasis on four different medication classes in heart failure with reduced EF (HFrEF), to be initiated in tandem as swiftly as possible, she noted. Those are sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors, beta-blockers, mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists (MRAs), and renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system RAAS) inhibition—with an angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitor (ARNI) given preference over an ACE inhibitor or ARB in class II to III heart failure patients. That’s in line with recommendations also made by the European guideline committee last year. So, too, is the addition of “mildly reduced” to denote heart failure patients with ejection fractions ranging from 41% to 49%, given the acronym “HFmrEF.”

Key Recommendations

The document, in its entirety, is 159 pages, but that speaks to the comprehensiveness of the advice, not its complexity, Bozkurt stressed. Even for primary care physicians or cardiologists not specialized in the management of heart failure, the key messages from the new document are straightforward.

We have four medications to save lives and improve outcomes more than ever, and that therapy is standard core therapy with four drug classes . . . that can be initiated and optimized as soon as possible: that should be clear,” she said. “Every patient with reduced EF should have optimization of these four classes.”

Of note, the guidelines do not make recommendations on sequencing the four medication classes, Bozkurt said. “You will not see start this versus that, but we specified that we do have a recommendation for optimization meaning, though we did not specify how to sequence, there is a class 2a recommendation for titration and optimization frequently, as frequently as 1 to 2 weeks, depending on the patient. My response to you on behalf of the writing group is that, rather than sequencing, optimization matters amongst the four classes.” Only for the RAAS inhibitors did the writing committee give an ARNI priority over ACE inhibitors and ARB in certain patients.

Bozkurt’s personal view—not that of the writing group, she stressed—is that the sequence “by which the medications are to be started needs to be individualized according to patients,” taking into account etiology, comorbidities, and patient wishes.

A Heart Failure Top 10

Beyond that fundamental starting point, she said, are a range of other important updates, summarized in a “Top 10 Take-Home Messages,” which Bozkurt said she and other writing committee members are “very proud of.”

  1. The four medication classes making up class 1a guideline-directed medical therapy for HFrEF take the top spot, with SGLT2 inhibitors making their debut in the ACC/AHA/HFSA guidelines.
  2. SGLT2 inhibitors get a class 2a in the newly dubbed category of HFmrEF, while ARNIs, ACE inhibitors, ARBs, MRAs, and beta-blockers get a class 2b recommendation.
  3. New HFpEF recommendations, including SGLT2 inhibition (class 2a) and MRA and ARNI (both 2b) debut, along with the renewal of prior management recommendations in this group.
  4. A new category of “improved HF” denotes patients who have increased their EF above 40%, singled out because they will benefit from continuing their prescribed therapies.
  5. The addition of “Value Statements” to recommendation classes help to highlight therapies for which high-quality cost-effectiveness studies have been published.
  6. New screening, genetic sequencing, and therapeutic options for amyloid heart disease incorporate data from the ATTR-ACT study that made waves in 2019.
  7. Use of increased filling pressures, identified noninvasively, or through invasive, hemodynamic tests to aid diagnosis of HF when LVEF is > 40%. The CardioMEMs implantable pulmonary artery pressure sensor (Abbott), for example, is given a class 2b recommendation.
  8. Reliance on a HF team is urged to guide decision-making around prolonging life through advanced HF support therapies such as mechanical circulatory support and transplantation, as opposed to palliative care.
  9. New advice and revised terminology are provided around primary prevention of HF (stage A) or pre-HF (stage B).
  10. Updated recommendations are provided for HF patients also facing a range of comorbidities such as iron deficiency, anemia, hypertension, sleep disorders, type 2 diabetes, cancer, coronary artery disease, and atrial fibrillation. For the latter, for example, ablation is considered to be a “reasonable” option in patients with an LVEF  35% (class 2a).

 

Guidelines in Sync

To TCTMD, Bozkurt stressed that the new HF guidelines are in line with the recent valve disease guidance, including advice for treatment for patients with mitral regurgitation and aortic stenosis. These recommendations take into account trials—and conflicting interpretations—of recent transcatheter-edge-to-edge repair (TEER) and TAVI trials. Patients with secondary mitral regurgitation are to be first treated with guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT) supervised by an HF specialist before consideration for surgery or TEER, with the latter given a 2a recommendation so long as the patient meets a range of clinical and anatomic criteria.

Bozkurt also highlighted specific recommendations for heart failure and pregnancy, including patient-centric counselling, as well as a class 2b recommendation for anticoagulation with peripartum cardiomyopathy.

New recommendations single out “vulnerable” populations, urging practitioners to look beyond traditional risk factors. “Risk assessment should target both known risks for cardiovascular disease and heart failure as well as social determinants of health as a means towards elimination of disparate heart failure outcomes,” she explained. Moreover, “evidence of health disparities should be monitored and addressed at the clinical-practice level, as well as health-system level, so we have recommendations for the health system, as well.”

There are messages to both payers and practitioners here, said Bozkurt, acknowledging that the ideal management of heart failure may not be affordable or accessible to many. “The lifesaving therapies and treatments that are reducing morbidity need to be affordable and covered, that is number one. Number two: disparities and health inequities needs to be addressed, and this whole [problem of] nonstandardization, the differences [seen] state to state, needs to be addressed. That requires a high level of legislation and coverage intervention, which needs to be done. But from the clinician side, yes, care coordination unfortunately needs to address all these barriers, lack of coverage as well as advocacy on behalf of our patients, until the infrastructure is fixed. The clinicians on the frontier are the ones who have to do the advocacy for their patients.”

Much to Stoke Excitement

Commenting on the new guidelines for TCTMD, Michelle Kittleson, MD, PhD (Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, CA), zeroed in several factors that she said she’s excited about.

These include the creation of the new category of HFmrEF, but also the notion of “improved” EF as a separate entity. “That really emphasizes the point that heart failure exists on a continuum,” she said. “It reinforces that physicians can’t have this false sense of reassurance that now that the patient has made it through and improved their ejection fraction, they don't need the GDMT anymore.” Instead, providers have to pay attention to a patients trajectory, stay aware of fluctuations, and not stop or ease off on guideline-recommended meds.

Rule number one is to do our best, to help every patient feel better and live longer, to optimize quality of life for as long as possible. 

The addition of SGLT2 inhibitors also got at thumbs up from Kittleson, as did their incorporation as part of a four-drug class approach. “I was glad the guidelines got behind that,” she said.

The options for diagnosing and screening amyloidosis are “very important,” she added, pointing out that the prior full iteration of the guidelines in 2013 could offer very little to this important group of patients. “I think that fact that the guidelines devoted an entire section to the diagnosis and treatment of cardiac amyloidosis, . . . as well as a diagnostic and treatment algorithm, is really important.

Lastly, said Kittleson, the addition of value statements for many therapies, when available, plus the emphasis on health disparities and social determinants of health, help to shine a light on the impact that disparities have on vulnerable populations and how those might be mitigated.

Asked if her excitement for all of the new treatments and approaches in the new guidelines is tempered by the stark realities posed by inequitable access to care, Kittleson was blunt.

“Rule number one is to do our best, to help every patient feel better and live longer, to optimize quality of life for as long as possible. That's our mission, our goal. And then we work within the construct of reality, where our best efforts sometimes are not supported by things like financial toxicity,” she said. “I think it's very important for the guidelines to always put forth what best medical therapy is, but recognize that the reality for some patients is that that may not be possible. And hopefully this is a signal to the policy makers out there that we recognize that financial toxicity exists for our patients.”

A special session on the AHA/ACC/HFSA heart failure guidelines takes place tomorrow, April 2, 2022, at the American College of Cardiology 2022 Scientific Session.


https://www.tctmd.com/news/new-hf-guidelines-stress-four-drug-approach-hfmref-amyloidosis-options-and-more

Exercise Provides Twice the CV Benefit in Anxiety, Depression

 Meeting guideline-recommended exercise targets is associated with a reduced risk of cardiovascular disease (CVD) in everyone, but the benefits may be particularly clear for people with anxiety and depression, a new analysis suggests.

In a study of more than 50,000 adult patients with or without CVD or risk factors who were followed for a median of 1.8 years, the cardioprotective effects associated with exercise were almost twice as large in people with anxiety and depression than in those without these conditions.

Overall, individuals who met the American Heart Association (AHA)/American College of Cardiology (ACC) recommendations for physical activity had a 17% lower risk of having coronary major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), defined as unstable anginamyocardial infarction (MI), or coronary revascularization.

However, individuals with anxiety or depression had a 22% lower risk of coronary MACE during follow-up, compared to the 10% lower risk in individuals without these stress-related conditions.

Hadil Zureigat, MD, a clinical research fellow at Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, reported these findings in a press briefing; the study will be presented at the American College of Cardiology 2022 Scientific Session, being held virtually and in person in Washington, DC, starting April 2.

Importantly, the "findings don't suggest that exercise is only effective in those with anxiety and depression," Zureigat stressed in an email to theheart.org | Medscape Cardiology. Rather, they show that "people with these diagnoses derive a relatively greater cardiovascular benefit from exercise — roughly double the risk reduction."

These findings are "really important," said Andrew Kates, MD, who was not involved in this research.

"We use multiple medications for secondary prevention in our patients with CVD," Kates, professor of medicine, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, Missouri, told theheart.org | Medscape Cardiology in an email. "This gives us additional data to present to patients to encourage lifestyle changes as a way to combat CVD," or to prevent CVD in other patients.

"Anxiety and depression are common in patients with heart disease and estimated to be present in 15% to 30% of such patients," Kates noted.

"We should screen for this," he added, by asking "simple questions about fatigue, stress, self-esteem, etc, with a low threshold for referral to a primary provider for more formal assessment. For many, it is a matter of making sure patients are aware of the association of anxiety and depression with heart disease."

Building on Prior Imaging Studies

This study builds on two earlier ones using data from this biobank, both of which were presented at recent cardiology meetings, Zureigat noted.

In the first study, imaging data showed that exercise decreases stress-associated neural activity predominantly by upregulating regulatory medial prefrontal cortical activity. In a second study, she said, "we showed that this mechanism (that involves the brain) explains about 7% of the cardiovascular benefit of exercise.

"Given these findings," Zureigat said, "we asked the next logical question, 'Shouldn't people with stress-related conditions such as anxiety and depression, derive more cardiovascular benefit from exercise?' "

The current study did indeed show this and provides "further support of the importance of stress-related neural mechanisms in explaining the cardiovascular benefits of exercise."

Moreover, "any amount of exercise is helpful [to lower CVD risk], particularly for those with depression or anxiety," Zureigat said in a press release issued by the ACC.

"Not only will physical activity help them feel better, but they will also potentially reduce their risk of cardiovascular disease," she said. "It can be hard to make the transition, but once achieved, physical activity allows those with these common chronic stress-related psychiatric conditions to hit two birds with one stone."

Anxiety, Depression Common

The researchers analyzed data from 50,359 adults older than 18 years who were enrolled in the Mass General Brigham Biobank and who replied to questionnaires in which they reported physical activity.

Of these, 16,995 patients (34%) had a diagnosis of anxiety, and 14,015 patients (20%) had a diagnosis of depression, based on ICD codes.

The cohort included patients with a wide age range, with or without previous MI or stroke, and 15% to 48% had cardiovascular risk factors of type 2 diabeteshypertension, or hyperlipidemia, or current or past smoking.

The patients were classified as either meeting or exceeding, or not meeting AHA/ACC recommendations of at least 150 minutes of moderate physical activity per week, equivalent to 500 metabolic equivalent of task (MET) minutes per week.

Meeting or exceeding these physical activity recommendations was associated with a lower risk of coronary MACE compared to not meeting these targets, after adjusting for cardiovascular risk factors and age and sex, (odds ratio, 0.838, 95% CI, 0.78 – 0.90, P = .015).

Among patients with anxiety or depression, those with ≥500 MET minutes of physical activity per week had a lower risk of coronary MACE than those who did not meet this target.

Zureigat and Kates have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

American College of Cardiology (ACC) 2022 Scientific Session: Abstract 1007-05. To be presented April 2, 2022.

https://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/971439