Skip to main content

Moderate Drinking Linked to Lower Stroke Risk

March 27, 2012 — Light to moderate alcohol consumption is associated with a lower risk for both ischemic and hemorrhagic stroke in women, new research suggests.
"Alcohol consumption in moderation has been consistently associated with lower risk of heart disease, but the data for stroke, especially with regard to stroke type, has been a matter of debate," lead author Monik Jimenez, ScD, from Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts, told Medscape Medical News.
The study is published online March 8 in Stroke.
The investigators examined data on 83,578 women in the Nurses' Health Study who were free of diagnosed cardiovascular disease and cancer at baseline. The participants were followed from 1980 to 2006.
Participants provided information about their use of alcohol at baseline and then every 4 years thereafter. They also provided information about lifestyle factors and stroke events every 2 years.
Strokes were classified according to the National Survey of Stroke criteria.
During the study period, there were 2171 incident strokes. Of these, 1206 were ischemic strokes, 363 were hemorrhagic strokes, and 602 were of unknown etiology.
About 30% of the women reported that they never drank alcohol, 35% reported very low levels of consumption (less than 4.9 g/day, or half a glass of wine per day), and 37% drank moderately (5 - 14.9 g/day, or ½ to 1 ½ glasses of wine, 1 mixed drink, or 1 beer daily).
Analysis of the data showed that women who consumed low to moderate amounts of alcohol had a lower risk for total stroke compared with women who never drank.
After adjusting for a number of variables, including smoking, physical activity, body mass index, family and personal history of heart disease, diabetes, hypertension, bilateral oophorectomy, postmenopausal status, hormone therapy, high cholesterol, multivitamin intake, aspirin, composite 6-nutrient diet score, highest level of education, husband's highest level of education, and marital status, the relative risks of stroke were 0.83 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.75 - 0.92) for women who consumed < 5 g/day, 0.79 (95% CI, 0.70 - 0.90) for 5 to 14.9 g/day, 0.87 (95% CI, 0.72 - 1.05) for 15 to 29.9 g/day, and 1.06 (95% CI, 0.86 - 1.30) for 30 to 45 g/day. Results were similar for ischemic and hemorrhagic stroke.
The estimated risk for stroke in the highest category of reported alcohol intake did not reach statistical significance because there were very few heavy drinkers in the cohort, Dr. Jimenez pointed out.
"Moderate alcohol intake was associated with reduced risk of total stroke, and higher levels were not associated with reduced risk in this particular population, which really emphasizes the importance of moderation if you drink," she said.
"There are several ways that alcohol might reduce the risk of stroke," Dr. Jimenez speculated. "Alcohol has components which prevent blood clots and promote HDL cholesterol, which is the good cholesterol. But alcohol is like a double-edge sword because higher levels can increase high blood pressure and promote atrial fibrillation, which are also risk factors for stroke."
Dr. Jimenez stressed that women who currently do not drink should not start to drink in the belief that this will protect them from stroke.
"Our results are very much in line with the American Heart Association guidelines for up to a glass a day for women, but those recommendations are for women who are current drinkers, and we do not advocate the initiation of alcohol consumption for women who abstain from drinking," she said.
"This paper was based on a very well-done analysis with excellent ascertainment of alcohol exposure," R. Curtis Ellison, MD, professor of medicine at Boston University School of Medicine in Massachusetts, told Medscape Medical News.
"The findings from this study are not that new. Many studies have shown that stroke is in general 10, 15, 20% lower in moderate drinkers," Dr. Ellison said.
"But you have to keep supporting these findings because people are always looking for flaws. Out of 200 or 300 papers, there have been about half a dozen that have not found this, so you have to reinforce your findings. This is a very large study, and it is very useful to have such confirmation."
Dr. Jimenez and Dr. Ellison have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Ellison reports that he is a member of the International Scientific Forum on Alcohol Research. The study was funded by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute of the National Institutes of Health and the National Cancer Institute.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Antidepressants Linked to Higher Diabetes Risk in Kids

Pediatric patients who use antidepressants may have an elevated risk for type 2 diabetes, the authors of a new study report. In a retrospective cohort study of more than 119,000 youths 5 to 20 years of age, the risk for incident type 2 diabetes was nearly twice as high among current users of certain types of antidepressants as among former users, Mehmet Burcu, PhD, and colleagues report in an article  published online October 16 in  JAMA Pediatrics . The risk intensified with increasing duration of use, greater cumulative doses, and higher daily doses of these antidepressants. The findings point to a growing need for closer monitoring of these products, including greater balancing of risks and benefits, in the pediatric population, the authors caution. They undertook the study because, despite growing evidence of an association between antidepressant use and an increased risk for type 2 diabetes in adults, similar research in pediatric patients was scarce. "To our know...

Contact Precautions May Have Unintended Consequences

Contact precautions, including gloves, gowns, and isolated rooms, have helped stem the transmission of hospital pathogens but have also had some negative consequences, according to findings from a new study. Healthcare worker (HCWs) visited patients on contact precautions less frequently than other patients and spent less time with those patients when they did visit, report Daniel J. Morgan, MD, from the University of Maryland School of Medicine and the Veterans Affairs (VA) Maryland Health Care System, Baltimore, and colleagues. Moreover, patients on contact precautions also received fewer outside visitors. "Less contact with HCWs suggests that other unintended consequences of contact precautions still exist," Dr. Morgan and coauthors write. "The resulting decrease in HCW contact may lead to increased adverse events and a lower quality of patient care due to less consistent patient monitoring and poorer adherence to standard adverse event prevention methods (such...

Missing Data Lead FDA Panel to Vote Against Rivaroxaban for ACS May 23, 2012 (Updated May 24, 2012) (Silver Spring, Maryland) — The missing data issues plaguing the ATLAS ACS 2 TIMI 51 trial of the factor Xa inhibitor rivaroxaban (Xarelto, Bayer Healthcare/Janssen Pharmaceuticals) have prevented the drug from earning the endorsement of the FDA Cardiovascular and Renal Drugs Advisory Committee. At its May 23 meeting, the panel voted six to four (with one abstention) against recommending that the FDA approve rivaroxaban for reducing the risk of thrombotic cardiovascular events in patients with acute coronary syndrome or unstable angina in combination with aspirin, aspirin plus clopidogrel, or ticlopidine. Janssen's application is based on the results of the ATLAS ACS 2 phase 3 and the ATLAS ACS TIMI 46 phase 2 trial. The placebo-controlled ATLAS ACS 2 showed rivaroxaban reduced the risk of both all-cause and cardiovascular mortality while increasing the risk of bleeding and intracranial hemorrhage, but the studies were hindered by early patient withdrawals and missing data. We Don't Know What We're Missing Based on the ATLAS ACS 2 results, FDA reviewer Dr Karen Hicks recommended approval of rivaroxaban for the requested indications except all-cause mortality. However, another FDA reviewer, Dr Thomas Marciniak, was adamant that the trial results are not interpretable because about 12% of the patients had incomplete follow-up, far higher than the 1% to 1.5% differences in the end-point rates between rivaroxaban and placebo. A total of 1294 subjects discontinued the trial prematurely, and the company was only able to contact 183, of which 177 were confirmed to be alive. Because of the patient dropouts, the company adopted a "modified intention-to-treat analysis," whereby patients were observed for 30 days after randomization or the global end date for the trial, instead of observing all the patients until the end of the trial as the FDA originally suggested. Marciniak criticized the sponsor's efforts to follow the patients and said that three patient deaths not counted in the modified intention-to-treat analysis may just be the "tip of the iceberg." Because the percentage of patients whose ultimate vital status remains unknown is much greater than the reported differences in mortality rates, the claimed mortality benefits are not reliable. The majority of the panel sided with Marciniak. For example, Dr Sanjay Kaul (University of California, Los Angeles) voted "no" because "there was enough uncertainty in the quality and robustness of the data that dissuaded me from voting yes. . . . The 'missingness' of the data doesn't invalidate it, but it certainly makes it hard to infer [the conclusion]." Dr Steven Nissen (Cleveland Clinic, OH) said that the decision to use the modified intention-to-treat analysis had a "profound impact" on the interpretability of the data. "It's saying we don't care what happens after 30 days, [and] that colored the trial in ways we couldn't recover from." Given the risk of major bleeding, "I want to see better evidence that this strategy of adding an Xa inhibitor or a direct thrombin inhibitor or something else to a good antiplatelet agent is robustly better for the patient," Nissen said. He recommends that the companies run a new trial of the 2.5 twice-daily dose of rivaroxaban using a strict intention-to-treat approach, but, he said, "I don't expect the death benefit to be too robust." Several panelists said they were concerned that the patients who dropped out of the trial were disproportionately likely to have a bleeding event, which led them to quit the trial, or a "protopathic" event, as statistician Dr Scott Emerson (University of Washington, Seattle) put it. "We're worried that an impending event is what is changing their behavior. We see that all the time in clinical trials--that regularly measured end points do not pick up [all of] the events," he said. He said that since the company was only able to contact 183 of the over 1200 patients who dropped out, it is possible that the dropouts skew the outcomes comparison of the trial. "Differential event rates after dropout are the number-one thing we're afraid of, so you have to explore it" in a statistical sensitivity analysis of the potential impact of these unknown outcomes. "It would not surprise me if, at the end of the day, these data did not hold up under a proper sensitivity analysis," he said. "What I want to know is, among the people who had events, how differential was the follow-up, but I can tell you by just looking at it, there was a very slightly different amount of follow-up of the people in the treatment arm. But I don't know whether everyone in the treatment arm was cured and they were trekking in the Himalayas and everyone in the placebo arm went home to die. I don't know that that's not the case." Dr Maury Krantz (University of Colorado, Denver) voted in favor of approval but said he does not know how rivaroxaban would perform in general clinical practice, especially when used with aspirin and clopidogrel. "I felt very much torn by this. This isn't a simple paradigm shift. It means going to triple therapy, which is really a three-headed monster in many ways. I think that what you're going to see in practice, if this is not done carefully with the proper labeling and secondary studies, is really dramatic magnification of bleeding and perhaps minimization of the efficacy benefit."

May 23, 2012   (Updated May 24, 2012)  (Silver Spring, Maryland)  —  The missing data issues plaguing the  ATLAS ACS 2 TIMI 51   trial of the factor Xa inhibitor  rivaroxaban  (Xarelto, Bayer Healthcare/Janssen Pharmaceuticals) have prevented the drug from earning the endorsement of the  FDA  Cardiovascular and Renal Drugs Advisory Committee. At its May 23 meeting , the panel voted six to four (with one abstention) against recommending that the FDA approve rivaroxaban for reducing the risk of thrombotic cardiovascular events in patients with acute coronary syndrome or unstable angina in combination with aspirin, aspirin plus  clopidogrel , or  ticlopidine . Janssen's application is based on the results of the ATLAS ACS 2 phase 3 and the  ATLAS ACS TIMI 46   phase 2 trial. The placebo-controlled ATLAS ACS 2 showed rivaroxaban reduced the risk of both all-cause and cardiovascular mortality while increasing the ri...