Outcomes of Patients with Asymptomatic Aortic Stenosis Followed Up in Heart Valve Clinics

Importance: The natural history and the management of patients with asymptomatic aortic stenosis (AS) have not been fully examined in the current era. Objective: To determine the clinical outcomes of patients with asymptomatic AS using data from the Heart Valve Clinic International Database. Design, Setting, and Participants: This registry was assembled by merging data from prospectively gathered institutional databases from 10 heart valve clinics in Europe, Canada, and the United States. Asymptomatic patients with an aortic valve area of 1.5 cm2 or less and preserved left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) greater than 50% at entry were considered for the present analysis. Data were collected from January 2001 to December 2014, and data were analyzed from January 2017 to July 2018. Main Outcomes and Measures: Natural history, need for aortic valve replacement (AVR), and survival of asymptomatic patients with moderate or severe AS at entry followed up in a heart valve clinic. Indications for AVR were based on current guideline recommendations. Results: Of the 1375 patients included in this analysis, 834 (60.7%) were male, and the mean (SD) age was 71 (13) years. A total of 861 patients (62.6%) had severe AS (aortic valve area less than 1.0 cm2). The mean (SD) overall survival during medical management (mean [SD] follow up, 27 [24] months) was 93% (1%), 86% (2%), and 75% (4%) at 2, 4, and 8 years, respectively. A total of 104 patients (7.6%) died under observation, including 57 patients (54.8%) from cardiovascular causes. The crude rate of sudden death was 0.65% over the duration of the study. A total of 542 patients (39.4%) underwent AVR, including 388 patients (71.6%) with severe AS at study entry and 154 (28.4%) with moderate AS at entry who progressed to severe AS. Those with severe AS at entry who underwent AVR did so at a mean (SD) of 14.4 (16.6) months and a median of 8.7 months. The mean (SD) 2-year and 4-year AVR-free survival rates for asymptomatic patients with severe AS at baseline were 54% (2%) and 32% (3%), respectively. In those undergoing AVR, the 30-day postprocedural mortality was 0.9%. In patients with severe AS at entry, peak aortic jet velocity (greater than 5 m/s) and LVEF (less than 60%) were associated with all-cause and cardiovascular mortality without AVR; these factors were also associated with postprocedural mortality in those patients with severe AS at baseline who underwent AVR (surgical AVR in 310 patients; transcatheter AVR in 78 patients). Conclusions and Relevance: In patients with asymptomatic AS followed up in heart valve centers, the risk of sudden death is low, and rates of overall survival are similar to those reported from previous series. Patients with severe AS at baseline and peak aortic jet velocity of 5.0 m/s or greater or LVEF less than 60% have increased risks of all-cause and cardiovascular mortality even after AVR. The potential benefit of early intervention should be considered in these high-risk patients

A Need to Meet Patient Expectations

Funding Information: Open access funding provided by Università degli Studi di Palermo within the Nicola Veronese reports personal fees from IBSA, Mylan, and Fidia outside of the submitted work. Cyrus Cooper reports personal fees from Alliance for Better Bone Health, Amgen, Eli Lilly, GSK, Medtronic, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Servier, Takeda, and UCB outside of the submitted work. Jean-Yves Reginster reports CRUI-CARE Agreement. Funding Information:grants from IBSA-Genevrier, Mylan, CNIEL, and Radius Health (through his institution); consulting fees from IBSA-Genevrier, Mylan, CNIEL, Radius Health, and Pierre Fabre; fees for participation in review activities from IBSA-Genevrier, Mylan, CNIEL, Radius Health, and Teva; and payment for lectures from Ag-Novos, CERIN, CNIEL, Dairy Research Council (DRC), Echolight, IBSA-Genevrier, Mylan, Pfizer Consumer Health, Teva, and Theramex outside of the submitted work. Olivier Bruyère reports grants or lecture fees from Amgen, Aptissen, Biophytis, IBSA, MEDA, Mylan, Novartis, Sanofi, Servier, SMB, TRB Chemedica, UCB, and Viatris outside of the submitted work. Ali Mobasheri declares personal fees from Abbott, Abbvie, Achē Laboratórios Farmacêuticos, Galapagos, GSK Consumer Healthcare, Kolon TissueGene, Laboratoires Expansciences, Merck, Pacira Biosciences, Pfizer, Sanofi, and Servier. François Rannou reports grants or lecture fees from Pierre Fabre, Mylan, MSD, Thuasne, IBSA, Pfizer, Genévrier, Expanscience, Scarcell, Skindermic, and Peptinov. Ida K. Haugen reports grants from Pfizer and is a consultant for Novartis outside of the submitted work. Elaine M. Dennison declares grants/fees from Pfizer, Lilly, UCB, and Viatris. Philip G. Conaghan is supported in part by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Leeds Biomedical Research Centre (the views expressed are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the NHS, the NIHR, or the Department of Health), and reports consultancies or lecture fees from AbbVie, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, GSK, Grunenthal, Pfizer, Novartis, and UCB. Nasser M. Al-Daaghri, Antonella Fioravanti, Sara Cheleschi, Jean-Pierre Pelletier, Maarten de Wit, Etienne Cavalier, Radmila Matijevic, Germain Honvo, Régis Pierre Radermecker, René Rizzoli, Jaime Branco, Andrea Laslop, María Concepción Prieto Yerro, Alberto Migliore, Gabriel Herrero-Beaumont, and Nicholas R. Fuggle declare that they have no conflicts of interest. Publisher Copyright: © 2022, The Author(s).Knee osteoarthritis (OA) is one of the most common and disabling medical conditions. In the case of moderate to severe pain, a single intervention may not be sufficient to allay symptoms and improve quality of life. Examples include first-line, background therapy with symptomatic slow-acting drugs for OA (SYSADOAs) or non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs). Therefore, the European Society for Clinical and Economic Aspects of Osteoporosis, Osteoarthritis and Musculoskeletal Diseases (ESCEO) performed a review of a multimodal/multicomponent approach for knee OA therapy. This strategy is a particularly appropriate solution for the management of patients affected by knee OA, including those with pain and dysfunction reaching various thresholds at the different joints. The multimodal/multicomponent approach should be based, firstly, on different combinations of non-pharmacological and pharmacological interventions. Potential pharmacological combinations include SYSADOAs and NSAIDs, NSAIDs and weak opioids, and intra-articular treatments with SYSADOAs/NSAIDs. Based on the available evidence, most combined treatments provide benefit beyond single agents for the improvement of pain and other symptoms typical of knee OA, although further high-quality studies are required. In this work, we have therefore provided new, patient-centered perspectives for the management of knee OA, based on the concept that a multimodal, multicomponent, multidisciplinary approach, applied not only to non-pharmacological treatments but also to a combination of the currently available pharmacological options, will better meet the needs and expectations of patients with knee OA, who may present with various phenotypes and trajectories.publishersversionpublishe

Glycemic control during consecutive days with prolonged walking exercise in individuals with type 1 diabetes mellitus

Aims: Despite its general benefits for health, exercise complicates the maintenance of stable blood glucose concentrations in individuals with type 1 diabetes. The aim of the current study was to examine changes in food intake, insulin administration, and 24-h glycemic control in response to consecutive days with prolonged walking exercise (~8 h daily) in individuals with type 1 diabetes. Methods: Ten individuals with type 1 diabetes participating in the worlds' largest walking event were recruited for this observational study. Simultaneous measurements of 24-h glycemic control (continuous glucose monitoring), insulin administration and food intake were performed during a non-walking day (control) and during three subsequent days with prolonged walking exercise (daily distance 40 or 50 km). Results: Despite an increase in daily energy (31 ± 18%; p 10 mmol/L) and hypoglycemia (blood glucose 0.05 for all variables). The prolonged walking exercise was associated with a modest increase in glycemic variability compared with the control day (p < 0.05). Conclusion: Prolonged walking exercise allows for profound reductions in daily insulin administration in persons with type 1 diabetes, despite large increments in energy and carbohydrate intake. When taking such adjustments into account, prolonged moderate-intensity exercise does not necessarily impair 24-h glycemic control. © 2016 Elsevier Ireland Ltd