Mitchel L. Zoler, PhD

Roughly 16%-22% of patients with hypertension appeared to have primary aldosteronism as the likely major cause of their elevated blood pressure, in an analysis of about 1,000 Americans, which is a much higher prevalence than previously appreciated and a finding that could potentially reorient both screening for aldosteronism and management for this subset of patients.

“Our findings show a high prevalence of unrecognized yet biochemically overt primary aldosteronism [PA] using current confirmatory diagnostic thresholds. They highlight the inadequacy of the current diagnostic approach that heavily relies on the ARR [aldosterone renin ratio] and, most important, show the existence of a pathologic continuum of nonsuppressible renin-independent aldosterone production that parallels the severity of hypertension,” wrote Jennifer M. Brown, MD, and coinvestigators in a report published in Annals of Internal Medicine on May 25. “These findings support the need to redefine primary aldosteronism from a rare and categorical disease to, instead, a common syndrome that manifests across a broad severity spectrum and may be a primary contributor to hypertension pathogenesis,” they wrote in the report.

The results, showing an underappreciated prevalence of both overt and subtler forms of aldosteronism that link with hypertension, won praise from several experts for the potential of these findings to boost the profile of excess aldosterone as a common and treatable cause of high blood pressure, but opinions on the role for the ARR as a screen to identify affected patients were more mixed.

“ARR is still the best screening approach we have” for identifying people who likely have PA, especially when the ratio threshold for finding patients who need further investigation is reduced from the traditional level of 30 ng/dL to 20 ng/dL, commented Michael Stowasser, MBBS, professor of medicine at the University of Queensland in Brisbane, Australia, and director of the Endocrine Hypertension Research Centre at Greenslopes and Princess Alexandra Hospitals in Brisbane. “I strongly recommend ARR testing in all newly diagnosed hypertensives.”

The study results “showed that PA is much more common than previously perceived, and suggest that perhaps PA in milder forms than we typically recognize contributes more to ‘essential’ hypertension than we previously thought,” said Anand Vaidya, MD, senior author of the report and director of the Center for Adrenal Disorders at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston. The researchers found adjusted PA prevalence rates of 16% among 115 untreated patients with stage 1 hypertension (130-139/80-89 mm Hg), 22% among 203 patients with untreated stage 2 hypertension (at least 140/90 mm Hg), and 22% among 408 patients with treatment-resistant hypertension. All three prevalence rates were based on relatively conservative criteria that included all 726 patients with hypertension in the analysis (which also included 289 normotensive subjects) regardless of whether or not they also had low levels of serum renin. These PA prevalence rates were also based on a “conservative” definition of PA, a level of at least 12 mcg excreted in a 24-hour urine specimen.

When the researchers applied less stringent diagnostic criteria for PA or focused on the types of patients usually at highest risk for PA because of a suppressed renin level, the prevalence rates rose substantially and, in some subgroups, more than doubled. Of the 726 people with hypertension included in the analysis, 452 (62%) had suppressed renin (seated plasma renin activity < 1.0 mcg/L per hour or supine plasma renin activity < 0.6 mcg/L per hour). Within this subgroup of patients with suppressed renin, the adjusted prevalence of PA by the threshold of 24-hour urine aldosterone secretion of at least 12 mcg was 52% in those with treatment-resistant hypertension; among patients with stage 1 or 2 hypertension the adjusted prevalence rates were just slightly above the rates in the entire study group. But among patients with suppressed renin who were judged to have PA by a more liberal definition of at least 10 mcg in a 24-hour urine sample, the adjusted prevalence rates were 27% among untreated stage 1 hypertensives, 40% among untreated stage 2 patients, and 58% among treatment-resistant patients, the report showed.
 

A role for subtler forms of aldosteronism

Defining PA as at least 12 mcg secreted in a 24-hour urine collection “is relatively arbitrary, and our findings show that it bisects a continuous distribution. How we should redefine PA is also arbitrary, but step one is to recognize that many people have milder forms of PA” that could have an important effect on blood pressure, Dr. Vaidya said in an interview.

“This is the very first study to show that aldosterone may be contributing to the hypertensive process even though it is not severe enough to be diagnosed as PA according to current criteria,” said Robert M. Carey, MD, a cardiovascular endocrinologist and professor of medicine at the University of Virginia in Charlottesville and a coauthor on the new report. “More patients than we have ever known have an aldosterone component to their hypertension,” Dr. Carey said in an interview.

The new report on the prevalence of unrecognized PA in hypertensive patients “is a game changer,” wrote John W. Funder, MD, professor of medicine at Monash University in Clayton, Australia, in an editorial published along with the new report. In the editorial, he synthesized the new findings with results from prior reports to estimate that excess aldosteronism could play a clinically meaningful role in close to half of patients with hypertension, although Dr. Stowasser called this an “overestimate.” The new results also showed that “the single spot measurement of plasma aldosterone concentration, which clinicians have used for decades to screen for primary aldosteronism, is not merely useless but actually misleading. The authors cautioned readers about the uncertain representativeness of the study population to the U.S. population, but I believe that the findings are generalizable to the United States and elsewhere,” Dr. Funder wrote. “The central problem is that plasma aldosterone concentration is a very poor index of total daily aldosterone secretion. A single morning spot measurement of plasma aldosterone cannot take into account ultradian variation in aldosterone secretion.”
 

The importance of finding excess aldosterone

Identifying patients with hypertension and PA, as well as hypertensives with excess aldosterone production that may not meet the traditional definition of PA, is especially important because they are excellent candidates for two forms of targeted and very effective treatments that have a reliable and substantial impact on lowering blood pressure in these patients. One treatment is unilateral adrenal gland removal in patients who produce excess aldosterone because of benign adenomas in one adrenal gland, which accounts for “approximately 30%” of patients with PA. “Patients with suspected PA should have an opportunity to find out whether they have a unilateral variety and chance for surgical cure,” said Dr. Stowasser in an interview. “Patients with PA do far better in terms of blood pressure control, prevention of cardiovascular complications, and quality of life if they are treated specifically, either medically or particularly by surgery.”

The specific medical treatment he cited refers to one of the mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist (MRA) drugs, spironolactone and eplerenone (Inspra), because mineralocorticoid receptor blockade directly short-circuits the path by which aldosterone increases blood pressure. “We’re advocating earlier use of MRAs” for hypertensive patients identified with excess aldosterone production, said Dr. Carey. He noted that alternative, nonsteroidal MRAs, such as finerenone, have shown promise for efficacy levels similar to what spironolactone provides but without as many adverse effects because of greater receptor specificity. Finerenone and other nonsteroidal MRAs are all currently investigational. Spironolactone and eplerenone both cause hyperkalemia, although treatment with potassium binding agents can blunt the risk this poses. Spironolactone also causes bothersome adverse effects in men, including impotence and gynecomastia because of its action on androgen receptors, effects that diminished with eplerenone, but eplerenone is not as effective as spironolactone, Dr. Carey said.
 

Study details

The new study ran a post hoc analysis on data collected in five independent studies run at centers in four U.S. locations: Birmingham, Ala.; Boston; Charlottesville, Va.; and Salt Lake City. The studies included a total of 1,846 adults, mostly patients with hypertension of varying severity but also several hundred normotensive people. Data on 24-hour sodium excretion during an oral sodium suppression test were available for all participants, and the researchers excluded 831 people with an “inadequate” sodium balance of less than 190 mmol based on this metric, leaving a study population of 1,015. The researchers acknowledged the limitation that the study participants were not representative of the U.S. population.

The analysis included 289 normotensive people not on any blood pressure–lowering medications, and 239 fit the definition of having suppressed renin. The adjusted prevalence of aldosteronism at the level of at least 12 mcg excreted in a 24-hour urine specimen was 11% among all 289 normotensive subjects and 12% among the 239 with suppressed renin. When the definition of aldosteronism loosened to at least 10 mcg excreted during 24 hours the adjusted prevalence of excess aldosterone among normotensives increased to 19% among the entire group and 20% among those with suppressed renin. This finding may have identified a primordial phase of nascent hypertension that needs further study but may eventually provide a new scenario for intervention. “If a normotensive person has compliant arteries and healthy kidneys they can handle the excess salt and volume load of PA,” but when compensatory mechanisms start falling short through aging or other deteriorations, then blood pressure starts to rise, suggested Dr. Vaidya.
 

Whom to screen for aldosteronism and how

While several experts agreed these findings added to an existing and growing literature showing that PA is common and needs greater diagnostic attention, they differed on what this may mean for the specifics of screening and diagnosis, especially at the primary care level.

“Our results showed more explicitly that excess aldosterone exists on a broad severity spectrum and can’t be regarded as a categorical diagnosis that a patient either has or does not have. The hard part is figuring out where we should begin interventions,” said Dr. Vaidya.

In his editorial, Dr. Funder wrote that “much of the present guideline needs to be jettisoned, and radically reconstructed recommendations should be developed.”

One answer may be to apply a less stringent ARR threshold for further work-up. Dr. Stowasser’s program in Brisbane, as well as some other groups worldwide, use an ARR of at least 20 ng/dL as an indication of possible PA. “If you lower the cutoff to 20 [ng/dL], and ignore the plasma aldosterone level, then the ARR should pick up the great majority of patients with PA,” he said.

Another controversial aspect is whether aldosterone detection should be screened by 24-hour urine collection or by spot testing. In his editorial, Dr. Funder called spot testing “useless” and “misleading,” but Dr. Vaidya acknowledged that the 24-hour collection used in his current study is “not practical” for widespread use. Despite that, the Mayo Clinic in Rochester has focused on 24-hour urine collected “for more than 4 decades,” said Dr. Young, even though “a morning blood sample remains a simple screening test” that will catch “more than 95% of patients with PA” when combined with a plasma aldosterone threshold of 10 ng/dL. Dr. Stowasser noted that “patients don’t like” 24-hour collection, and not infrequently muck up collection” by forgetting to collect their entire 1-day output. Regardless of its shortcomings, 24-hour urine has the advantage of greater precision and accuracy than spot measurement, and using it on newly diagnosed hypertensive patients who also show renin suppression may be a viable approach, Dr. Carey suggested.

Regardless of exactly how guidelines for assessing aldosterone in hypertensive patients change, prospects seem ripe for some sort of revision and for greater participation and buy-in by primary care physicians than in the past. Dr. Carey, who also served as vice-chair of the American College of Cardiology and American Heart Association Task Force that wrote the most current U.S. guideline for managing hypertension, said it was too soon to revise that document, but the time had come to revise the Endocrine Society’s 2016 guideline for diagnosing and treating PA and to hash out the revision “in partnership” with one or more primary care societies. He also highlighted that publishing the current study in a high-profile primary care journal was an intentional effort to reach a large segment of the primary care community.

The new report “has the potential to change the current state of inertia” over wider PA diagnosis and targeted treatment “by being published in a widely read, major international journal,” commented Dr. Stowasser.

Dr. Vaidya has been a consultant to Catalys Pacific, Corcept Therapeutics, HRA Pharma, Orphagen, and Selenity Therapeutics. None of the other report coauthors had commercial disclosures, including Dr. Carey. Dr. Funder, Dr. Stowasser, and Dr. Young had no disclosures.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Brown JM et al. Ann Int Med. 2020 May 25. doi: 10.7326/M20-0065.
 

Roughly 16%-22% of patients with hypertension appeared to have primary aldosteronism as the likely major cause of their elevated blood pressure, in an analysis of about 1,000 Americans, which is a much higher prevalence than previously appreciated and a finding that could potentially reorient both screening for aldosteronism and management for this subset of patients.

“Our findings show a high prevalence of unrecognized yet biochemically overt primary aldosteronism [PA] using current confirmatory diagnostic thresholds. They highlight the inadequacy of the current diagnostic approach that heavily relies on the ARR [aldosterone renin ratio] and, most important, show the existence of a pathologic continuum of nonsuppressible renin-independent aldosterone production that parallels the severity of hypertension,” wrote Jennifer M. Brown, MD, and coinvestigators in a report published in Annals of Internal Medicine on May 25. “These findings support the need to redefine primary aldosteronism from a rare and categorical disease to, instead, a common syndrome that manifests across a broad severity spectrum and may be a primary contributor to hypertension pathogenesis,” they wrote in the report.

The results, showing an underappreciated prevalence of both overt and subtler forms of aldosteronism that link with hypertension, won praise from several experts for the potential of these findings to boost the profile of excess aldosterone as a common and treatable cause of high blood pressure, but opinions on the role for the ARR as a screen to identify affected patients were more mixed.

“ARR is still the best screening approach we have” for identifying people who likely have PA, especially when the ratio threshold for finding patients who need further investigation is reduced from the traditional level of 30 ng/dL to 20 ng/dL, commented Michael Stowasser, MBBS, professor of medicine at the University of Queensland in Brisbane, Australia, and director of the Endocrine Hypertension Research Centre at Greenslopes and Princess Alexandra Hospitals in Brisbane. “I strongly recommend ARR testing in all newly diagnosed hypertensives.”

The study results “showed that PA is much more common than previously perceived, and suggest that perhaps PA in milder forms than we typically recognize contributes more to ‘essential’ hypertension than we previously thought,” said Anand Vaidya, MD, senior author of the report and director of the Center for Adrenal Disorders at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston. The researchers found adjusted PA prevalence rates of 16% among 115 untreated patients with stage 1 hypertension (130-139/80-89 mm Hg), 22% among 203 patients with untreated stage 2 hypertension (at least 140/90 mm Hg), and 22% among 408 patients with treatment-resistant hypertension. All three prevalence rates were based on relatively conservative criteria that included all 726 patients with hypertension in the analysis (which also included 289 normotensive subjects) regardless of whether or not they also had low levels of serum renin. These PA prevalence rates were also based on a “conservative” definition of PA, a level of at least 12 mcg excreted in a 24-hour urine specimen.

When the researchers applied less stringent diagnostic criteria for PA or focused on the types of patients usually at highest risk for PA because of a suppressed renin level, the prevalence rates rose substantially and, in some subgroups, more than doubled. Of the 726 people with hypertension included in the analysis, 452 (62%) had suppressed renin (seated plasma renin activity < 1.0 mcg/L per hour or supine plasma renin activity < 0.6 mcg/L per hour). Within this subgroup of patients with suppressed renin, the adjusted prevalence of PA by the threshold of 24-hour urine aldosterone secretion of at least 12 mcg was 52% in those with treatment-resistant hypertension; among patients with stage 1 or 2 hypertension the adjusted prevalence rates were just slightly above the rates in the entire study group. But among patients with suppressed renin who were judged to have PA by a more liberal definition of at least 10 mcg in a 24-hour urine sample, the adjusted prevalence rates were 27% among untreated stage 1 hypertensives, 40% among untreated stage 2 patients, and 58% among treatment-resistant patients, the report showed.
 

A role for subtler forms of aldosteronism

Defining PA as at least 12 mcg secreted in a 24-hour urine collection “is relatively arbitrary, and our findings show that it bisects a continuous distribution. How we should redefine PA is also arbitrary, but step one is to recognize that many people have milder forms of PA” that could have an important effect on blood pressure, Dr. Vaidya said in an interview.

“This is the very first study to show that aldosterone may be contributing to the hypertensive process even though it is not severe enough to be diagnosed as PA according to current criteria,” said Robert M. Carey, MD, a cardiovascular endocrinologist and professor of medicine at the University of Virginia in Charlottesville and a coauthor on the new report. “More patients than we have ever known have an aldosterone component to their hypertension,” Dr. Carey said in an interview.

The new report on the prevalence of unrecognized PA in hypertensive patients “is a game changer,” wrote John W. Funder, MD, professor of medicine at Monash University in Clayton, Australia, in an editorial published along with the new report. In the editorial, he synthesized the new findings with results from prior reports to estimate that excess aldosteronism could play a clinically meaningful role in close to half of patients with hypertension, although Dr. Stowasser called this an “overestimate.” The new results also showed that “the single spot measurement of plasma aldosterone concentration, which clinicians have used for decades to screen for primary aldosteronism, is not merely useless but actually misleading. The authors cautioned readers about the uncertain representativeness of the study population to the U.S. population, but I believe that the findings are generalizable to the United States and elsewhere,” Dr. Funder wrote. “The central problem is that plasma aldosterone concentration is a very poor index of total daily aldosterone secretion. A single morning spot measurement of plasma aldosterone cannot take into account ultradian variation in aldosterone secretion.”
 

The importance of finding excess aldosterone

Identifying patients with hypertension and PA, as well as hypertensives with excess aldosterone production that may not meet the traditional definition of PA, is especially important because they are excellent candidates for two forms of targeted and very effective treatments that have a reliable and substantial impact on lowering blood pressure in these patients. One treatment is unilateral adrenal gland removal in patients who produce excess aldosterone because of benign adenomas in one adrenal gland, which accounts for “approximately 30%” of patients with PA. “Patients with suspected PA should have an opportunity to find out whether they have a unilateral variety and chance for surgical cure,” said Dr. Stowasser in an interview. “Patients with PA do far better in terms of blood pressure control, prevention of cardiovascular complications, and quality of life if they are treated specifically, either medically or particularly by surgery.”

The specific medical treatment he cited refers to one of the mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist (MRA) drugs, spironolactone and eplerenone (Inspra), because mineralocorticoid receptor blockade directly short-circuits the path by which aldosterone increases blood pressure. “We’re advocating earlier use of MRAs” for hypertensive patients identified with excess aldosterone production, said Dr. Carey. He noted that alternative, nonsteroidal MRAs, such as finerenone, have shown promise for efficacy levels similar to what spironolactone provides but without as many adverse effects because of greater receptor specificity. Finerenone and other nonsteroidal MRAs are all currently investigational. Spironolactone and eplerenone both cause hyperkalemia, although treatment with potassium binding agents can blunt the risk this poses. Spironolactone also causes bothersome adverse effects in men, including impotence and gynecomastia because of its action on androgen receptors, effects that diminished with eplerenone, but eplerenone is not as effective as spironolactone, Dr. Carey said.
 

Study details

The new study ran a post hoc analysis on data collected in five independent studies run at centers in four U.S. locations: Birmingham, Ala.; Boston; Charlottesville, Va.; and Salt Lake City. The studies included a total of 1,846 adults, mostly patients with hypertension of varying severity but also several hundred normotensive people. Data on 24-hour sodium excretion during an oral sodium suppression test were available for all participants, and the researchers excluded 831 people with an “inadequate” sodium balance of less than 190 mmol based on this metric, leaving a study population of 1,015. The researchers acknowledged the limitation that the study participants were not representative of the U.S. population.

The analysis included 289 normotensive people not on any blood pressure–lowering medications, and 239 fit the definition of having suppressed renin. The adjusted prevalence of aldosteronism at the level of at least 12 mcg excreted in a 24-hour urine specimen was 11% among all 289 normotensive subjects and 12% among the 239 with suppressed renin. When the definition of aldosteronism loosened to at least 10 mcg excreted during 24 hours the adjusted prevalence of excess aldosterone among normotensives increased to 19% among the entire group and 20% among those with suppressed renin. This finding may have identified a primordial phase of nascent hypertension that needs further study but may eventually provide a new scenario for intervention. “If a normotensive person has compliant arteries and healthy kidneys they can handle the excess salt and volume load of PA,” but when compensatory mechanisms start falling short through aging or other deteriorations, then blood pressure starts to rise, suggested Dr. Vaidya.
 

Whom to screen for aldosteronism and how

While several experts agreed these findings added to an existing and growing literature showing that PA is common and needs greater diagnostic attention, they differed on what this may mean for the specifics of screening and diagnosis, especially at the primary care level.

“Our results showed more explicitly that excess aldosterone exists on a broad severity spectrum and can’t be regarded as a categorical diagnosis that a patient either has or does not have. The hard part is figuring out where we should begin interventions,” said Dr. Vaidya.

In his editorial, Dr. Funder wrote that “much of the present guideline needs to be jettisoned, and radically reconstructed recommendations should be developed.”

One answer may be to apply a less stringent ARR threshold for further work-up. Dr. Stowasser’s program in Brisbane, as well as some other groups worldwide, use an ARR of at least 20 ng/dL as an indication of possible PA. “If you lower the cutoff to 20 [ng/dL], and ignore the plasma aldosterone level, then the ARR should pick up the great majority of patients with PA,” he said.

Another controversial aspect is whether aldosterone detection should be screened by 24-hour urine collection or by spot testing. In his editorial, Dr. Funder called spot testing “useless” and “misleading,” but Dr. Vaidya acknowledged that the 24-hour collection used in his current study is “not practical” for widespread use. Despite that, the Mayo Clinic in Rochester has focused on 24-hour urine collected “for more than 4 decades,” said Dr. Young, even though “a morning blood sample remains a simple screening test” that will catch “more than 95% of patients with PA” when combined with a plasma aldosterone threshold of 10 ng/dL. Dr. Stowasser noted that “patients don’t like” 24-hour collection, and not infrequently muck up collection” by forgetting to collect their entire 1-day output. Regardless of its shortcomings, 24-hour urine has the advantage of greater precision and accuracy than spot measurement, and using it on newly diagnosed hypertensive patients who also show renin suppression may be a viable approach, Dr. Carey suggested.

Regardless of exactly how guidelines for assessing aldosterone in hypertensive patients change, prospects seem ripe for some sort of revision and for greater participation and buy-in by primary care physicians than in the past. Dr. Carey, who also served as vice-chair of the American College of Cardiology and American Heart Association Task Force that wrote the most current U.S. guideline for managing hypertension, said it was too soon to revise that document, but the time had come to revise the Endocrine Society’s 2016 guideline for diagnosing and treating PA and to hash out the revision “in partnership” with one or more primary care societies. He also highlighted that publishing the current study in a high-profile primary care journal was an intentional effort to reach a large segment of the primary care community.

The new report “has the potential to change the current state of inertia” over wider PA diagnosis and targeted treatment “by being published in a widely read, major international journal,” commented Dr. Stowasser.

Dr. Vaidya has been a consultant to Catalys Pacific, Corcept Therapeutics, HRA Pharma, Orphagen, and Selenity Therapeutics. None of the other report coauthors had commercial disclosures, including Dr. Carey. Dr. Funder, Dr. Stowasser, and Dr. Young had no disclosures.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Brown JM et al. Ann Int Med. 2020 May 25. doi: 10.7326/M20-0065.
 

Roughly 16%-22% of patients with hypertension appeared to have primary aldosteronism as the likely major cause of their elevated blood pressure, in an analysis of about 1,000 Americans, which is a much higher prevalence than previously appreciated and a finding that could potentially reorient both screening for aldosteronism and management for this subset of patients.

“Our findings show a high prevalence of unrecognized yet biochemically overt primary aldosteronism [PA] using current confirmatory diagnostic thresholds. They highlight the inadequacy of the current diagnostic approach that heavily relies on the ARR [aldosterone renin ratio] and, most important, show the existence of a pathologic continuum of nonsuppressible renin-independent aldosterone production that parallels the severity of hypertension,” wrote Jennifer M. Brown, MD, and coinvestigators in a report published in Annals of Internal Medicine on May 25. “These findings support the need to redefine primary aldosteronism from a rare and categorical disease to, instead, a common syndrome that manifests across a broad severity spectrum and may be a primary contributor to hypertension pathogenesis,” they wrote in the report.

The results, showing an underappreciated prevalence of both overt and subtler forms of aldosteronism that link with hypertension, won praise from several experts for the potential of these findings to boost the profile of excess aldosterone as a common and treatable cause of high blood pressure, but opinions on the role for the ARR as a screen to identify affected patients were more mixed.

“ARR is still the best screening approach we have” for identifying people who likely have PA, especially when the ratio threshold for finding patients who need further investigation is reduced from the traditional level of 30 ng/dL to 20 ng/dL, commented Michael Stowasser, MBBS, professor of medicine at the University of Queensland in Brisbane, Australia, and director of the Endocrine Hypertension Research Centre at Greenslopes and Princess Alexandra Hospitals in Brisbane. “I strongly recommend ARR testing in all newly diagnosed hypertensives.”

The study results “showed that PA is much more common than previously perceived, and suggest that perhaps PA in milder forms than we typically recognize contributes more to ‘essential’ hypertension than we previously thought,” said Anand Vaidya, MD, senior author of the report and director of the Center for Adrenal Disorders at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston. The researchers found adjusted PA prevalence rates of 16% among 115 untreated patients with stage 1 hypertension (130-139/80-89 mm Hg), 22% among 203 patients with untreated stage 2 hypertension (at least 140/90 mm Hg), and 22% among 408 patients with treatment-resistant hypertension. All three prevalence rates were based on relatively conservative criteria that included all 726 patients with hypertension in the analysis (which also included 289 normotensive subjects) regardless of whether or not they also had low levels of serum renin. These PA prevalence rates were also based on a “conservative” definition of PA, a level of at least 12 mcg excreted in a 24-hour urine specimen.

When the researchers applied less stringent diagnostic criteria for PA or focused on the types of patients usually at highest risk for PA because of a suppressed renin level, the prevalence rates rose substantially and, in some subgroups, more than doubled. Of the 726 people with hypertension included in the analysis, 452 (62%) had suppressed renin (seated plasma renin activity < 1.0 mcg/L per hour or supine plasma renin activity < 0.6 mcg/L per hour). Within this subgroup of patients with suppressed renin, the adjusted prevalence of PA by the threshold of 24-hour urine aldosterone secretion of at least 12 mcg was 52% in those with treatment-resistant hypertension; among patients with stage 1 or 2 hypertension the adjusted prevalence rates were just slightly above the rates in the entire study group. But among patients with suppressed renin who were judged to have PA by a more liberal definition of at least 10 mcg in a 24-hour urine sample, the adjusted prevalence rates were 27% among untreated stage 1 hypertensives, 40% among untreated stage 2 patients, and 58% among treatment-resistant patients, the report showed.
 

A role for subtler forms of aldosteronism

Defining PA as at least 12 mcg secreted in a 24-hour urine collection “is relatively arbitrary, and our findings show that it bisects a continuous distribution. How we should redefine PA is also arbitrary, but step one is to recognize that many people have milder forms of PA” that could have an important effect on blood pressure, Dr. Vaidya said in an interview.

“This is the very first study to show that aldosterone may be contributing to the hypertensive process even though it is not severe enough to be diagnosed as PA according to current criteria,” said Robert M. Carey, MD, a cardiovascular endocrinologist and professor of medicine at the University of Virginia in Charlottesville and a coauthor on the new report. “More patients than we have ever known have an aldosterone component to their hypertension,” Dr. Carey said in an interview.

The new report on the prevalence of unrecognized PA in hypertensive patients “is a game changer,” wrote John W. Funder, MD, professor of medicine at Monash University in Clayton, Australia, in an editorial published along with the new report. In the editorial, he synthesized the new findings with results from prior reports to estimate that excess aldosteronism could play a clinically meaningful role in close to half of patients with hypertension, although Dr. Stowasser called this an “overestimate.” The new results also showed that “the single spot measurement of plasma aldosterone concentration, which clinicians have used for decades to screen for primary aldosteronism, is not merely useless but actually misleading. The authors cautioned readers about the uncertain representativeness of the study population to the U.S. population, but I believe that the findings are generalizable to the United States and elsewhere,” Dr. Funder wrote. “The central problem is that plasma aldosterone concentration is a very poor index of total daily aldosterone secretion. A single morning spot measurement of plasma aldosterone cannot take into account ultradian variation in aldosterone secretion.”
 

The importance of finding excess aldosterone

Identifying patients with hypertension and PA, as well as hypertensives with excess aldosterone production that may not meet the traditional definition of PA, is especially important because they are excellent candidates for two forms of targeted and very effective treatments that have a reliable and substantial impact on lowering blood pressure in these patients. One treatment is unilateral adrenal gland removal in patients who produce excess aldosterone because of benign adenomas in one adrenal gland, which accounts for “approximately 30%” of patients with PA. “Patients with suspected PA should have an opportunity to find out whether they have a unilateral variety and chance for surgical cure,” said Dr. Stowasser in an interview. “Patients with PA do far better in terms of blood pressure control, prevention of cardiovascular complications, and quality of life if they are treated specifically, either medically or particularly by surgery.”

The specific medical treatment he cited refers to one of the mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist (MRA) drugs, spironolactone and eplerenone (Inspra), because mineralocorticoid receptor blockade directly short-circuits the path by which aldosterone increases blood pressure. “We’re advocating earlier use of MRAs” for hypertensive patients identified with excess aldosterone production, said Dr. Carey. He noted that alternative, nonsteroidal MRAs, such as finerenone, have shown promise for efficacy levels similar to what spironolactone provides but without as many adverse effects because of greater receptor specificity. Finerenone and other nonsteroidal MRAs are all currently investigational. Spironolactone and eplerenone both cause hyperkalemia, although treatment with potassium binding agents can blunt the risk this poses. Spironolactone also causes bothersome adverse effects in men, including impotence and gynecomastia because of its action on androgen receptors, effects that diminished with eplerenone, but eplerenone is not as effective as spironolactone, Dr. Carey said.
 

Study details

The new study ran a post hoc analysis on data collected in five independent studies run at centers in four U.S. locations: Birmingham, Ala.; Boston; Charlottesville, Va.; and Salt Lake City. The studies included a total of 1,846 adults, mostly patients with hypertension of varying severity but also several hundred normotensive people. Data on 24-hour sodium excretion during an oral sodium suppression test were available for all participants, and the researchers excluded 831 people with an “inadequate” sodium balance of less than 190 mmol based on this metric, leaving a study population of 1,015. The researchers acknowledged the limitation that the study participants were not representative of the U.S. population.

The analysis included 289 normotensive people not on any blood pressure–lowering medications, and 239 fit the definition of having suppressed renin. The adjusted prevalence of aldosteronism at the level of at least 12 mcg excreted in a 24-hour urine specimen was 11% among all 289 normotensive subjects and 12% among the 239 with suppressed renin. When the definition of aldosteronism loosened to at least 10 mcg excreted during 24 hours the adjusted prevalence of excess aldosterone among normotensives increased to 19% among the entire group and 20% among those with suppressed renin. This finding may have identified a primordial phase of nascent hypertension that needs further study but may eventually provide a new scenario for intervention. “If a normotensive person has compliant arteries and healthy kidneys they can handle the excess salt and volume load of PA,” but when compensatory mechanisms start falling short through aging or other deteriorations, then blood pressure starts to rise, suggested Dr. Vaidya.
 

Whom to screen for aldosteronism and how

While several experts agreed these findings added to an existing and growing literature showing that PA is common and needs greater diagnostic attention, they differed on what this may mean for the specifics of screening and diagnosis, especially at the primary care level.

“Our results showed more explicitly that excess aldosterone exists on a broad severity spectrum and can’t be regarded as a categorical diagnosis that a patient either has or does not have. The hard part is figuring out where we should begin interventions,” said Dr. Vaidya.

In his editorial, Dr. Funder wrote that “much of the present guideline needs to be jettisoned, and radically reconstructed recommendations should be developed.”

One answer may be to apply a less stringent ARR threshold for further work-up. Dr. Stowasser’s program in Brisbane, as well as some other groups worldwide, use an ARR of at least 20 ng/dL as an indication of possible PA. “If you lower the cutoff to 20 [ng/dL], and ignore the plasma aldosterone level, then the ARR should pick up the great majority of patients with PA,” he said.

Another controversial aspect is whether aldosterone detection should be screened by 24-hour urine collection or by spot testing. In his editorial, Dr. Funder called spot testing “useless” and “misleading,” but Dr. Vaidya acknowledged that the 24-hour collection used in his current study is “not practical” for widespread use. Despite that, the Mayo Clinic in Rochester has focused on 24-hour urine collected “for more than 4 decades,” said Dr. Young, even though “a morning blood sample remains a simple screening test” that will catch “more than 95% of patients with PA” when combined with a plasma aldosterone threshold of 10 ng/dL. Dr. Stowasser noted that “patients don’t like” 24-hour collection, and not infrequently muck up collection” by forgetting to collect their entire 1-day output. Regardless of its shortcomings, 24-hour urine has the advantage of greater precision and accuracy than spot measurement, and using it on newly diagnosed hypertensive patients who also show renin suppression may be a viable approach, Dr. Carey suggested.

Regardless of exactly how guidelines for assessing aldosterone in hypertensive patients change, prospects seem ripe for some sort of revision and for greater participation and buy-in by primary care physicians than in the past. Dr. Carey, who also served as vice-chair of the American College of Cardiology and American Heart Association Task Force that wrote the most current U.S. guideline for managing hypertension, said it was too soon to revise that document, but the time had come to revise the Endocrine Society’s 2016 guideline for diagnosing and treating PA and to hash out the revision “in partnership” with one or more primary care societies. He also highlighted that publishing the current study in a high-profile primary care journal was an intentional effort to reach a large segment of the primary care community.

The new report “has the potential to change the current state of inertia” over wider PA diagnosis and targeted treatment “by being published in a widely read, major international journal,” commented Dr. Stowasser.

Dr. Vaidya has been a consultant to Catalys Pacific, Corcept Therapeutics, HRA Pharma, Orphagen, and Selenity Therapeutics. None of the other report coauthors had commercial disclosures, including Dr. Carey. Dr. Funder, Dr. Stowasser, and Dr. Young had no disclosures.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Brown JM et al. Ann Int Med. 2020 May 25. doi: 10.7326/M20-0065.
 

U.S. Medicare beneficiaries with diabetes will be able to cap their out-of-pocket cost for insulin at no more than $35/month starting in January 2021 under a new coverage option in the Senior Savings Model, according to program details released by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services on May 26.

Getty

This facet of the Senior Savings Model for Medicare drug benefits depends on voluntary participation by insurers offering Part D (drug) coverage to Medicare beneficiaries. As of May 26, 2020, 88 insurers had agreed to participate with a total of roughly 1,750 different drug-coverage plan options with this benefit starting next year, either as part of standalone Part D policies or as part of Medicare Advantage, or “enhanced” plans with drug coverage, said Seema Verma, administrator of the CMS, during a press conference.

Beneficiaries who opt for Part D coverage with this benefit will see a cap at $35 a month for their out-of-pocket insulin costs regardless of what phase of drug coverage they are in during the course of a benefit year: the 100% responsibility phase until their annual plan deductible is met, their initial coverage phase, their coverage gap phase (which kicks in after a total of $4,020 is spent on all prescription drugs), and the catastrophic coverage phase.

A recently published analysis of average, annual, out-of-pocket insulin costs for U.S. Medicare beneficiaries with “typical” Part D plans during 2019 found that, under this four-phase pricing scheme, the 1-year total cost to patients for their insulin came to just over $1,140 (N Engl J Med. 2020 May 14;382[20]:1878-80). For 2021 participants in the new model, annual out-of-pocket cost should be no greater than $420, and could possibly be less as the $35/month rate is not set but a cost ceiling.

A written statement from CMS about the new program predicted an average, estimated out-of-pocket cost savings of $446 per beneficiary. In addition to reducing overall out-of-pocket costs, another goal of the program is to give beneficiaries month-to-month consistency in their insulin costs. Under current coverage rules, costs fluctuate from month to month depending on the phase of coverage a beneficiary qualifies for at a given time.

The change to insulin copays in 2021 for beneficiaries in participating plans will cover “all common forms of insulin,” said Ms. Verma during the press conference. “If it goes well, we’ll extend that to other drugs,” she added. “We’re starting with insulin, but depending on the progress of this, we will consider offering this flexibility to manufacturers and plans with other drugs, depending on the results. We think that this creates a foundation and a platform to fix things, some of the problems that we have in the Part D plans. It’s time for that program to be updated. A lot of the provisions just don’t work anymore, and it’s standing in the way of free-market completion and negotiation that can lower prices for seniors.”

But “only 54% of all Medicare beneficiaries are enrolled in enhanced plans that are eligible to participate in the model, and only 44% of those plans have agreed to participate,” according to a statement from Public Citizen, a consumer-rights group based in Washington. Furthermore, the statement’s author, Peter Maybarduk, director of the organizations Access to Medicines Program, cited an analysis by Public Citizen that found that the program did nothing prevent pharmaceutical corporations from setting exorbitant prices for insulin. He added that the plan leaves out younger patients with diabetes, many of whom have been forced to ration their insulin because of the “outrageous insulin price gouging.”

CMS also recently announced on May 22 that it had finalized a rule that allows for expanded use of telehealth consultations for beneficiaries in Advantage programs. The agency said that telehealth consults had become possible for a variety of medical subspecialties, including endocrinology, dermatology, cardiology, gynecology, psychiatry, and primary care. In March, CMS announced a waiver to its prior rules on use of telehealth consults effective March 6, 2020. Kellyanne Conway, a senior counselor to President Donald Trump, said during the May 26 press conference that Medicare-covered telehealth visits rose from about 12,000 per week prior to issuance of the waiver to “well into the six figures,” in recent weeks.

[email protected]

U.S. Medicare beneficiaries with diabetes will be able to cap their out-of-pocket cost for insulin at no more than $35/month starting in January 2021 under a new coverage option in the Senior Savings Model, according to program details released by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services on May 26.

Getty

This facet of the Senior Savings Model for Medicare drug benefits depends on voluntary participation by insurers offering Part D (drug) coverage to Medicare beneficiaries. As of May 26, 2020, 88 insurers had agreed to participate with a total of roughly 1,750 different drug-coverage plan options with this benefit starting next year, either as part of standalone Part D policies or as part of Medicare Advantage, or “enhanced” plans with drug coverage, said Seema Verma, administrator of the CMS, during a press conference.

Beneficiaries who opt for Part D coverage with this benefit will see a cap at $35 a month for their out-of-pocket insulin costs regardless of what phase of drug coverage they are in during the course of a benefit year: the 100% responsibility phase until their annual plan deductible is met, their initial coverage phase, their coverage gap phase (which kicks in after a total of $4,020 is spent on all prescription drugs), and the catastrophic coverage phase.

A recently published analysis of average, annual, out-of-pocket insulin costs for U.S. Medicare beneficiaries with “typical” Part D plans during 2019 found that, under this four-phase pricing scheme, the 1-year total cost to patients for their insulin came to just over $1,140 (N Engl J Med. 2020 May 14;382[20]:1878-80). For 2021 participants in the new model, annual out-of-pocket cost should be no greater than $420, and could possibly be less as the $35/month rate is not set but a cost ceiling.

A written statement from CMS about the new program predicted an average, estimated out-of-pocket cost savings of $446 per beneficiary. In addition to reducing overall out-of-pocket costs, another goal of the program is to give beneficiaries month-to-month consistency in their insulin costs. Under current coverage rules, costs fluctuate from month to month depending on the phase of coverage a beneficiary qualifies for at a given time.

The change to insulin copays in 2021 for beneficiaries in participating plans will cover “all common forms of insulin,” said Ms. Verma during the press conference. “If it goes well, we’ll extend that to other drugs,” she added. “We’re starting with insulin, but depending on the progress of this, we will consider offering this flexibility to manufacturers and plans with other drugs, depending on the results. We think that this creates a foundation and a platform to fix things, some of the problems that we have in the Part D plans. It’s time for that program to be updated. A lot of the provisions just don’t work anymore, and it’s standing in the way of free-market completion and negotiation that can lower prices for seniors.”

But “only 54% of all Medicare beneficiaries are enrolled in enhanced plans that are eligible to participate in the model, and only 44% of those plans have agreed to participate,” according to a statement from Public Citizen, a consumer-rights group based in Washington. Furthermore, the statement’s author, Peter Maybarduk, director of the organizations Access to Medicines Program, cited an analysis by Public Citizen that found that the program did nothing prevent pharmaceutical corporations from setting exorbitant prices for insulin. He added that the plan leaves out younger patients with diabetes, many of whom have been forced to ration their insulin because of the “outrageous insulin price gouging.”

CMS also recently announced on May 22 that it had finalized a rule that allows for expanded use of telehealth consultations for beneficiaries in Advantage programs. The agency said that telehealth consults had become possible for a variety of medical subspecialties, including endocrinology, dermatology, cardiology, gynecology, psychiatry, and primary care. In March, CMS announced a waiver to its prior rules on use of telehealth consults effective March 6, 2020. Kellyanne Conway, a senior counselor to President Donald Trump, said during the May 26 press conference that Medicare-covered telehealth visits rose from about 12,000 per week prior to issuance of the waiver to “well into the six figures,” in recent weeks.

[email protected]

U.S. Medicare beneficiaries with diabetes will be able to cap their out-of-pocket cost for insulin at no more than $35/month starting in January 2021 under a new coverage option in the Senior Savings Model, according to program details released by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services on May 26.

Getty

This facet of the Senior Savings Model for Medicare drug benefits depends on voluntary participation by insurers offering Part D (drug) coverage to Medicare beneficiaries. As of May 26, 2020, 88 insurers had agreed to participate with a total of roughly 1,750 different drug-coverage plan options with this benefit starting next year, either as part of standalone Part D policies or as part of Medicare Advantage, or “enhanced” plans with drug coverage, said Seema Verma, administrator of the CMS, during a press conference.

Beneficiaries who opt for Part D coverage with this benefit will see a cap at $35 a month for their out-of-pocket insulin costs regardless of what phase of drug coverage they are in during the course of a benefit year: the 100% responsibility phase until their annual plan deductible is met, their initial coverage phase, their coverage gap phase (which kicks in after a total of $4,020 is spent on all prescription drugs), and the catastrophic coverage phase.

A recently published analysis of average, annual, out-of-pocket insulin costs for U.S. Medicare beneficiaries with “typical” Part D plans during 2019 found that, under this four-phase pricing scheme, the 1-year total cost to patients for their insulin came to just over $1,140 (N Engl J Med. 2020 May 14;382[20]:1878-80). For 2021 participants in the new model, annual out-of-pocket cost should be no greater than $420, and could possibly be less as the $35/month rate is not set but a cost ceiling.

A written statement from CMS about the new program predicted an average, estimated out-of-pocket cost savings of $446 per beneficiary. In addition to reducing overall out-of-pocket costs, another goal of the program is to give beneficiaries month-to-month consistency in their insulin costs. Under current coverage rules, costs fluctuate from month to month depending on the phase of coverage a beneficiary qualifies for at a given time.

The change to insulin copays in 2021 for beneficiaries in participating plans will cover “all common forms of insulin,” said Ms. Verma during the press conference. “If it goes well, we’ll extend that to other drugs,” she added. “We’re starting with insulin, but depending on the progress of this, we will consider offering this flexibility to manufacturers and plans with other drugs, depending on the results. We think that this creates a foundation and a platform to fix things, some of the problems that we have in the Part D plans. It’s time for that program to be updated. A lot of the provisions just don’t work anymore, and it’s standing in the way of free-market completion and negotiation that can lower prices for seniors.”

But “only 54% of all Medicare beneficiaries are enrolled in enhanced plans that are eligible to participate in the model, and only 44% of those plans have agreed to participate,” according to a statement from Public Citizen, a consumer-rights group based in Washington. Furthermore, the statement’s author, Peter Maybarduk, director of the organizations Access to Medicines Program, cited an analysis by Public Citizen that found that the program did nothing prevent pharmaceutical corporations from setting exorbitant prices for insulin. He added that the plan leaves out younger patients with diabetes, many of whom have been forced to ration their insulin because of the “outrageous insulin price gouging.”

CMS also recently announced on May 22 that it had finalized a rule that allows for expanded use of telehealth consultations for beneficiaries in Advantage programs. The agency said that telehealth consults had become possible for a variety of medical subspecialties, including endocrinology, dermatology, cardiology, gynecology, psychiatry, and primary care. In March, CMS announced a waiver to its prior rules on use of telehealth consults effective March 6, 2020. Kellyanne Conway, a senior counselor to President Donald Trump, said during the May 26 press conference that Medicare-covered telehealth visits rose from about 12,000 per week prior to issuance of the waiver to “well into the six figures,” in recent weeks.

[email protected]

Keeping hematologic oncology patients on their treatment regimens and caring for inpatients with hematologic malignancies remained “manageable” during the first 2 months of the COVID-19 pandemic at Levine Cancer Institute in Charlotte, N.C.

That level of manageability has partly been because a surge in cases so far hasn’t arrived at Levine or in most of the surrounding North Carolina and South Carolina communities it serves. As of May 15, 2020, the total number of confirmed and reported COVID-19 cases had reached about 19,000 in North Carolina, and just under 9,000 in South Carolina, out of a total population in the two states of close to 16 million. What’s happened instead at Levine Cancer Institute (LCI) has been a steady but low drumbeat of cases that, by mid-May 2020, totaled fewer than 10 patients with hematologic malignancies diagnosed with COVID-19.

“For a large system with multiple sites throughout North and South Carolina that saw 17,200 new patients in 2019 – including solid tumor, benign hematology, and malignant hematology patients – with 198,000 total patient visits, it is safe to say that we are off to a good start. However, we remain in the early throes of the pandemic and we will need to remain vigilant going forward,” said Peter Voorhees, MD, professor of medicine and director of Medical Operations and Outreach Services in LCI’s Department of Hematologic Oncology and Blood Disorders.

The limited effects to date of COVID-19 at LCI has been thanks to a regimen of great caution for preventing infections that’s been consistently conveyed to LCI patients from before the pandemic’s onset, liberal testing that started early, a proactive plan to defer and temporarily replace infusion care when medically appropriate, a novel staffing approach designed to minimize and contain potential staff outbreaks, and an early pivot to virtual patient contact when feasible.

COVID-19 has had limited penetration into the LCI case load because patients have, in general, “been very careful,” said Dr. Voorhees.

“My impression is that the incidence has been low partly because our patients, especially those with hematologic malignancies including those on active chemotherapy, were already getting warned to be cautious even before the coronavirus using distancing, masking, and meticulous hand hygiene,” he said in an interview that reviewed the steps LCI took starting in March to confront and manage the effects of the then-nascent pandemic. “Since we started screening asymptomatic patients in the inpatient and outpatient settings we have identified only one patient with COVID-19 infection, which supports the low rate of infection in our patient population thus far.”

Another key step was the launch of “robust” testing for the COVID-19 virus starting on March 9, using an in-house assay from LCI’s parent health system, Atrium Health, that delivered results within 24 hours. Testing became available at LCI “earlier than at many other health systems.” At first, testing was limited to patients or staff presenting with symptoms, but in the following weeks, it expanded to more patients, including those without symptoms who were scheduled for treatment at the apheresis center, cell donors and cell recipients, patients arriving for inpatient chemotherapy or cellular therapy, patients arriving from a skilled nursing facility or similar environments, and more recently, outpatient chemotherapy patients. “We’re now doing a lot of screening,” Dr. Voorhees said. “In general, screening has been well received because patients recognize that it’s for their own safety.”

Another piece of COVID-19 preparedness was a move toward technology as an alternative to face-to-face encounters between patients and staff. “We adopted virtual technology early.” When medically appropriate, they provided either video consultations with more tech-savvy patients or telephone-based virtual visits for patients who preferred a more familiar interface. As LCI starts the process of reentry for patients whose face-to-face encounters were deferred, virtual visits will remain an important facet of maintaining care while limiting exposure for appropriate patients and facilitating adequate space for social distancing in the clinics and infusion centers.

Atrium Health also launched a “virtual hospital” geared to intensified remote management of COVID-19 patients who aren’t sick enough for hospitalization. “People who test positive automatically enter the virtual hospital and have regular interactions with their team of providers,” with LCI providing additional support for their patients who get infected. Patients receive an equipment kit that lets them monitor and transmit their vital signs. The virtual hospital program also helps expedite personal needs like delivery of prescriptions and food. “It helps patients manage at home, and has been incredibly useful,” said Dr. Voorhees.

Perhaps the most challenging step LCI clinicians took to preclude a potential COVID-19 case surge was to review all patients receiving infusional therapy or planned cellular therapy and triage those who could potentially tolerate a temporary change to either an oral, at-home regimen or to a brief hold on their treatment. Some patients on maintenance, outpatient infusion-therapy regimens “expressed concern about coming to the clinic. We looked at the patients scheduled to come for infusions and decided which visits were essential and which were deferrable without disrupting care by briefly using a noninfusional approach,” said Dr. Voorhees. The number of patients who had their regimens modified or held was “relatively small,” and with the recent recognition that a surge of infections has not occurred, “we’re now rolling out cautious reentry of those patients back to their originally prescribed chemotherapy.”

In addition to concerns of exposure at infusion clinics, there are concerns about the heightened susceptibility of immunosuppressed hematologic oncology patients to COVID-19 and their risk for more severe infection. “Our view is that, if patients tested positive, continuing immunosuppressive treatment would likely be detrimental,” so when possible treatment is temporarily suspended and then resumed when the infection has cleared. “When patients test positive for a prolonged period, a decision to resume treatment must be in the best interests of the patient and weigh the benefits of resuming therapy against the risks of incurring a more severe infection by restarting potentially immunosuppressive therapy,” Dr. Voorhees said.

The enhanced risk that cancer patients face if they develop COVID-19 was documented in a recent review of 218 cancer patients hospitalized for COVID-19 during parts of March and April in a large New York health system. The results showed an overall mortality rate of 28%, including a 37% rate among 54 patients with hematologic malignancies and a 25% rate among 164 patients with solid tumors. The mortality rate “may not be quite as high as they reported because that depends on how many patients you test, but there is no question that patients with more comorbidities are at higher risk. Patients with active cancer on chemotherapy are a particularly vulnerable population, and many have expressed concerns about their vulnerability,” he observed.

For the few LCI patients who developed COVID-19 infection, the medical staff has had several therapeutic options they could match to each patient’s needs, with help from the Atrium Health infectious disease team. LCI and Atrium Health are participating in several COVID-19 clinical treatment trials, including an investigational convalescent plasma protocol spearheaded by the Mayo Clinic. They have also opened a randomized, phase 2 trial evaluating the safety and efficacy of selinexor (Xpovio), an oral drug that’s Food and Drug Administration approved for patients with multiple myeloma, for treatment of moderate or severe COVID-19 infection. Additional studies evaluating blockade of granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor, as well as inhaled antiviral therapy, have recently launched, and several additional studies are poised to open in the coming weeks.

The LCI and Atrium Health team also has a supply of the antiviral agent remdesivir as part of the FDA’s expanded access protocol and emergency use authorization. They also have a supply of and experience administering the interleukin-6 receptor inhibitor tocilizumab (Actemra), which showed some suggestion of efficacy in limited experience treating patients with severe or critical COVID-19 infections (Proc Natl Acad Sci. 2020 Apr 29; doi: 10.1073/pnas.2005615117). Clinicians at LCI have not used the investigational and unproven agents hydroxychloroquine, chloroquine, and azithromycin to either prevent or treat COVID-19.

LCI also instituted measures to try to minimize the risk that staff members could become infected and transmit the virus while asymptomatic. Following conversations held early on with COVID-19–experienced health authorities in China and Italy, the patient-facing LCI staff split into two teams starting on March 23 that alternated responsibility for direct patient interactions every 2 weeks. When one of these teams was off from direct patient contact they continued to care for patients remotely through virtual technologies. The concept was that, if a staffer became infected while remaining asymptomatic during their contact with patients, their status would either become diagnosable or resolve during their 2 weeks away from seeing any patients. Perhaps in part because of this approach infections among staff members “have not been a big issue. We’ve had an incredibly low infection rate among the LCI staff,” Dr. Voorhees noted.

By mid-May, with the imminent threat of a sudden CODIV-19 surge moderated, heme-onc operations at LCI began to cautiously revert to more normal operations. “We’re continuing patient screening for signs and symptoms of COVID-19 infection, testing for asymptomatic infections, and requiring masking and social distancing in the clinics and hospitals, but we’re starting to slowly restore the number of patients at our clinics [virtual and face to face[ and infusion centers,” and the staff’s division into two teams ended. “The idea was to get past a surge and make sure our system was not overwhelmed. We anticipated a local surge in late April, but then it kept getting pushed back. Current projections are for the infection rate among LCI patients to remain low provided that community spread remains stable or, ideally, decreases.” The LCI infectious disease staff is closely monitoring infection rates for early recognition of an outbreak, with plans to follow any new cases with contact tracing. So far, the COVID-19 pandemic at LCI “has been very manageable,” Dr. Voorhees concluded.

“We’re now better positioned to deal with a case surge if it were to happen. We could resume the two-team approach, hospital-wide plans are now in place for a future surge, and we are now up and running with robust testing and inpatient and outpatient virtual technology. The first time, we were all learning on the fly.”

The LCI biostatistics team has been prospectively collecting the Institutes’s COVID-19 patient data, with plans to report their findings.

Dr. Voorhees has had financial relationships with Bristol-Myers Squibb/Celgene, Janssen, Novartis, and Oncopeptides, none of which are relevant to this article.

[email protected]

Keeping hematologic oncology patients on their treatment regimens and caring for inpatients with hematologic malignancies remained “manageable” during the first 2 months of the COVID-19 pandemic at Levine Cancer Institute in Charlotte, N.C.

That level of manageability has partly been because a surge in cases so far hasn’t arrived at Levine or in most of the surrounding North Carolina and South Carolina communities it serves. As of May 15, 2020, the total number of confirmed and reported COVID-19 cases had reached about 19,000 in North Carolina, and just under 9,000 in South Carolina, out of a total population in the two states of close to 16 million. What’s happened instead at Levine Cancer Institute (LCI) has been a steady but low drumbeat of cases that, by mid-May 2020, totaled fewer than 10 patients with hematologic malignancies diagnosed with COVID-19.

“For a large system with multiple sites throughout North and South Carolina that saw 17,200 new patients in 2019 – including solid tumor, benign hematology, and malignant hematology patients – with 198,000 total patient visits, it is safe to say that we are off to a good start. However, we remain in the early throes of the pandemic and we will need to remain vigilant going forward,” said Peter Voorhees, MD, professor of medicine and director of Medical Operations and Outreach Services in LCI’s Department of Hematologic Oncology and Blood Disorders.

The limited effects to date of COVID-19 at LCI has been thanks to a regimen of great caution for preventing infections that’s been consistently conveyed to LCI patients from before the pandemic’s onset, liberal testing that started early, a proactive plan to defer and temporarily replace infusion care when medically appropriate, a novel staffing approach designed to minimize and contain potential staff outbreaks, and an early pivot to virtual patient contact when feasible.

COVID-19 has had limited penetration into the LCI case load because patients have, in general, “been very careful,” said Dr. Voorhees.

“My impression is that the incidence has been low partly because our patients, especially those with hematologic malignancies including those on active chemotherapy, were already getting warned to be cautious even before the coronavirus using distancing, masking, and meticulous hand hygiene,” he said in an interview that reviewed the steps LCI took starting in March to confront and manage the effects of the then-nascent pandemic. “Since we started screening asymptomatic patients in the inpatient and outpatient settings we have identified only one patient with COVID-19 infection, which supports the low rate of infection in our patient population thus far.”

Another key step was the launch of “robust” testing for the COVID-19 virus starting on March 9, using an in-house assay from LCI’s parent health system, Atrium Health, that delivered results within 24 hours. Testing became available at LCI “earlier than at many other health systems.” At first, testing was limited to patients or staff presenting with symptoms, but in the following weeks, it expanded to more patients, including those without symptoms who were scheduled for treatment at the apheresis center, cell donors and cell recipients, patients arriving for inpatient chemotherapy or cellular therapy, patients arriving from a skilled nursing facility or similar environments, and more recently, outpatient chemotherapy patients. “We’re now doing a lot of screening,” Dr. Voorhees said. “In general, screening has been well received because patients recognize that it’s for their own safety.”

Another piece of COVID-19 preparedness was a move toward technology as an alternative to face-to-face encounters between patients and staff. “We adopted virtual technology early.” When medically appropriate, they provided either video consultations with more tech-savvy patients or telephone-based virtual visits for patients who preferred a more familiar interface. As LCI starts the process of reentry for patients whose face-to-face encounters were deferred, virtual visits will remain an important facet of maintaining care while limiting exposure for appropriate patients and facilitating adequate space for social distancing in the clinics and infusion centers.

Atrium Health also launched a “virtual hospital” geared to intensified remote management of COVID-19 patients who aren’t sick enough for hospitalization. “People who test positive automatically enter the virtual hospital and have regular interactions with their team of providers,” with LCI providing additional support for their patients who get infected. Patients receive an equipment kit that lets them monitor and transmit their vital signs. The virtual hospital program also helps expedite personal needs like delivery of prescriptions and food. “It helps patients manage at home, and has been incredibly useful,” said Dr. Voorhees.

Perhaps the most challenging step LCI clinicians took to preclude a potential COVID-19 case surge was to review all patients receiving infusional therapy or planned cellular therapy and triage those who could potentially tolerate a temporary change to either an oral, at-home regimen or to a brief hold on their treatment. Some patients on maintenance, outpatient infusion-therapy regimens “expressed concern about coming to the clinic. We looked at the patients scheduled to come for infusions and decided which visits were essential and which were deferrable without disrupting care by briefly using a noninfusional approach,” said Dr. Voorhees. The number of patients who had their regimens modified or held was “relatively small,” and with the recent recognition that a surge of infections has not occurred, “we’re now rolling out cautious reentry of those patients back to their originally prescribed chemotherapy.”

In addition to concerns of exposure at infusion clinics, there are concerns about the heightened susceptibility of immunosuppressed hematologic oncology patients to COVID-19 and their risk for more severe infection. “Our view is that, if patients tested positive, continuing immunosuppressive treatment would likely be detrimental,” so when possible treatment is temporarily suspended and then resumed when the infection has cleared. “When patients test positive for a prolonged period, a decision to resume treatment must be in the best interests of the patient and weigh the benefits of resuming therapy against the risks of incurring a more severe infection by restarting potentially immunosuppressive therapy,” Dr. Voorhees said.

The enhanced risk that cancer patients face if they develop COVID-19 was documented in a recent review of 218 cancer patients hospitalized for COVID-19 during parts of March and April in a large New York health system. The results showed an overall mortality rate of 28%, including a 37% rate among 54 patients with hematologic malignancies and a 25% rate among 164 patients with solid tumors. The mortality rate “may not be quite as high as they reported because that depends on how many patients you test, but there is no question that patients with more comorbidities are at higher risk. Patients with active cancer on chemotherapy are a particularly vulnerable population, and many have expressed concerns about their vulnerability,” he observed.

For the few LCI patients who developed COVID-19 infection, the medical staff has had several therapeutic options they could match to each patient’s needs, with help from the Atrium Health infectious disease team. LCI and Atrium Health are participating in several COVID-19 clinical treatment trials, including an investigational convalescent plasma protocol spearheaded by the Mayo Clinic. They have also opened a randomized, phase 2 trial evaluating the safety and efficacy of selinexor (Xpovio), an oral drug that’s Food and Drug Administration approved for patients with multiple myeloma, for treatment of moderate or severe COVID-19 infection. Additional studies evaluating blockade of granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor, as well as inhaled antiviral therapy, have recently launched, and several additional studies are poised to open in the coming weeks.

The LCI and Atrium Health team also has a supply of the antiviral agent remdesivir as part of the FDA’s expanded access protocol and emergency use authorization. They also have a supply of and experience administering the interleukin-6 receptor inhibitor tocilizumab (Actemra), which showed some suggestion of efficacy in limited experience treating patients with severe or critical COVID-19 infections (Proc Natl Acad Sci. 2020 Apr 29; doi: 10.1073/pnas.2005615117). Clinicians at LCI have not used the investigational and unproven agents hydroxychloroquine, chloroquine, and azithromycin to either prevent or treat COVID-19.

LCI also instituted measures to try to minimize the risk that staff members could become infected and transmit the virus while asymptomatic. Following conversations held early on with COVID-19–experienced health authorities in China and Italy, the patient-facing LCI staff split into two teams starting on March 23 that alternated responsibility for direct patient interactions every 2 weeks. When one of these teams was off from direct patient contact they continued to care for patients remotely through virtual technologies. The concept was that, if a staffer became infected while remaining asymptomatic during their contact with patients, their status would either become diagnosable or resolve during their 2 weeks away from seeing any patients. Perhaps in part because of this approach infections among staff members “have not been a big issue. We’ve had an incredibly low infection rate among the LCI staff,” Dr. Voorhees noted.

By mid-May, with the imminent threat of a sudden CODIV-19 surge moderated, heme-onc operations at LCI began to cautiously revert to more normal operations. “We’re continuing patient screening for signs and symptoms of COVID-19 infection, testing for asymptomatic infections, and requiring masking and social distancing in the clinics and hospitals, but we’re starting to slowly restore the number of patients at our clinics [virtual and face to face[ and infusion centers,” and the staff’s division into two teams ended. “The idea was to get past a surge and make sure our system was not overwhelmed. We anticipated a local surge in late April, but then it kept getting pushed back. Current projections are for the infection rate among LCI patients to remain low provided that community spread remains stable or, ideally, decreases.” The LCI infectious disease staff is closely monitoring infection rates for early recognition of an outbreak, with plans to follow any new cases with contact tracing. So far, the COVID-19 pandemic at LCI “has been very manageable,” Dr. Voorhees concluded.

“We’re now better positioned to deal with a case surge if it were to happen. We could resume the two-team approach, hospital-wide plans are now in place for a future surge, and we are now up and running with robust testing and inpatient and outpatient virtual technology. The first time, we were all learning on the fly.”

The LCI biostatistics team has been prospectively collecting the Institutes’s COVID-19 patient data, with plans to report their findings.

Dr. Voorhees has had financial relationships with Bristol-Myers Squibb/Celgene, Janssen, Novartis, and Oncopeptides, none of which are relevant to this article.

[email protected]

Keeping hematologic oncology patients on their treatment regimens and caring for inpatients with hematologic malignancies remained “manageable” during the first 2 months of the COVID-19 pandemic at Levine Cancer Institute in Charlotte, N.C.

That level of manageability has partly been because a surge in cases so far hasn’t arrived at Levine or in most of the surrounding North Carolina and South Carolina communities it serves. As of May 15, 2020, the total number of confirmed and reported COVID-19 cases had reached about 19,000 in North Carolina, and just under 9,000 in South Carolina, out of a total population in the two states of close to 16 million. What’s happened instead at Levine Cancer Institute (LCI) has been a steady but low drumbeat of cases that, by mid-May 2020, totaled fewer than 10 patients with hematologic malignancies diagnosed with COVID-19.

“For a large system with multiple sites throughout North and South Carolina that saw 17,200 new patients in 2019 – including solid tumor, benign hematology, and malignant hematology patients – with 198,000 total patient visits, it is safe to say that we are off to a good start. However, we remain in the early throes of the pandemic and we will need to remain vigilant going forward,” said Peter Voorhees, MD, professor of medicine and director of Medical Operations and Outreach Services in LCI’s Department of Hematologic Oncology and Blood Disorders.

The limited effects to date of COVID-19 at LCI has been thanks to a regimen of great caution for preventing infections that’s been consistently conveyed to LCI patients from before the pandemic’s onset, liberal testing that started early, a proactive plan to defer and temporarily replace infusion care when medically appropriate, a novel staffing approach designed to minimize and contain potential staff outbreaks, and an early pivot to virtual patient contact when feasible.

COVID-19 has had limited penetration into the LCI case load because patients have, in general, “been very careful,” said Dr. Voorhees.

“My impression is that the incidence has been low partly because our patients, especially those with hematologic malignancies including those on active chemotherapy, were already getting warned to be cautious even before the coronavirus using distancing, masking, and meticulous hand hygiene,” he said in an interview that reviewed the steps LCI took starting in March to confront and manage the effects of the then-nascent pandemic. “Since we started screening asymptomatic patients in the inpatient and outpatient settings we have identified only one patient with COVID-19 infection, which supports the low rate of infection in our patient population thus far.”

Another key step was the launch of “robust” testing for the COVID-19 virus starting on March 9, using an in-house assay from LCI’s parent health system, Atrium Health, that delivered results within 24 hours. Testing became available at LCI “earlier than at many other health systems.” At first, testing was limited to patients or staff presenting with symptoms, but in the following weeks, it expanded to more patients, including those without symptoms who were scheduled for treatment at the apheresis center, cell donors and cell recipients, patients arriving for inpatient chemotherapy or cellular therapy, patients arriving from a skilled nursing facility or similar environments, and more recently, outpatient chemotherapy patients. “We’re now doing a lot of screening,” Dr. Voorhees said. “In general, screening has been well received because patients recognize that it’s for their own safety.”

Another piece of COVID-19 preparedness was a move toward technology as an alternative to face-to-face encounters between patients and staff. “We adopted virtual technology early.” When medically appropriate, they provided either video consultations with more tech-savvy patients or telephone-based virtual visits for patients who preferred a more familiar interface. As LCI starts the process of reentry for patients whose face-to-face encounters were deferred, virtual visits will remain an important facet of maintaining care while limiting exposure for appropriate patients and facilitating adequate space for social distancing in the clinics and infusion centers.

Atrium Health also launched a “virtual hospital” geared to intensified remote management of COVID-19 patients who aren’t sick enough for hospitalization. “People who test positive automatically enter the virtual hospital and have regular interactions with their team of providers,” with LCI providing additional support for their patients who get infected. Patients receive an equipment kit that lets them monitor and transmit their vital signs. The virtual hospital program also helps expedite personal needs like delivery of prescriptions and food. “It helps patients manage at home, and has been incredibly useful,” said Dr. Voorhees.

Perhaps the most challenging step LCI clinicians took to preclude a potential COVID-19 case surge was to review all patients receiving infusional therapy or planned cellular therapy and triage those who could potentially tolerate a temporary change to either an oral, at-home regimen or to a brief hold on their treatment. Some patients on maintenance, outpatient infusion-therapy regimens “expressed concern about coming to the clinic. We looked at the patients scheduled to come for infusions and decided which visits were essential and which were deferrable without disrupting care by briefly using a noninfusional approach,” said Dr. Voorhees. The number of patients who had their regimens modified or held was “relatively small,” and with the recent recognition that a surge of infections has not occurred, “we’re now rolling out cautious reentry of those patients back to their originally prescribed chemotherapy.”

In addition to concerns of exposure at infusion clinics, there are concerns about the heightened susceptibility of immunosuppressed hematologic oncology patients to COVID-19 and their risk for more severe infection. “Our view is that, if patients tested positive, continuing immunosuppressive treatment would likely be detrimental,” so when possible treatment is temporarily suspended and then resumed when the infection has cleared. “When patients test positive for a prolonged period, a decision to resume treatment must be in the best interests of the patient and weigh the benefits of resuming therapy against the risks of incurring a more severe infection by restarting potentially immunosuppressive therapy,” Dr. Voorhees said.

The enhanced risk that cancer patients face if they develop COVID-19 was documented in a recent review of 218 cancer patients hospitalized for COVID-19 during parts of March and April in a large New York health system. The results showed an overall mortality rate of 28%, including a 37% rate among 54 patients with hematologic malignancies and a 25% rate among 164 patients with solid tumors. The mortality rate “may not be quite as high as they reported because that depends on how many patients you test, but there is no question that patients with more comorbidities are at higher risk. Patients with active cancer on chemotherapy are a particularly vulnerable population, and many have expressed concerns about their vulnerability,” he observed.

For the few LCI patients who developed COVID-19 infection, the medical staff has had several therapeutic options they could match to each patient’s needs, with help from the Atrium Health infectious disease team. LCI and Atrium Health are participating in several COVID-19 clinical treatment trials, including an investigational convalescent plasma protocol spearheaded by the Mayo Clinic. They have also opened a randomized, phase 2 trial evaluating the safety and efficacy of selinexor (Xpovio), an oral drug that’s Food and Drug Administration approved for patients with multiple myeloma, for treatment of moderate or severe COVID-19 infection. Additional studies evaluating blockade of granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor, as well as inhaled antiviral therapy, have recently launched, and several additional studies are poised to open in the coming weeks.

The LCI and Atrium Health team also has a supply of the antiviral agent remdesivir as part of the FDA’s expanded access protocol and emergency use authorization. They also have a supply of and experience administering the interleukin-6 receptor inhibitor tocilizumab (Actemra), which showed some suggestion of efficacy in limited experience treating patients with severe or critical COVID-19 infections (Proc Natl Acad Sci. 2020 Apr 29; doi: 10.1073/pnas.2005615117). Clinicians at LCI have not used the investigational and unproven agents hydroxychloroquine, chloroquine, and azithromycin to either prevent or treat COVID-19.

LCI also instituted measures to try to minimize the risk that staff members could become infected and transmit the virus while asymptomatic. Following conversations held early on with COVID-19–experienced health authorities in China and Italy, the patient-facing LCI staff split into two teams starting on March 23 that alternated responsibility for direct patient interactions every 2 weeks. When one of these teams was off from direct patient contact they continued to care for patients remotely through virtual technologies. The concept was that, if a staffer became infected while remaining asymptomatic during their contact with patients, their status would either become diagnosable or resolve during their 2 weeks away from seeing any patients. Perhaps in part because of this approach infections among staff members “have not been a big issue. We’ve had an incredibly low infection rate among the LCI staff,” Dr. Voorhees noted.

By mid-May, with the imminent threat of a sudden CODIV-19 surge moderated, heme-onc operations at LCI began to cautiously revert to more normal operations. “We’re continuing patient screening for signs and symptoms of COVID-19 infection, testing for asymptomatic infections, and requiring masking and social distancing in the clinics and hospitals, but we’re starting to slowly restore the number of patients at our clinics [virtual and face to face[ and infusion centers,” and the staff’s division into two teams ended. “The idea was to get past a surge and make sure our system was not overwhelmed. We anticipated a local surge in late April, but then it kept getting pushed back. Current projections are for the infection rate among LCI patients to remain low provided that community spread remains stable or, ideally, decreases.” The LCI infectious disease staff is closely monitoring infection rates for early recognition of an outbreak, with plans to follow any new cases with contact tracing. So far, the COVID-19 pandemic at LCI “has been very manageable,” Dr. Voorhees concluded.

“We’re now better positioned to deal with a case surge if it were to happen. We could resume the two-team approach, hospital-wide plans are now in place for a future surge, and we are now up and running with robust testing and inpatient and outpatient virtual technology. The first time, we were all learning on the fly.”

The LCI biostatistics team has been prospectively collecting the Institutes’s COVID-19 patient data, with plans to report their findings.

Dr. Voorhees has had financial relationships with Bristol-Myers Squibb/Celgene, Janssen, Novartis, and Oncopeptides, none of which are relevant to this article.

[email protected]

A leadless right-ventricular pacemaker continued to show an edge over conventional transvenous pacemakers by triggering a substantially reduced rate of complications during the 6 months following placement in a review of more than 10,000 Medicare patients treated over 2 years.

The “largest leadless pacemaker cohort to date” showed that in propensity score–matched cohorts, the 3,276 patients who received the Micra leadless transcatheter pacemaker during routine management and were followed for 6 months had a 3.3% rate of total complications, compared with a 9.4% rate among 7,256 patients who received a conventional VVI pacemaker with a transvenous lead, a statistically significant 66% relative risk reduction, Jonathan P. Piccini, MD, said at the annual scientific sessions of the Heart Rhythm Society, held online because of COVID-19.

The 66% reduced rate of complications – both acutely and with further follow-up – was similar to the complication reductions seen with Micra, compared with historical controls who received transvenous single-chamber pacemakers in both the pivotal study for the device (Heart Rhythm. 2017 May 1;14[3]:702-9) and in a postapproval registry study (Heart Rhythm. 2018 Dec 1;15[12]:1800-7). However, the newly reported advantage came in a population that was notably older and had significantly more comorbidities than in the prior leadless pacemaker studies, said Dr. Piccini, a cardiac electrophysiologist at Duke University, Durham, N.C.

The new Medicare data “tell us that physicians are reaching for these devices [leadless pacemakers] in patients with more comorbidities and a higher risk for complications to give them a [device with] better safety profile,” he said during a press briefing. “At Duke, and I suspect at other centers, when a patients is eligible for a leadless pacemaker that’s the preferred option.”

However, Dr. Piccini cited three examples of the small proportion of patients who are appropriate for the type of pacing the leadless pacemaker supplies but would be better candidates for a device with a transvenous lead: patients who failed treatment with a initial leadless pacemaker and have no suitable alternative subcutaneous spot to place the replacement device in a stable way, those with severe right ventricular enlargement that interferes with optimal placement, and those who don’t currently meet criteria for biventricular pacing but appear likely to switch to that pacing mode in the near term.

The 66% relative reduction in complications was “impressive; I hope this will be a message,” commented Nassir F. Marrouche, MD, a cardiac electrophysiologist and professor of medicine at Tulane University, New Orleans. Importantly, this reduced complication rate occurred in a real-world population that was sicker than any patient group previously studied with the device, he noted as a designated discussant for the report.

But the report’s second designated discussant, Roderick Tung, MD, highlighted some caveats when interpreting the lower complication rate with the leadless device compared with historical controls. He cited the absence of any episodes of pneumothorax among the patients reviewed by Dr. Piccini who received a leadless pacemaker, compared with a 5% rate among the control patients who had received a device with a transvenous lead, a major driver of the overall difference in complication rates. This difference “may not be relevant to operators who use either an axillary extrathoracic vein route for lead placement or a cephalic vein approach,” said Dr. Tung, director of cardiac electrophysiology at the University of Chicago. “There should not be a 5% rate of pneumothorax when implanting a VVI device.” The results reported by Dr. Piccini have the advantages of coming from many patients and from real-world practice, he acknowledged, but interpretation is limited by the lack of a randomized control group and the outsized impact of pneumothorax complications on the safety comparison.

The other major component of the 6-month complication tally was device-related events, which were twice as common in the historical controls who received a transvenous lead at a rate of 3.4%. The sole 6-month event more common among the patients who received a leadless pacemaker was pericarditis, at a rate of 1.3% in the Micra group and 0.5% in the transvenous lead controls, Dr. Piccini reported. The 6-month rate of device revisions was 1.7% with the leadless device and 2.8% with transvenous lead pacemakers, a difference that was not statistically significant. The two treatment arms had virtually identical 6-month mortality rates.

The rate of acute complications during the first 30 days after implant was also virtually the same in the two study arms. Patient who received the leadless device had significantly more puncture-site events, at a rate of 1.2%, and significantly more cardiac effusions or perforations, at a rate of 0.8%. The historical control patients who received devices with transvenous leads had significantly more device-related complications after 30 days, a 2.5% rate.

The 30-day cohorts examined had larger numbers of patients than at 6 months, 5,746 leadless pacemaker recipients and 9,662 matched historical controls who had received a transvenous lead pacemaker. The clinical and demographic profile of the 30-day cohort who received the leadless pacemaker highlighted the sicker nature of these patients compared with earlier studies of the device. They were an average age of 79 years, compared with average ages of 76 years in the two prior Micra studies, and they also had double the prevalence of coronary disease, triple the prevalence of heart failure, more than twice the rate of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and almost twice the prevalence of diabetes.

During the period examined in this report from Micra CED (Longitudinal Coverage With Evidence Development Study on Micra Leadless Pacemakers), in 2017-2018, the leadless pacemaker’s initial approved indications were for a circumscribed portion of the overall patient population that needs pacing. Essentially, they were elderly patients with persistent atrial fibrillation who only need ventricular pacing, roughly 15% of the overall cohort of pacing candidates. In January 2020, the FDA added an indication for high-grade atrioventricular block, an expanded population of candidates that roughly tripled the number of potentially appropriate recipients, said Larry A. Chinitz, MD, a cardiac electrophysiologist and a coinvestigator on some of the studies that led to the new indication, in an interview at the time of the revised labeling.

The study was sponsored by Medtronic, which markets the Micra leadless pacemaker. Dr. Piccini has received honoraria from Medtronic and several other companies. Dr. Marrouche has been a consultant to Medtronic as well as to Biosense Webster, Biotronik, Cardiac Design, and Preventice, and has received research funding from Abbott, Biosense Webster, Boston Scientific, and GE Healthcare. Dr. Tung has been a speaker on behalf of Abbott, Boston Scientific, and Biosense Webster. Dr. Chinitz has received fees and fellowship support from Medtronic, and has also received fees from Abbott, Biosense Webster, Biotronik, and Pfizer.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Piccini JP et al. Heart Rhythm 2020, Abstract D-LBCT04-01.

A leadless right-ventricular pacemaker continued to show an edge over conventional transvenous pacemakers by triggering a substantially reduced rate of complications during the 6 months following placement in a review of more than 10,000 Medicare patients treated over 2 years.

The “largest leadless pacemaker cohort to date” showed that in propensity score–matched cohorts, the 3,276 patients who received the Micra leadless transcatheter pacemaker during routine management and were followed for 6 months had a 3.3% rate of total complications, compared with a 9.4% rate among 7,256 patients who received a conventional VVI pacemaker with a transvenous lead, a statistically significant 66% relative risk reduction, Jonathan P. Piccini, MD, said at the annual scientific sessions of the Heart Rhythm Society, held online because of COVID-19.

The 66% reduced rate of complications – both acutely and with further follow-up – was similar to the complication reductions seen with Micra, compared with historical controls who received transvenous single-chamber pacemakers in both the pivotal study for the device (Heart Rhythm. 2017 May 1;14[3]:702-9) and in a postapproval registry study (Heart Rhythm. 2018 Dec 1;15[12]:1800-7). However, the newly reported advantage came in a population that was notably older and had significantly more comorbidities than in the prior leadless pacemaker studies, said Dr. Piccini, a cardiac electrophysiologist at Duke University, Durham, N.C.

The new Medicare data “tell us that physicians are reaching for these devices [leadless pacemakers] in patients with more comorbidities and a higher risk for complications to give them a [device with] better safety profile,” he said during a press briefing. “At Duke, and I suspect at other centers, when a patients is eligible for a leadless pacemaker that’s the preferred option.”

However, Dr. Piccini cited three examples of the small proportion of patients who are appropriate for the type of pacing the leadless pacemaker supplies but would be better candidates for a device with a transvenous lead: patients who failed treatment with a initial leadless pacemaker and have no suitable alternative subcutaneous spot to place the replacement device in a stable way, those with severe right ventricular enlargement that interferes with optimal placement, and those who don’t currently meet criteria for biventricular pacing but appear likely to switch to that pacing mode in the near term.

The 66% relative reduction in complications was “impressive; I hope this will be a message,” commented Nassir F. Marrouche, MD, a cardiac electrophysiologist and professor of medicine at Tulane University, New Orleans. Importantly, this reduced complication rate occurred in a real-world population that was sicker than any patient group previously studied with the device, he noted as a designated discussant for the report.

But the report’s second designated discussant, Roderick Tung, MD, highlighted some caveats when interpreting the lower complication rate with the leadless device compared with historical controls. He cited the absence of any episodes of pneumothorax among the patients reviewed by Dr. Piccini who received a leadless pacemaker, compared with a 5% rate among the control patients who had received a device with a transvenous lead, a major driver of the overall difference in complication rates. This difference “may not be relevant to operators who use either an axillary extrathoracic vein route for lead placement or a cephalic vein approach,” said Dr. Tung, director of cardiac electrophysiology at the University of Chicago. “There should not be a 5% rate of pneumothorax when implanting a VVI device.” The results reported by Dr. Piccini have the advantages of coming from many patients and from real-world practice, he acknowledged, but interpretation is limited by the lack of a randomized control group and the outsized impact of pneumothorax complications on the safety comparison.

The other major component of the 6-month complication tally was device-related events, which were twice as common in the historical controls who received a transvenous lead at a rate of 3.4%. The sole 6-month event more common among the patients who received a leadless pacemaker was pericarditis, at a rate of 1.3% in the Micra group and 0.5% in the transvenous lead controls, Dr. Piccini reported. The 6-month rate of device revisions was 1.7% with the leadless device and 2.8% with transvenous lead pacemakers, a difference that was not statistically significant. The two treatment arms had virtually identical 6-month mortality rates.

The rate of acute complications during the first 30 days after implant was also virtually the same in the two study arms. Patient who received the leadless device had significantly more puncture-site events, at a rate of 1.2%, and significantly more cardiac effusions or perforations, at a rate of 0.8%. The historical control patients who received devices with transvenous leads had significantly more device-related complications after 30 days, a 2.5% rate.

The 30-day cohorts examined had larger numbers of patients than at 6 months, 5,746 leadless pacemaker recipients and 9,662 matched historical controls who had received a transvenous lead pacemaker. The clinical and demographic profile of the 30-day cohort who received the leadless pacemaker highlighted the sicker nature of these patients compared with earlier studies of the device. They were an average age of 79 years, compared with average ages of 76 years in the two prior Micra studies, and they also had double the prevalence of coronary disease, triple the prevalence of heart failure, more than twice the rate of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and almost twice the prevalence of diabetes.

During the period examined in this report from Micra CED (Longitudinal Coverage With Evidence Development Study on Micra Leadless Pacemakers), in 2017-2018, the leadless pacemaker’s initial approved indications were for a circumscribed portion of the overall patient population that needs pacing. Essentially, they were elderly patients with persistent atrial fibrillation who only need ventricular pacing, roughly 15% of the overall cohort of pacing candidates. In January 2020, the FDA added an indication for high-grade atrioventricular block, an expanded population of candidates that roughly tripled the number of potentially appropriate recipients, said Larry A. Chinitz, MD, a cardiac electrophysiologist and a coinvestigator on some of the studies that led to the new indication, in an interview at the time of the revised labeling.

The study was sponsored by Medtronic, which markets the Micra leadless pacemaker. Dr. Piccini has received honoraria from Medtronic and several other companies. Dr. Marrouche has been a consultant to Medtronic as well as to Biosense Webster, Biotronik, Cardiac Design, and Preventice, and has received research funding from Abbott, Biosense Webster, Boston Scientific, and GE Healthcare. Dr. Tung has been a speaker on behalf of Abbott, Boston Scientific, and Biosense Webster. Dr. Chinitz has received fees and fellowship support from Medtronic, and has also received fees from Abbott, Biosense Webster, Biotronik, and Pfizer.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Piccini JP et al. Heart Rhythm 2020, Abstract D-LBCT04-01.

A leadless right-ventricular pacemaker continued to show an edge over conventional transvenous pacemakers by triggering a substantially reduced rate of complications during the 6 months following placement in a review of more than 10,000 Medicare patients treated over 2 years.

The “largest leadless pacemaker cohort to date” showed that in propensity score–matched cohorts, the 3,276 patients who received the Micra leadless transcatheter pacemaker during routine management and were followed for 6 months had a 3.3% rate of total complications, compared with a 9.4% rate among 7,256 patients who received a conventional VVI pacemaker with a transvenous lead, a statistically significant 66% relative risk reduction, Jonathan P. Piccini, MD, said at the annual scientific sessions of the Heart Rhythm Society, held online because of COVID-19.

The 66% reduced rate of complications – both acutely and with further follow-up – was similar to the complication reductions seen with Micra, compared with historical controls who received transvenous single-chamber pacemakers in both the pivotal study for the device (Heart Rhythm. 2017 May 1;14[3]:702-9) and in a postapproval registry study (Heart Rhythm. 2018 Dec 1;15[12]:1800-7). However, the newly reported advantage came in a population that was notably older and had significantly more comorbidities than in the prior leadless pacemaker studies, said Dr. Piccini, a cardiac electrophysiologist at Duke University, Durham, N.C.

The new Medicare data “tell us that physicians are reaching for these devices [leadless pacemakers] in patients with more comorbidities and a higher risk for complications to give them a [device with] better safety profile,” he said during a press briefing. “At Duke, and I suspect at other centers, when a patients is eligible for a leadless pacemaker that’s the preferred option.”

However, Dr. Piccini cited three examples of the small proportion of patients who are appropriate for the type of pacing the leadless pacemaker supplies but would be better candidates for a device with a transvenous lead: patients who failed treatment with a initial leadless pacemaker and have no suitable alternative subcutaneous spot to place the replacement device in a stable way, those with severe right ventricular enlargement that interferes with optimal placement, and those who don’t currently meet criteria for biventricular pacing but appear likely to switch to that pacing mode in the near term.

The 66% relative reduction in complications was “impressive; I hope this will be a message,” commented Nassir F. Marrouche, MD, a cardiac electrophysiologist and professor of medicine at Tulane University, New Orleans. Importantly, this reduced complication rate occurred in a real-world population that was sicker than any patient group previously studied with the device, he noted as a designated discussant for the report.

But the report’s second designated discussant, Roderick Tung, MD, highlighted some caveats when interpreting the lower complication rate with the leadless device compared with historical controls. He cited the absence of any episodes of pneumothorax among the patients reviewed by Dr. Piccini who received a leadless pacemaker, compared with a 5% rate among the control patients who had received a device with a transvenous lead, a major driver of the overall difference in complication rates. This difference “may not be relevant to operators who use either an axillary extrathoracic vein route for lead placement or a cephalic vein approach,” said Dr. Tung, director of cardiac electrophysiology at the University of Chicago. “There should not be a 5% rate of pneumothorax when implanting a VVI device.” The results reported by Dr. Piccini have the advantages of coming from many patients and from real-world practice, he acknowledged, but interpretation is limited by the lack of a randomized control group and the outsized impact of pneumothorax complications on the safety comparison.

The other major component of the 6-month complication tally was device-related events, which were twice as common in the historical controls who received a transvenous lead at a rate of 3.4%. The sole 6-month event more common among the patients who received a leadless pacemaker was pericarditis, at a rate of 1.3% in the Micra group and 0.5% in the transvenous lead controls, Dr. Piccini reported. The 6-month rate of device revisions was 1.7% with the leadless device and 2.8% with transvenous lead pacemakers, a difference that was not statistically significant. The two treatment arms had virtually identical 6-month mortality rates.

The rate of acute complications during the first 30 days after implant was also virtually the same in the two study arms. Patient who received the leadless device had significantly more puncture-site events, at a rate of 1.2%, and significantly more cardiac effusions or perforations, at a rate of 0.8%. The historical control patients who received devices with transvenous leads had significantly more device-related complications after 30 days, a 2.5% rate.

The 30-day cohorts examined had larger numbers of patients than at 6 months, 5,746 leadless pacemaker recipients and 9,662 matched historical controls who had received a transvenous lead pacemaker. The clinical and demographic profile of the 30-day cohort who received the leadless pacemaker highlighted the sicker nature of these patients compared with earlier studies of the device. They were an average age of 79 years, compared with average ages of 76 years in the two prior Micra studies, and they also had double the prevalence of coronary disease, triple the prevalence of heart failure, more than twice the rate of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and almost twice the prevalence of diabetes.

During the period examined in this report from Micra CED (Longitudinal Coverage With Evidence Development Study on Micra Leadless Pacemakers), in 2017-2018, the leadless pacemaker’s initial approved indications were for a circumscribed portion of the overall patient population that needs pacing. Essentially, they were elderly patients with persistent atrial fibrillation who only need ventricular pacing, roughly 15% of the overall cohort of pacing candidates. In January 2020, the FDA added an indication for high-grade atrioventricular block, an expanded population of candidates that roughly tripled the number of potentially appropriate recipients, said Larry A. Chinitz, MD, a cardiac electrophysiologist and a coinvestigator on some of the studies that led to the new indication, in an interview at the time of the revised labeling.

The study was sponsored by Medtronic, which markets the Micra leadless pacemaker. Dr. Piccini has received honoraria from Medtronic and several other companies. Dr. Marrouche has been a consultant to Medtronic as well as to Biosense Webster, Biotronik, Cardiac Design, and Preventice, and has received research funding from Abbott, Biosense Webster, Boston Scientific, and GE Healthcare. Dr. Tung has been a speaker on behalf of Abbott, Boston Scientific, and Biosense Webster. Dr. Chinitz has received fees and fellowship support from Medtronic, and has also received fees from Abbott, Biosense Webster, Biotronik, and Pfizer.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Piccini JP et al. Heart Rhythm 2020, Abstract D-LBCT04-01.

A polygenic risk score based on analysis of 29 discrete genetic variants linked with abdominal aortic aneurysms appeared better than the current criteria that clinicians use to identify people to screen for this disorder, potentially paving the way for more efficient use of screening resources.

Ryuji Suzuki

Future screening guidelines for abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAA) “should consider including individuals with high polygenic risk for screening ultrasonography,” Derek Klarin, MD, said at the virtual Vascular Discovery Scientific Sessions 2020, organized by the American Heart Association.

The data he reported showed that when researchers applied the polygenic risk score (PRS) to men aged older than 50 years in three independent validation cohorts of people with primarily European ancestry, those with scores in the top 5 percentile within each cohort had a collective AAA prevalence rate of 8.6% (95% CI 7.3%-9.8%).

This 8.6% pick-up rate using the PRS to help identify screening candidates for this male demographic subgroup compared favorably with previously reported prevalence rates of AAA detected by ultrasonography (defined as aneurysms of at least 3.0 cm in diameter) in men aged 65 years or older with a history of ever smoking. Last year, the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force issued an updated recommendation to perform a one-time ultrasound screening of 65- to 75-year-old men who ever smoked and cited five reported screening studies that found prevalence rates in these people of 3.3%-7.6% (JAMA. 2019 Dec 10;322[22]:2211-8). An earlier review of the topic by the task force cited an average estimated prevalence of 6%-7% in men at least 65 years old and with a smoking history (Ann Intern Med. 2014 Aug 19;161[4]: 281-90).

“You can use [the PRS] with other risk factors to increase the yield of identifying those at high risk,” Dr. Klarin said during a discussion of his report. He noted the possibility of using it to identify people at-risk early on, at birth, “prior to other risk factors being present,” as well as using the PRS as an add-on to known risk factors when assessing adults. He stressed that validations he has run so far still leave the PRS a step away from routine use, although it is “quite close,” said Dr. Klarin, a vascular surgeon at the University of Florida in Gainesville.

For use in routine practice, the PRS needs “further validation,” including further assessment of its performance in other age groups, in a wider range of ethnic groups, and in women, said Chris Semsarian, MBBS, professor of medicine at the University of Sydney and head of the Molecular Cardiology Program at its Centenary Institute. However, Dr. Semsarian also said that he saw great promise for the potential of the PRS, and its development so far had been solid.

“The study was meticulously undertaken, with a large number of AAA cases and controls. Both the derivation and validation are robust. There is great potential to use such a genetic risk score in the clinical setting, along with other risk factors such as smoking, high blood pressure, and lipid levels. The PRS adds another piece in the puzzle of risk of AAA by adding in genetic or inherited risk. An additional 1%-2% in pick-up rate would still lead to many thousands more AAA detected and lives saved. The PRS doesn’t replace environmental factors that contribute to AAA risk but adds a genetic component” when estimating a person’s overall risk and the appropriateness of screening ultrasound, Dr. Semsarian said in an interview.

The derivation analysis that Dr. Klarin and associates ran used data from the Million Veteran Program that included 7,642 people with AAA and matched them with more than 172,000 controls from the same database. This generated three alternative PRSs that involved testing for 29, 301, or 3,699 different mutations or polymorphisms that discriminated cases from controls. They compared these three scoring formulas in 1,000 AAA cases and 7,700 matched controls from the Mayo Clinic’s patient database, which showed that the 29-item PRS performed best, boosting identification of cases with a statistically significant odds ratio of 1.26.

They then ran the 29-item PRS in four additional large data banks, three that included mostly people of European ancestry and one that included mostly people with an African heritage. In the three data banks with people of mostly European background, the 29-item PRS performed even better than it did using the Mayo Clinic data, but this PRS was less informative in people with African ancestry. The analyses also suggested that the PRS identified elevated AAA risk independently of information on a family history of AAA, Dr. Klarin said.

The study had no commercial funding. Dr. Klarin has been a consultant to Regeneron.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Klarin D et al. Vascular Discovery 2020, abstract 170.

A polygenic risk score based on analysis of 29 discrete genetic variants linked with abdominal aortic aneurysms appeared better than the current criteria that clinicians use to identify people to screen for this disorder, potentially paving the way for more efficient use of screening resources.

Ryuji Suzuki

Future screening guidelines for abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAA) “should consider including individuals with high polygenic risk for screening ultrasonography,” Derek Klarin, MD, said at the virtual Vascular Discovery Scientific Sessions 2020, organized by the American Heart Association.

The data he reported showed that when researchers applied the polygenic risk score (PRS) to men aged older than 50 years in three independent validation cohorts of people with primarily European ancestry, those with scores in the top 5 percentile within each cohort had a collective AAA prevalence rate of 8.6% (95% CI 7.3%-9.8%).

This 8.6% pick-up rate using the PRS to help identify screening candidates for this male demographic subgroup compared favorably with previously reported prevalence rates of AAA detected by ultrasonography (defined as aneurysms of at least 3.0 cm in diameter) in men aged 65 years or older with a history of ever smoking. Last year, the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force issued an updated recommendation to perform a one-time ultrasound screening of 65- to 75-year-old men who ever smoked and cited five reported screening studies that found prevalence rates in these people of 3.3%-7.6% (JAMA. 2019 Dec 10;322[22]:2211-8). An earlier review of the topic by the task force cited an average estimated prevalence of 6%-7% in men at least 65 years old and with a smoking history (Ann Intern Med. 2014 Aug 19;161[4]: 281-90).

“You can use [the PRS] with other risk factors to increase the yield of identifying those at high risk,” Dr. Klarin said during a discussion of his report. He noted the possibility of using it to identify people at-risk early on, at birth, “prior to other risk factors being present,” as well as using the PRS as an add-on to known risk factors when assessing adults. He stressed that validations he has run so far still leave the PRS a step away from routine use, although it is “quite close,” said Dr. Klarin, a vascular surgeon at the University of Florida in Gainesville.

For use in routine practice, the PRS needs “further validation,” including further assessment of its performance in other age groups, in a wider range of ethnic groups, and in women, said Chris Semsarian, MBBS, professor of medicine at the University of Sydney and head of the Molecular Cardiology Program at its Centenary Institute. However, Dr. Semsarian also said that he saw great promise for the potential of the PRS, and its development so far had been solid.

“The study was meticulously undertaken, with a large number of AAA cases and controls. Both the derivation and validation are robust. There is great potential to use such a genetic risk score in the clinical setting, along with other risk factors such as smoking, high blood pressure, and lipid levels. The PRS adds another piece in the puzzle of risk of AAA by adding in genetic or inherited risk. An additional 1%-2% in pick-up rate would still lead to many thousands more AAA detected and lives saved. The PRS doesn’t replace environmental factors that contribute to AAA risk but adds a genetic component” when estimating a person’s overall risk and the appropriateness of screening ultrasound, Dr. Semsarian said in an interview.

The derivation analysis that Dr. Klarin and associates ran used data from the Million Veteran Program that included 7,642 people with AAA and matched them with more than 172,000 controls from the same database. This generated three alternative PRSs that involved testing for 29, 301, or 3,699 different mutations or polymorphisms that discriminated cases from controls. They compared these three scoring formulas in 1,000 AAA cases and 7,700 matched controls from the Mayo Clinic’s patient database, which showed that the 29-item PRS performed best, boosting identification of cases with a statistically significant odds ratio of 1.26.

They then ran the 29-item PRS in four additional large data banks, three that included mostly people of European ancestry and one that included mostly people with an African heritage. In the three data banks with people of mostly European background, the 29-item PRS performed even better than it did using the Mayo Clinic data, but this PRS was less informative in people with African ancestry. The analyses also suggested that the PRS identified elevated AAA risk independently of information on a family history of AAA, Dr. Klarin said.

The study had no commercial funding. Dr. Klarin has been a consultant to Regeneron.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Klarin D et al. Vascular Discovery 2020, abstract 170.

A polygenic risk score based on analysis of 29 discrete genetic variants linked with abdominal aortic aneurysms appeared better than the current criteria that clinicians use to identify people to screen for this disorder, potentially paving the way for more efficient use of screening resources.

Ryuji Suzuki

Future screening guidelines for abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAA) “should consider including individuals with high polygenic risk for screening ultrasonography,” Derek Klarin, MD, said at the virtual Vascular Discovery Scientific Sessions 2020, organized by the American Heart Association.

The data he reported showed that when researchers applied the polygenic risk score (PRS) to men aged older than 50 years in three independent validation cohorts of people with primarily European ancestry, those with scores in the top 5 percentile within each cohort had a collective AAA prevalence rate of 8.6% (95% CI 7.3%-9.8%).

This 8.6% pick-up rate using the PRS to help identify screening candidates for this male demographic subgroup compared favorably with previously reported prevalence rates of AAA detected by ultrasonography (defined as aneurysms of at least 3.0 cm in diameter) in men aged 65 years or older with a history of ever smoking. Last year, the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force issued an updated recommendation to perform a one-time ultrasound screening of 65- to 75-year-old men who ever smoked and cited five reported screening studies that found prevalence rates in these people of 3.3%-7.6% (JAMA. 2019 Dec 10;322[22]:2211-8). An earlier review of the topic by the task force cited an average estimated prevalence of 6%-7% in men at least 65 years old and with a smoking history (Ann Intern Med. 2014 Aug 19;161[4]: 281-90).

“You can use [the PRS] with other risk factors to increase the yield of identifying those at high risk,” Dr. Klarin said during a discussion of his report. He noted the possibility of using it to identify people at-risk early on, at birth, “prior to other risk factors being present,” as well as using the PRS as an add-on to known risk factors when assessing adults. He stressed that validations he has run so far still leave the PRS a step away from routine use, although it is “quite close,” said Dr. Klarin, a vascular surgeon at the University of Florida in Gainesville.

For use in routine practice, the PRS needs “further validation,” including further assessment of its performance in other age groups, in a wider range of ethnic groups, and in women, said Chris Semsarian, MBBS, professor of medicine at the University of Sydney and head of the Molecular Cardiology Program at its Centenary Institute. However, Dr. Semsarian also said that he saw great promise for the potential of the PRS, and its development so far had been solid.

“The study was meticulously undertaken, with a large number of AAA cases and controls. Both the derivation and validation are robust. There is great potential to use such a genetic risk score in the clinical setting, along with other risk factors such as smoking, high blood pressure, and lipid levels. The PRS adds another piece in the puzzle of risk of AAA by adding in genetic or inherited risk. An additional 1%-2% in pick-up rate would still lead to many thousands more AAA detected and lives saved. The PRS doesn’t replace environmental factors that contribute to AAA risk but adds a genetic component” when estimating a person’s overall risk and the appropriateness of screening ultrasound, Dr. Semsarian said in an interview.

The derivation analysis that Dr. Klarin and associates ran used data from the Million Veteran Program that included 7,642 people with AAA and matched them with more than 172,000 controls from the same database. This generated three alternative PRSs that involved testing for 29, 301, or 3,699 different mutations or polymorphisms that discriminated cases from controls. They compared these three scoring formulas in 1,000 AAA cases and 7,700 matched controls from the Mayo Clinic’s patient database, which showed that the 29-item PRS performed best, boosting identification of cases with a statistically significant odds ratio of 1.26.

They then ran the 29-item PRS in four additional large data banks, three that included mostly people of European ancestry and one that included mostly people with an African heritage. In the three data banks with people of mostly European background, the 29-item PRS performed even better than it did using the Mayo Clinic data, but this PRS was less informative in people with African ancestry. The analyses also suggested that the PRS identified elevated AAA risk independently of information on a family history of AAA, Dr. Klarin said.

The study had no commercial funding. Dr. Klarin has been a consultant to Regeneron.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Klarin D et al. Vascular Discovery 2020, abstract 170.

Many planned randomized trials to test the efficacy of hydroxychloroquine or related drugs for preventing COVID-19 infection have, as of the end of April 2020, failed to include ECG assessment to either exclude people at the highest risk for possibly developing a life-threatening cardiac arrhythmia or to flag people who achieve a dangerous QTc interval on treatment, according to an analysis of the posted designs of several dozen studies.

“It is not only inexplicable, but also inexcusable that clinical investigators would dare to include healthy individuals in a clinical trial involving QT-prolonging medications without bothering to screen their electrocardiogram,” commented Sami Viskin, MD, an electrophysiologist at Tel Aviv Sourasky Medical Center. “The fact that we needed Dr. Gollob to ring this alarm is, itself, shocking,” he said in an interview.

“ECG screening is a good option to minimize the risk. You don’t eliminate the risk, but you can minimize it,” commented Arthur Wilde, MD, a cardiac electrophysiologist and professor of medicine at the Academic Medical Center in Amsterdam. Both Dr. Viskin and Dr. Wilde agreed with the QTc interval thresholds Dr. Gollob recommended using for excluding or discontinuing study participants.

In his commentary, Dr. Gollob estimated that if 85,000 otherwise healthy adults were randomized to received a drug that can increase the QTc interval, as many as about 3,400 people (4%) in the group could statistically be expected to have an especially high vulnerability to QT prolongation because of genetic variants they might carry that collectively have roughly this prevalence. In some people of African heritage, the prevalence of genetic risk for excessive QTc lengthening can be even higher, approaching about 10%, noted Dr. Wilde.

Dr. Gollob hoped the concerns he raised will prompt the organizers of many of these studies to revise their design, and he said he already knew of one study based in Toronto that recently added an ECG-monitoring strategy in response to the concerns he raised. He expressed optimism that more studies will follow.

“It’s a real issue to have these trials designed without ECG exclusions or monitoring. I’m glad that Dr. Gollob sent this warning, because he is right. ECG monitoring during treatment is important so you can stop the treatment in time,” Dr. Wilde said. Dr. Wilde also noted that many, if not most, of the studies listed on clinicaltrials.gov may not actually launch.

In April, representatives from several cardiology societies coauthored a document of considerations when using hydroxychloroquine, chloroquine, or azithromycin to treat patients with a diagnosed COVID-19 infection, and highlighted a QTc interval of 500 msec or greater as flagging patients who should no longer receive these drugs (J Am Coll Cardiol. 2020 Apr 10. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2020.04.016). For patients who do not yet have COVID-19 disease and the goal from treatment is prevention the potential efficacy of these drugs is reasonable to explore, but “does not exclude the need to minimize risk to research participants, especially when enrolling healthy subjects,” Dr. Gollob said.

Dr. Gollob, Dr. Viskin, and Dr. Wilde had no relevant financial disclosures.

[email protected]

Many planned randomized trials to test the efficacy of hydroxychloroquine or related drugs for preventing COVID-19 infection have, as of the end of April 2020, failed to include ECG assessment to either exclude people at the highest risk for possibly developing a life-threatening cardiac arrhythmia or to flag people who achieve a dangerous QTc interval on treatment, according to an analysis of the posted designs of several dozen studies.

“It is not only inexplicable, but also inexcusable that clinical investigators would dare to include healthy individuals in a clinical trial involving QT-prolonging medications without bothering to screen their electrocardiogram,” commented Sami Viskin, MD, an electrophysiologist at Tel Aviv Sourasky Medical Center. “The fact that we needed Dr. Gollob to ring this alarm is, itself, shocking,” he said in an interview.

“ECG screening is a good option to minimize the risk. You don’t eliminate the risk, but you can minimize it,” commented Arthur Wilde, MD, a cardiac electrophysiologist and professor of medicine at the Academic Medical Center in Amsterdam. Both Dr. Viskin and Dr. Wilde agreed with the QTc interval thresholds Dr. Gollob recommended using for excluding or discontinuing study participants.

In his commentary, Dr. Gollob estimated that if 85,000 otherwise healthy adults were randomized to received a drug that can increase the QTc interval, as many as about 3,400 people (4%) in the group could statistically be expected to have an especially high vulnerability to QT prolongation because of genetic variants they might carry that collectively have roughly this prevalence. In some people of African heritage, the prevalence of genetic risk for excessive QTc lengthening can be even higher, approaching about 10%, noted Dr. Wilde.

Dr. Gollob hoped the concerns he raised will prompt the organizers of many of these studies to revise their design, and he said he already knew of one study based in Toronto that recently added an ECG-monitoring strategy in response to the concerns he raised. He expressed optimism that more studies will follow.

“It’s a real issue to have these trials designed without ECG exclusions or monitoring. I’m glad that Dr. Gollob sent this warning, because he is right. ECG monitoring during treatment is important so you can stop the treatment in time,” Dr. Wilde said. Dr. Wilde also noted that many, if not most, of the studies listed on clinicaltrials.gov may not actually launch.

In April, representatives from several cardiology societies coauthored a document of considerations when using hydroxychloroquine, chloroquine, or azithromycin to treat patients with a diagnosed COVID-19 infection, and highlighted a QTc interval of 500 msec or greater as flagging patients who should no longer receive these drugs (J Am Coll Cardiol. 2020 Apr 10. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2020.04.016). For patients who do not yet have COVID-19 disease and the goal from treatment is prevention the potential efficacy of these drugs is reasonable to explore, but “does not exclude the need to minimize risk to research participants, especially when enrolling healthy subjects,” Dr. Gollob said.

Dr. Gollob, Dr. Viskin, and Dr. Wilde had no relevant financial disclosures.

[email protected]

Many planned randomized trials to test the efficacy of hydroxychloroquine or related drugs for preventing COVID-19 infection have, as of the end of April 2020, failed to include ECG assessment to either exclude people at the highest risk for possibly developing a life-threatening cardiac arrhythmia or to flag people who achieve a dangerous QTc interval on treatment, according to an analysis of the posted designs of several dozen studies.

“It is not only inexplicable, but also inexcusable that clinical investigators would dare to include healthy individuals in a clinical trial involving QT-prolonging medications without bothering to screen their electrocardiogram,” commented Sami Viskin, MD, an electrophysiologist at Tel Aviv Sourasky Medical Center. “The fact that we needed Dr. Gollob to ring this alarm is, itself, shocking,” he said in an interview.

“ECG screening is a good option to minimize the risk. You don’t eliminate the risk, but you can minimize it,” commented Arthur Wilde, MD, a cardiac electrophysiologist and professor of medicine at the Academic Medical Center in Amsterdam. Both Dr. Viskin and Dr. Wilde agreed with the QTc interval thresholds Dr. Gollob recommended using for excluding or discontinuing study participants.

In his commentary, Dr. Gollob estimated that if 85,000 otherwise healthy adults were randomized to received a drug that can increase the QTc interval, as many as about 3,400 people (4%) in the group could statistically be expected to have an especially high vulnerability to QT prolongation because of genetic variants they might carry that collectively have roughly this prevalence. In some people of African heritage, the prevalence of genetic risk for excessive QTc lengthening can be even higher, approaching about 10%, noted Dr. Wilde.

Dr. Gollob hoped the concerns he raised will prompt the organizers of many of these studies to revise their design, and he said he already knew of one study based in Toronto that recently added an ECG-monitoring strategy in response to the concerns he raised. He expressed optimism that more studies will follow.

“It’s a real issue to have these trials designed without ECG exclusions or monitoring. I’m glad that Dr. Gollob sent this warning, because he is right. ECG monitoring during treatment is important so you can stop the treatment in time,” Dr. Wilde said. Dr. Wilde also noted that many, if not most, of the studies listed on clinicaltrials.gov may not actually launch.

In April, representatives from several cardiology societies coauthored a document of considerations when using hydroxychloroquine, chloroquine, or azithromycin to treat patients with a diagnosed COVID-19 infection, and highlighted a QTc interval of 500 msec or greater as flagging patients who should no longer receive these drugs (J Am Coll Cardiol. 2020 Apr 10. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2020.04.016). For patients who do not yet have COVID-19 disease and the goal from treatment is prevention the potential efficacy of these drugs is reasonable to explore, but “does not exclude the need to minimize risk to research participants, especially when enrolling healthy subjects,” Dr. Gollob said.

Dr. Gollob, Dr. Viskin, and Dr. Wilde had no relevant financial disclosures.

[email protected]

Results from a prospective, multicenter, uncontrolled series of just over 1,500 patients with high bleeding risk who underwent coronary revascularization with a polymer-based, zotarolimus-eluting stent showed that these patients could safely receive dual-antiplatelet therapy (DAPT)for just 1 month.

This finding sets the stage for a new labeled indication for this device and management strategy in this patient population.

Results from the Onyx ONE Clear study “met its primary endpoint, with favorable rates of ischemic outcomes from 1-12 months after DAPT discontinuation within a high risk population of HBR [high-bleeding-risk] patients,” Ajay J. Kirtane, MD, said at the joint scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology and the World Heart Federation. The meeting was conducted online after its cancellation because of the COVID-19 pandemic. The rate of cardiac death or MI during months 1-12 of follow-up while patients were on single-antiplatelet therapy (SAPT) with either aspirin or a P2Y12 inhibitor, usually clopidogrel, was 7.0%, compared with a prespecified performance goal of 9.7% or less, a goal set in consultation with and approval from the Food and Drug Administration based on the results from earlier, short DAPT studies in HBR patients.

“We hope these data will support our submission to the FDA for a 1-month DAPT indication for high-bleeding-risk patients treated with Resolute Onyx,” the polymer-based, zotarolimus-eluting stent tested in the study, said an officer with Medtronic, the company that sponsored this study and markets this stent, in a written statement. Currently, no stent has received a U.S. indication for just 1 month of DAPT treatment.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

“The Onyx ONE Clear study represents the largest analysis of 1-month DAPT among commercially available DES [drug-eluting stents], and extends findings from the Onyx ONE [randomized, controlled trial] assuring the safety of a 1-month DAPT strategy among selected patients with high bleeding risk,” said David E. Kandzari, MD, director of interventional cardiology at Piedmont Healthcare in Atlanta and coprincipal investigator for the study along with Dr. Kirtane.

“Despite the patient complexity included in the study, the observation of a favorably low rate of ischemic events despite abbreviated DAPT is consistent with a theme from other contemporary studies that, among HBR patients, bleeding risk rather than ischemic risk should guide clinical decision making regarding DAPT duration,” Dr. Kandzari said in an interview.
 

Two similar trials

The Onyx ONE Clear results were consistent with findings from a study with a somewhat similar design, LEADERS FREE II, a single-arm study that assessed the safety and efficacy of BioFreedom, a polymer-free umirolimus-coated coronary stent, in HBR patients treated with DAPT for 1 month followed by SAPT.

LEADERS FREE II showed a 12-month cardiac death or MI rate of 8.6% that compared favorably with the 12.3% 1-year rate among similar patients who received bare-metal stents and a similar timing of DAPT and SAPT in a historical control group (Circ Cardiovasc Interv. 2020 Apr 13. doi: 10.1161/CIRCINTERVENTIONS.119.008603). The primary goal of LEADERS FREE II was to serve as the pivotal trial for FDA approval of the BioFreedom stent, but as of May 2020 the FDA had not approved this stent for U.S. use.

Results of another recent study, Onyx ONE, that supplied more than half the patients included in the Onyx ONE Clear analysis, showed that, in a head-to-head comparison of the Onxy and BioFreedom stents in 1,996 HBR patients treated with DAPT for 1 month followed by 11 months of SAPT, the Onyx stent was noninferior for both a primary safety outcome and a secondary efficacy outcome (N Engl J Med. 2020 Mar 26;382[13]:1208-18).

“The major differences” between the Onyx and BioFreedom stents in the patients studied in Onxy ONE Clear and in LEADERS FREE II “lie in the fact that BioFreedom is not approved in the U.S., and that Onyx is a current generation, preferred DES platform for both conventional and HBR patients,” Dr. Kirtane said in an interview.

“Because of the performance characteristics of Onyx, as well as the fact that ONYX ONE studied a far more complex group of patients than other shorter DAPT studies with conventional DES, I personally feel that there will be a preference to use this stent as a result of these data,” added Dr. Kirtane, professor of medicine at Columbia University and director of the coronary catheterization laboratory at New York–Presbyterian Hospital in New York.

The results from Onyx ONE “are critical for changing practice” among U.S. interventionalists, commented Sunil V. Rao, MD, an interventional cardiologist and professor of medicine at Duke University, Durham, N.C. Based on the new findings, U.S. operators performing percutaneous coronary interventions “will feel comfortable stopping DAPT in patients who are at high bleeding risk,” he said in an interview.

Although the results from LEADERS FREE II showed that the BioFreedom stent was superior to a bare-metal stent with 1 month of DAPT in HBR patients, and the results from Onyx ONE showed that the Onyx stent was noninferior to BioFreedom in this setting, “it’s important not to assume that there is a class effect across DES platforms. Each platform has a different drug and different stent design, so the interventional community needs to see these data for each DES,” Dr. Rao maintained.
 

Onyx ONE Clear design

Onyx ONE Clear enrolled a total of 1,506 patients, including more than 1,000 patients who received the Onyx stent in the Onyx ONE trial and an additional 752 patients enrolled in the United States and Japan, but 263 of these patients had an adverse event during their first 30 days or follow-up leaving 1,506 patients eligible to continue into the Onyx ONE Clear analysis, and with 1,491 patients followed through 12 months. Patients were an average age of 74 years, a little over two-thirds were men, 49% had a recent acute coronary syndrome event and 41% had chronic coronary syndrome. The choice of which antiplatelet agent to continue when patients transitioned to SAPT after 30 days on DAPT was left to the discretion of the physicians for each enrolled patient.

One issue these studies did not address was whether 1 month is the ideal duration for DAPT before switching to SAPT in HBR patients following coronary stenting, or whether longer DAPT durations produce even better outcomes. “It was important to establish what happens if we need to stop DAPT early.” The Onyx ONE and Onyx ONE Clear studies “provide much-needed data informing clinicians of the risks and safety of SAPT after 1 month in appropriately selected patients,” Dr. Kirtane said.

“The results do not indicate that all HBR patients should be treated with 1 month [of] DAPT, but instead demonstrate the safety and effectiveness of this strategy when clinically appropriate.” This scenario “is quite common, given that HBR patients represent up to a third” of patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention, Dr. Kandzari said.

Onyx ONE and Onyx ONE Clear were sponsored by Medtronic, the company that markets the Onyx coronary stent. Dr. Kirtane’s institution has received research support from Medtronic, and from Abbott Vascular, Abiomed, Boston Scientific, Cathworks, CSI, Philips, ReCor Medical, and Siemens. Dr. Kandzari has received personal fees and research grants from medtronic, personal fees from Biotronik and Cardiovascular Systems, and research grants from Biotronik, Boston Scientific, and Cardiovascular Systems. Dr. Rao has received personal fees from Medtronic, as well as from CSI and Philips.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Kirtane AJ et al. ACC 2020, Abstract 903-06.

Results from a prospective, multicenter, uncontrolled series of just over 1,500 patients with high bleeding risk who underwent coronary revascularization with a polymer-based, zotarolimus-eluting stent showed that these patients could safely receive dual-antiplatelet therapy (DAPT)for just 1 month.

This finding sets the stage for a new labeled indication for this device and management strategy in this patient population.

Results from the Onyx ONE Clear study “met its primary endpoint, with favorable rates of ischemic outcomes from 1-12 months after DAPT discontinuation within a high risk population of HBR [high-bleeding-risk] patients,” Ajay J. Kirtane, MD, said at the joint scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology and the World Heart Federation. The meeting was conducted online after its cancellation because of the COVID-19 pandemic. The rate of cardiac death or MI during months 1-12 of follow-up while patients were on single-antiplatelet therapy (SAPT) with either aspirin or a P2Y12 inhibitor, usually clopidogrel, was 7.0%, compared with a prespecified performance goal of 9.7% or less, a goal set in consultation with and approval from the Food and Drug Administration based on the results from earlier, short DAPT studies in HBR patients.

“We hope these data will support our submission to the FDA for a 1-month DAPT indication for high-bleeding-risk patients treated with Resolute Onyx,” the polymer-based, zotarolimus-eluting stent tested in the study, said an officer with Medtronic, the company that sponsored this study and markets this stent, in a written statement. Currently, no stent has received a U.S. indication for just 1 month of DAPT treatment.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

“The Onyx ONE Clear study represents the largest analysis of 1-month DAPT among commercially available DES [drug-eluting stents], and extends findings from the Onyx ONE [randomized, controlled trial] assuring the safety of a 1-month DAPT strategy among selected patients with high bleeding risk,” said David E. Kandzari, MD, director of interventional cardiology at Piedmont Healthcare in Atlanta and coprincipal investigator for the study along with Dr. Kirtane.

“Despite the patient complexity included in the study, the observation of a favorably low rate of ischemic events despite abbreviated DAPT is consistent with a theme from other contemporary studies that, among HBR patients, bleeding risk rather than ischemic risk should guide clinical decision making regarding DAPT duration,” Dr. Kandzari said in an interview.
 

Two similar trials

The Onyx ONE Clear results were consistent with findings from a study with a somewhat similar design, LEADERS FREE II, a single-arm study that assessed the safety and efficacy of BioFreedom, a polymer-free umirolimus-coated coronary stent, in HBR patients treated with DAPT for 1 month followed by SAPT.

LEADERS FREE II showed a 12-month cardiac death or MI rate of 8.6% that compared favorably with the 12.3% 1-year rate among similar patients who received bare-metal stents and a similar timing of DAPT and SAPT in a historical control group (Circ Cardiovasc Interv. 2020 Apr 13. doi: 10.1161/CIRCINTERVENTIONS.119.008603). The primary goal of LEADERS FREE II was to serve as the pivotal trial for FDA approval of the BioFreedom stent, but as of May 2020 the FDA had not approved this stent for U.S. use.

Results of another recent study, Onyx ONE, that supplied more than half the patients included in the Onyx ONE Clear analysis, showed that, in a head-to-head comparison of the Onxy and BioFreedom stents in 1,996 HBR patients treated with DAPT for 1 month followed by 11 months of SAPT, the Onyx stent was noninferior for both a primary safety outcome and a secondary efficacy outcome (N Engl J Med. 2020 Mar 26;382[13]:1208-18).

“The major differences” between the Onyx and BioFreedom stents in the patients studied in Onxy ONE Clear and in LEADERS FREE II “lie in the fact that BioFreedom is not approved in the U.S., and that Onyx is a current generation, preferred DES platform for both conventional and HBR patients,” Dr. Kirtane said in an interview.

“Because of the performance characteristics of Onyx, as well as the fact that ONYX ONE studied a far more complex group of patients than other shorter DAPT studies with conventional DES, I personally feel that there will be a preference to use this stent as a result of these data,” added Dr. Kirtane, professor of medicine at Columbia University and director of the coronary catheterization laboratory at New York–Presbyterian Hospital in New York.

The results from Onyx ONE “are critical for changing practice” among U.S. interventionalists, commented Sunil V. Rao, MD, an interventional cardiologist and professor of medicine at Duke University, Durham, N.C. Based on the new findings, U.S. operators performing percutaneous coronary interventions “will feel comfortable stopping DAPT in patients who are at high bleeding risk,” he said in an interview.

Although the results from LEADERS FREE II showed that the BioFreedom stent was superior to a bare-metal stent with 1 month of DAPT in HBR patients, and the results from Onyx ONE showed that the Onyx stent was noninferior to BioFreedom in this setting, “it’s important not to assume that there is a class effect across DES platforms. Each platform has a different drug and different stent design, so the interventional community needs to see these data for each DES,” Dr. Rao maintained.
 

Onyx ONE Clear design

Onyx ONE Clear enrolled a total of 1,506 patients, including more than 1,000 patients who received the Onyx stent in the Onyx ONE trial and an additional 752 patients enrolled in the United States and Japan, but 263 of these patients had an adverse event during their first 30 days or follow-up leaving 1,506 patients eligible to continue into the Onyx ONE Clear analysis, and with 1,491 patients followed through 12 months. Patients were an average age of 74 years, a little over two-thirds were men, 49% had a recent acute coronary syndrome event and 41% had chronic coronary syndrome. The choice of which antiplatelet agent to continue when patients transitioned to SAPT after 30 days on DAPT was left to the discretion of the physicians for each enrolled patient.

One issue these studies did not address was whether 1 month is the ideal duration for DAPT before switching to SAPT in HBR patients following coronary stenting, or whether longer DAPT durations produce even better outcomes. “It was important to establish what happens if we need to stop DAPT early.” The Onyx ONE and Onyx ONE Clear studies “provide much-needed data informing clinicians of the risks and safety of SAPT after 1 month in appropriately selected patients,” Dr. Kirtane said.

“The results do not indicate that all HBR patients should be treated with 1 month [of] DAPT, but instead demonstrate the safety and effectiveness of this strategy when clinically appropriate.” This scenario “is quite common, given that HBR patients represent up to a third” of patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention, Dr. Kandzari said.

Onyx ONE and Onyx ONE Clear were sponsored by Medtronic, the company that markets the Onyx coronary stent. Dr. Kirtane’s institution has received research support from Medtronic, and from Abbott Vascular, Abiomed, Boston Scientific, Cathworks, CSI, Philips, ReCor Medical, and Siemens. Dr. Kandzari has received personal fees and research grants from medtronic, personal fees from Biotronik and Cardiovascular Systems, and research grants from Biotronik, Boston Scientific, and Cardiovascular Systems. Dr. Rao has received personal fees from Medtronic, as well as from CSI and Philips.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Kirtane AJ et al. ACC 2020, Abstract 903-06.

Results from a prospective, multicenter, uncontrolled series of just over 1,500 patients with high bleeding risk who underwent coronary revascularization with a polymer-based, zotarolimus-eluting stent showed that these patients could safely receive dual-antiplatelet therapy (DAPT)for just 1 month.

This finding sets the stage for a new labeled indication for this device and management strategy in this patient population.

Results from the Onyx ONE Clear study “met its primary endpoint, with favorable rates of ischemic outcomes from 1-12 months after DAPT discontinuation within a high risk population of HBR [high-bleeding-risk] patients,” Ajay J. Kirtane, MD, said at the joint scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology and the World Heart Federation. The meeting was conducted online after its cancellation because of the COVID-19 pandemic. The rate of cardiac death or MI during months 1-12 of follow-up while patients were on single-antiplatelet therapy (SAPT) with either aspirin or a P2Y12 inhibitor, usually clopidogrel, was 7.0%, compared with a prespecified performance goal of 9.7% or less, a goal set in consultation with and approval from the Food and Drug Administration based on the results from earlier, short DAPT studies in HBR patients.

“We hope these data will support our submission to the FDA for a 1-month DAPT indication for high-bleeding-risk patients treated with Resolute Onyx,” the polymer-based, zotarolimus-eluting stent tested in the study, said an officer with Medtronic, the company that sponsored this study and markets this stent, in a written statement. Currently, no stent has received a U.S. indication for just 1 month of DAPT treatment.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

“The Onyx ONE Clear study represents the largest analysis of 1-month DAPT among commercially available DES [drug-eluting stents], and extends findings from the Onyx ONE [randomized, controlled trial] assuring the safety of a 1-month DAPT strategy among selected patients with high bleeding risk,” said David E. Kandzari, MD, director of interventional cardiology at Piedmont Healthcare in Atlanta and coprincipal investigator for the study along with Dr. Kirtane.

“Despite the patient complexity included in the study, the observation of a favorably low rate of ischemic events despite abbreviated DAPT is consistent with a theme from other contemporary studies that, among HBR patients, bleeding risk rather than ischemic risk should guide clinical decision making regarding DAPT duration,” Dr. Kandzari said in an interview.
 

Two similar trials

The Onyx ONE Clear results were consistent with findings from a study with a somewhat similar design, LEADERS FREE II, a single-arm study that assessed the safety and efficacy of BioFreedom, a polymer-free umirolimus-coated coronary stent, in HBR patients treated with DAPT for 1 month followed by SAPT.

LEADERS FREE II showed a 12-month cardiac death or MI rate of 8.6% that compared favorably with the 12.3% 1-year rate among similar patients who received bare-metal stents and a similar timing of DAPT and SAPT in a historical control group (Circ Cardiovasc Interv. 2020 Apr 13. doi: 10.1161/CIRCINTERVENTIONS.119.008603). The primary goal of LEADERS FREE II was to serve as the pivotal trial for FDA approval of the BioFreedom stent, but as of May 2020 the FDA had not approved this stent for U.S. use.

Results of another recent study, Onyx ONE, that supplied more than half the patients included in the Onyx ONE Clear analysis, showed that, in a head-to-head comparison of the Onxy and BioFreedom stents in 1,996 HBR patients treated with DAPT for 1 month followed by 11 months of SAPT, the Onyx stent was noninferior for both a primary safety outcome and a secondary efficacy outcome (N Engl J Med. 2020 Mar 26;382[13]:1208-18).

“The major differences” between the Onyx and BioFreedom stents in the patients studied in Onxy ONE Clear and in LEADERS FREE II “lie in the fact that BioFreedom is not approved in the U.S., and that Onyx is a current generation, preferred DES platform for both conventional and HBR patients,” Dr. Kirtane said in an interview.

“Because of the performance characteristics of Onyx, as well as the fact that ONYX ONE studied a far more complex group of patients than other shorter DAPT studies with conventional DES, I personally feel that there will be a preference to use this stent as a result of these data,” added Dr. Kirtane, professor of medicine at Columbia University and director of the coronary catheterization laboratory at New York–Presbyterian Hospital in New York.

The results from Onyx ONE “are critical for changing practice” among U.S. interventionalists, commented Sunil V. Rao, MD, an interventional cardiologist and professor of medicine at Duke University, Durham, N.C. Based on the new findings, U.S. operators performing percutaneous coronary interventions “will feel comfortable stopping DAPT in patients who are at high bleeding risk,” he said in an interview.

Although the results from LEADERS FREE II showed that the BioFreedom stent was superior to a bare-metal stent with 1 month of DAPT in HBR patients, and the results from Onyx ONE showed that the Onyx stent was noninferior to BioFreedom in this setting, “it’s important not to assume that there is a class effect across DES platforms. Each platform has a different drug and different stent design, so the interventional community needs to see these data for each DES,” Dr. Rao maintained.
 

Onyx ONE Clear design

Onyx ONE Clear enrolled a total of 1,506 patients, including more than 1,000 patients who received the Onyx stent in the Onyx ONE trial and an additional 752 patients enrolled in the United States and Japan, but 263 of these patients had an adverse event during their first 30 days or follow-up leaving 1,506 patients eligible to continue into the Onyx ONE Clear analysis, and with 1,491 patients followed through 12 months. Patients were an average age of 74 years, a little over two-thirds were men, 49% had a recent acute coronary syndrome event and 41% had chronic coronary syndrome. The choice of which antiplatelet agent to continue when patients transitioned to SAPT after 30 days on DAPT was left to the discretion of the physicians for each enrolled patient.

One issue these studies did not address was whether 1 month is the ideal duration for DAPT before switching to SAPT in HBR patients following coronary stenting, or whether longer DAPT durations produce even better outcomes. “It was important to establish what happens if we need to stop DAPT early.” The Onyx ONE and Onyx ONE Clear studies “provide much-needed data informing clinicians of the risks and safety of SAPT after 1 month in appropriately selected patients,” Dr. Kirtane said.

“The results do not indicate that all HBR patients should be treated with 1 month [of] DAPT, but instead demonstrate the safety and effectiveness of this strategy when clinically appropriate.” This scenario “is quite common, given that HBR patients represent up to a third” of patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention, Dr. Kandzari said.

Onyx ONE and Onyx ONE Clear were sponsored by Medtronic, the company that markets the Onyx coronary stent. Dr. Kirtane’s institution has received research support from Medtronic, and from Abbott Vascular, Abiomed, Boston Scientific, Cathworks, CSI, Philips, ReCor Medical, and Siemens. Dr. Kandzari has received personal fees and research grants from medtronic, personal fees from Biotronik and Cardiovascular Systems, and research grants from Biotronik, Boston Scientific, and Cardiovascular Systems. Dr. Rao has received personal fees from Medtronic, as well as from CSI and Philips.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Kirtane AJ et al. ACC 2020, Abstract 903-06.

Patients with atrial fibrillation, even those on oral anticoagulant therapy, developed clinically silent brain infarctions at a striking rate of close to 3% per year, according to results from SWISS-AF, a prospective of study of 1,227 Swiss patients followed with serial MR brain scans over a 2 year period.

The results also showed that these brain infarctions – which occurred in 68 (5.5%) of the atrial fibrillation (AFib) patients, including 58 (85%) who did not have any strokes or transient ischemic attacks during follow-up – appeared to represent enough pathology to link with a small but statistically significant decline in three separate cognitive measures, compared with patients who did not develop brain infarctions during follow-up.

“Cognitive decline may go unrecognized for a long time in clinical practice because usually no one tests for it,” plus “the absolute declines were small and probably not appreciable” in the everyday behavior of affected patients, David Conen, MD, said at the annual scientific sessions of the Heart Rhythm Society, held online because of COVID-19. But “we were surprised to see a significant change after just 2 years. We expect much larger effects to develop over time,” he said during a press briefing.

Another key finding was that roughly half the patients had large cortical or noncortical infarcts, which usually have a thromboembolic cause, but the other half had small noncortical infarcts that likely have a different etiology involving the microvasculature. Causes for those small infarcts might include localized atherosclerotic disease or amyloidosis, proposed Dr. Conen, a cardiologist at McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont.

This finding also suggests that, as a consequence, anticoagulation alone may not be enough to prevent this brain damage in Afib patients. “It calls for a more comprehensive approach to prevention,” with attention to atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease risk factors in AFib patients, including interventions that address hypertension, diabetes, hyperlipidemia, and smoking cessation. “Anticoagulation in AFib patients is critical, but it also is not enough,” Dr. Conen said.

These data “are very important. The two pillars for taking care of AFib patients have traditionally been to manage the patient’s stroke risk and to treat symptoms. Dr. Conen’s data suggest that simply starting anticoagulation is not sufficient, and it stresses the importance of continued management of hypertension, diabetes, and other medical and social issues,” commented Fred Kusumoto, MD, director of heart rhythm services at the Mayo Clinic in Jacksonville, Fla.

“The risk factors associated with the development of cardiovascular disease are similar to those associated with the development of AFib and heart failure. It is important to understand the importance of managing hypertension, diabetes, and obesity; encouraging exercise and a healthy diet; and stopping smoking in all AFib patients as well as in the general population. Many clinicians have not emphasized the importance of continually addressing these behaviors,” Dr. Kusumoto said in an interview.

The SWISS-AF (Swiss Atrial Fibrillation Cohort) study enrolled 2,415 AFib patients at 14 Swiss centers during 2014-2017, and obtained both a baseline brain MR scan and baseline cognitive-test results for 1,737 patients (J Am Coll Cardiol. 2019 Mar;73[9]:989-99). Patients retook the cognitive tests annually, and 1,227 had a second MR brain scan after 2 years in the study, the cohort that supplied the data Dr. Conen presented. At baseline, these patients averaged 71 years of age, just over a quarter were women, and 90% were on an oral anticoagulant, with 84% on an oral anticoagulant at 2-year follow-up. Treatment split roughly equally between direct-acting oral anticoagulants and vitamin K antagonists like warfarin.

Among the 68 patients with evidence for an incident brain infarct after 2 years, 59 (87%) were on treatment with an OAC, and 51 (75%) who were both on treatment with a direct-acting oral anticoagulant and developed their brain infarct without also having a stroke or transient ischemic attack, which Dr. Conen called a “silent event.” The cognitive tests that showed statistically significant declines after 2 years in the patients with silent brain infarcts compared with those without a new infarct were the Trail Making Test parts A and B, and the animal-naming verbal fluency test. The two other tests applied were the Montreal Cognitive Assessment and the Digital Symbol Substitution Test.

Results from several prior studies also indicated a relationship between AFib and cognitive decline, but SWISS-AF is “the largest study to rigorously examine the incidence of silent brain infarcts in AFib patients,” commented Christine M. Albert, MD, chair of cardiology at the Smidt Heart Institute of Cedars-Sinai Medical Center in Los Angeles. “Silent infarcts could be the cause, at least in part, for the cognitive decline and dementia associated with AFib,” she noted. But divining the therapeutic implications of the finding will require further investigation that looks at factors such as the impact of anticoagulant type, other treatment that addresses AFib such as ablation and rate control, the duration and type of AFib, and the prevalence of hypertension and other stroke risk factors, she said as a designated discussant for Dr. Conen’s report.

SWISS-AF received no commercial funding. Dr. Conen has been a speaker on behalf of Servier. Dr. Kusumoto had no disclosures. Dr. Albert has been a consultant to Roche Diagnostics and has received research funding from Abbott, Roche Diagnostics, and St. Jude Medical.

[email protected]

Patients with atrial fibrillation, even those on oral anticoagulant therapy, developed clinically silent brain infarctions at a striking rate of close to 3% per year, according to results from SWISS-AF, a prospective of study of 1,227 Swiss patients followed with serial MR brain scans over a 2 year period.

The results also showed that these brain infarctions – which occurred in 68 (5.5%) of the atrial fibrillation (AFib) patients, including 58 (85%) who did not have any strokes or transient ischemic attacks during follow-up – appeared to represent enough pathology to link with a small but statistically significant decline in three separate cognitive measures, compared with patients who did not develop brain infarctions during follow-up.

“Cognitive decline may go unrecognized for a long time in clinical practice because usually no one tests for it,” plus “the absolute declines were small and probably not appreciable” in the everyday behavior of affected patients, David Conen, MD, said at the annual scientific sessions of the Heart Rhythm Society, held online because of COVID-19. But “we were surprised to see a significant change after just 2 years. We expect much larger effects to develop over time,” he said during a press briefing.

Another key finding was that roughly half the patients had large cortical or noncortical infarcts, which usually have a thromboembolic cause, but the other half had small noncortical infarcts that likely have a different etiology involving the microvasculature. Causes for those small infarcts might include localized atherosclerotic disease or amyloidosis, proposed Dr. Conen, a cardiologist at McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont.

This finding also suggests that, as a consequence, anticoagulation alone may not be enough to prevent this brain damage in Afib patients. “It calls for a more comprehensive approach to prevention,” with attention to atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease risk factors in AFib patients, including interventions that address hypertension, diabetes, hyperlipidemia, and smoking cessation. “Anticoagulation in AFib patients is critical, but it also is not enough,” Dr. Conen said.

These data “are very important. The two pillars for taking care of AFib patients have traditionally been to manage the patient’s stroke risk and to treat symptoms. Dr. Conen’s data suggest that simply starting anticoagulation is not sufficient, and it stresses the importance of continued management of hypertension, diabetes, and other medical and social issues,” commented Fred Kusumoto, MD, director of heart rhythm services at the Mayo Clinic in Jacksonville, Fla.

“The risk factors associated with the development of cardiovascular disease are similar to those associated with the development of AFib and heart failure. It is important to understand the importance of managing hypertension, diabetes, and obesity; encouraging exercise and a healthy diet; and stopping smoking in all AFib patients as well as in the general population. Many clinicians have not emphasized the importance of continually addressing these behaviors,” Dr. Kusumoto said in an interview.

The SWISS-AF (Swiss Atrial Fibrillation Cohort) study enrolled 2,415 AFib patients at 14 Swiss centers during 2014-2017, and obtained both a baseline brain MR scan and baseline cognitive-test results for 1,737 patients (J Am Coll Cardiol. 2019 Mar;73[9]:989-99). Patients retook the cognitive tests annually, and 1,227 had a second MR brain scan after 2 years in the study, the cohort that supplied the data Dr. Conen presented. At baseline, these patients averaged 71 years of age, just over a quarter were women, and 90% were on an oral anticoagulant, with 84% on an oral anticoagulant at 2-year follow-up. Treatment split roughly equally between direct-acting oral anticoagulants and vitamin K antagonists like warfarin.

Among the 68 patients with evidence for an incident brain infarct after 2 years, 59 (87%) were on treatment with an OAC, and 51 (75%) who were both on treatment with a direct-acting oral anticoagulant and developed their brain infarct without also having a stroke or transient ischemic attack, which Dr. Conen called a “silent event.” The cognitive tests that showed statistically significant declines after 2 years in the patients with silent brain infarcts compared with those without a new infarct were the Trail Making Test parts A and B, and the animal-naming verbal fluency test. The two other tests applied were the Montreal Cognitive Assessment and the Digital Symbol Substitution Test.

Results from several prior studies also indicated a relationship between AFib and cognitive decline, but SWISS-AF is “the largest study to rigorously examine the incidence of silent brain infarcts in AFib patients,” commented Christine M. Albert, MD, chair of cardiology at the Smidt Heart Institute of Cedars-Sinai Medical Center in Los Angeles. “Silent infarcts could be the cause, at least in part, for the cognitive decline and dementia associated with AFib,” she noted. But divining the therapeutic implications of the finding will require further investigation that looks at factors such as the impact of anticoagulant type, other treatment that addresses AFib such as ablation and rate control, the duration and type of AFib, and the prevalence of hypertension and other stroke risk factors, she said as a designated discussant for Dr. Conen’s report.

SWISS-AF received no commercial funding. Dr. Conen has been a speaker on behalf of Servier. Dr. Kusumoto had no disclosures. Dr. Albert has been a consultant to Roche Diagnostics and has received research funding from Abbott, Roche Diagnostics, and St. Jude Medical.

[email protected]

Patients with atrial fibrillation, even those on oral anticoagulant therapy, developed clinically silent brain infarctions at a striking rate of close to 3% per year, according to results from SWISS-AF, a prospective of study of 1,227 Swiss patients followed with serial MR brain scans over a 2 year period.

The results also showed that these brain infarctions – which occurred in 68 (5.5%) of the atrial fibrillation (AFib) patients, including 58 (85%) who did not have any strokes or transient ischemic attacks during follow-up – appeared to represent enough pathology to link with a small but statistically significant decline in three separate cognitive measures, compared with patients who did not develop brain infarctions during follow-up.

“Cognitive decline may go unrecognized for a long time in clinical practice because usually no one tests for it,” plus “the absolute declines were small and probably not appreciable” in the everyday behavior of affected patients, David Conen, MD, said at the annual scientific sessions of the Heart Rhythm Society, held online because of COVID-19. But “we were surprised to see a significant change after just 2 years. We expect much larger effects to develop over time,” he said during a press briefing.

Another key finding was that roughly half the patients had large cortical or noncortical infarcts, which usually have a thromboembolic cause, but the other half had small noncortical infarcts that likely have a different etiology involving the microvasculature. Causes for those small infarcts might include localized atherosclerotic disease or amyloidosis, proposed Dr. Conen, a cardiologist at McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont.

This finding also suggests that, as a consequence, anticoagulation alone may not be enough to prevent this brain damage in Afib patients. “It calls for a more comprehensive approach to prevention,” with attention to atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease risk factors in AFib patients, including interventions that address hypertension, diabetes, hyperlipidemia, and smoking cessation. “Anticoagulation in AFib patients is critical, but it also is not enough,” Dr. Conen said.

These data “are very important. The two pillars for taking care of AFib patients have traditionally been to manage the patient’s stroke risk and to treat symptoms. Dr. Conen’s data suggest that simply starting anticoagulation is not sufficient, and it stresses the importance of continued management of hypertension, diabetes, and other medical and social issues,” commented Fred Kusumoto, MD, director of heart rhythm services at the Mayo Clinic in Jacksonville, Fla.

“The risk factors associated with the development of cardiovascular disease are similar to those associated with the development of AFib and heart failure. It is important to understand the importance of managing hypertension, diabetes, and obesity; encouraging exercise and a healthy diet; and stopping smoking in all AFib patients as well as in the general population. Many clinicians have not emphasized the importance of continually addressing these behaviors,” Dr. Kusumoto said in an interview.

The SWISS-AF (Swiss Atrial Fibrillation Cohort) study enrolled 2,415 AFib patients at 14 Swiss centers during 2014-2017, and obtained both a baseline brain MR scan and baseline cognitive-test results for 1,737 patients (J Am Coll Cardiol. 2019 Mar;73[9]:989-99). Patients retook the cognitive tests annually, and 1,227 had a second MR brain scan after 2 years in the study, the cohort that supplied the data Dr. Conen presented. At baseline, these patients averaged 71 years of age, just over a quarter were women, and 90% were on an oral anticoagulant, with 84% on an oral anticoagulant at 2-year follow-up. Treatment split roughly equally between direct-acting oral anticoagulants and vitamin K antagonists like warfarin.

Among the 68 patients with evidence for an incident brain infarct after 2 years, 59 (87%) were on treatment with an OAC, and 51 (75%) who were both on treatment with a direct-acting oral anticoagulant and developed their brain infarct without also having a stroke or transient ischemic attack, which Dr. Conen called a “silent event.” The cognitive tests that showed statistically significant declines after 2 years in the patients with silent brain infarcts compared with those without a new infarct were the Trail Making Test parts A and B, and the animal-naming verbal fluency test. The two other tests applied were the Montreal Cognitive Assessment and the Digital Symbol Substitution Test.

Results from several prior studies also indicated a relationship between AFib and cognitive decline, but SWISS-AF is “the largest study to rigorously examine the incidence of silent brain infarcts in AFib patients,” commented Christine M. Albert, MD, chair of cardiology at the Smidt Heart Institute of Cedars-Sinai Medical Center in Los Angeles. “Silent infarcts could be the cause, at least in part, for the cognitive decline and dementia associated with AFib,” she noted. But divining the therapeutic implications of the finding will require further investigation that looks at factors such as the impact of anticoagulant type, other treatment that addresses AFib such as ablation and rate control, the duration and type of AFib, and the prevalence of hypertension and other stroke risk factors, she said as a designated discussant for Dr. Conen’s report.

SWISS-AF received no commercial funding. Dr. Conen has been a speaker on behalf of Servier. Dr. Kusumoto had no disclosures. Dr. Albert has been a consultant to Roche Diagnostics and has received research funding from Abbott, Roche Diagnostics, and St. Jude Medical.

[email protected]

Patients with an indication for an implantable cardiac defibrillator for primary prevention of sudden cardiac death and a sharply reduced left ventricular ejection fraction of 35% or less safely received treatment from a refined, subcutaneous device that produced one of the lowest rates of inappropriate cardiac shocks ever seen in a reported ICD study, in a single-arm trial with 1,111 patients followed for 18 months.

The results showed “high efficacy and safety with contemporary devices and programming” despite being “the ‘sickest’ cohort studied to date” for use of a subcutaneous ICD (S-ICD), Michael R. Gold, MD, said at the annual scientific sessions of the Heart Rhythm Society, held online because of COVID-19. The 3.1% 1-year rate of patients who received at least one inappropriate shock was “the lowest reported for the S-ICD, and lower than in many transvenous ICD device studies,” and was also “the lowest 1-year rate reported to date for a multicenter ICD trial,” said Dr. Gold, a cardiac electrophysiologist and professor of medicine at the Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston. The upshot is that these data may help convince clinicians to be more liberal about offering a S-ICD device to patients with left ventricular function in this low range who need an ICD and do not need pacing.

The study’s primary endpoint was the rate of freedom from inappropriate shocks during 18 months of follow-up, which happened in 95.9% of patients and was highly statistically significant for meeting the prespecified performance goal of 91.6% that had been set using “standard Food and Drug Administration benchmarks,” with particular reliance on the performance shown in the MADIT-RIT trial (N Engl J Med. 2012 Dec 13;367[24]:2275-83).
 

S-ICDs maintain ‘niche’ status despite advantages

The S-ICD first received Food and Drug Administration clearance for U.S. use in 2012, but despite not requiring placement of a transvenous lead and thus eliminating the possibility for lead complications and deterioration, it so far has had very modest penetration into American practice. Recently, roughly 4% of U.S. patients who’ve received an ICD have had a subcutaneous model placed, relegating the S-ICD to “niche device” status, noted Andrea M. Russo, MD, director of electrophysiology and arrhythmia services at Cooper University Health Care in Camden, N.J. A major limitation of S-ICD devices is that they cannot provide chronic pacing and so aren’t an option for the many patients who also need this function in addition to protection from life-threatening ventricular arrhythmias.

“We have had a bias for whom we place an S-ICD,” explained Dr. Gold. “They have mostly been used in younger patients with less heart disease,” but when used in the current study cohort with markedly depressed heart function, the results showed that “we didn’t appear to harm patients in any way,” including no episodes of syncope because of an arrhythmia. Compared with other S-ICD studies, the patients in the new study, UNTOUCHED, had “lower ejection fractions, more heart failure diagnoses, and a higher rate of ischemic etiology.”

The tested S-ICD device appears to have safety and efficacy that is “just as good, and perhaps better” than many ICDs that use transvenous leads, “which was very surprising to us,” said Dr. Gold during a press briefing. “I think it will change practice” for ICD placement in patients who do not need pacing. “We found the device works even in the sickest patients.”

“This was a classic ICD population, with a low ejection fraction, and the results showed that the device performed well,” commented Dr. Russo, who served on the steering committee for the study. “I agree that the results will help” increase use of this device, but she added that other factors in addition to concerns about the inappropriate shock rate and the lack of most pacing functions have hobbled uptake since the device came on the market. These notably include a somewhat different placement approach than operators need to learn. The device is not always offered as an option to patients by their clinicians “in part because of their lack of familiarity, and concern about inappropriate shocks,” she said in an interview. That’s despite the clear attractions of a leaderless device, which obviates issues of lead deterioration, lead placement complications like perforations and pneumothorax, and sizing issues that can come up for women with narrower veins, as well as cutting the risk both for infections overall and for infections that progress to bacteremia, noted Dr. Russo, who is president of the Heart Rhythm Society.
 

Device improvements boost performance

The low 1-year and 18-month rates of inappropriate shocks likely occurred because of new filtering and programming incorporated into the tested device. “By changing the filter, we could make it more like a transvenous device” that is not fooled by T wave over sensing. The programing also included a high beat threshold, with a conditional zone above 200 beats per minute and an “aggressive shock zone” of 250 bpm, Dr. Gold said. This helped make the tested S-ICD more immune to inappropriately shocking a supraventricular arrhythmia; the study recorded no inappropriate shocks of this type, he reported.

The UNTOUCHED study enrolled 1,116 patients at any of 110 sites in the United States and elsewhere who had a need for primary prevention of sudden cardiac death, a left ventricular ejection fraction of 35% or less, no need for pacing, and had successfully passed an S-ICD screening test. The investigators were able to include 1,111 of these patients in their endpoint analysis. Patients averaged 56 years of age, a quarter were women, and their average ejection fraction was 26%.

In addition to the primary endpoint and the 1-year inappropriate-shock rate, the results also showed an all-cause shock-free rate of 90.6% during 18-months’ follow-up, which significantly surpassed the prespecified performance goal for this metric of 85.8%. The tested device also appeared to successfully apply appropriate shocks when needed, delivering a total of 64 of these with just 1 shock failure, a case where the patient spontaneously reverted to normal rhythm. During the study period, 53 patients died (5%), including 3 arrhythmia-related deaths: 1 caused by asystole and 2 from pulseless electrical activity.

“The data show that in a standard ICD population, the device worked well, and was safe and effective,” Dr. Russo said. “These data say, at least consider this device along with a transvenous device” for appropriate patients. “It’s a great option for some patients. I’ve seen so may lead problems, and this avoids them.”

UNTOUCHED was sponsored by Boston Scientific, the company that markets the tested S-ICD. Dr. Gold has been a consultant to Boston Scientific and Medtronic and has been an investigator for trials sponsored by each of these companies. Dr. Russo served on the steering committee for UNTOUCHED but received no compensation and has no financial disclosures.

[email protected]

Patients with an indication for an implantable cardiac defibrillator for primary prevention of sudden cardiac death and a sharply reduced left ventricular ejection fraction of 35% or less safely received treatment from a refined, subcutaneous device that produced one of the lowest rates of inappropriate cardiac shocks ever seen in a reported ICD study, in a single-arm trial with 1,111 patients followed for 18 months.

The results showed “high efficacy and safety with contemporary devices and programming” despite being “the ‘sickest’ cohort studied to date” for use of a subcutaneous ICD (S-ICD), Michael R. Gold, MD, said at the annual scientific sessions of the Heart Rhythm Society, held online because of COVID-19. The 3.1% 1-year rate of patients who received at least one inappropriate shock was “the lowest reported for the S-ICD, and lower than in many transvenous ICD device studies,” and was also “the lowest 1-year rate reported to date for a multicenter ICD trial,” said Dr. Gold, a cardiac electrophysiologist and professor of medicine at the Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston. The upshot is that these data may help convince clinicians to be more liberal about offering a S-ICD device to patients with left ventricular function in this low range who need an ICD and do not need pacing.

The study’s primary endpoint was the rate of freedom from inappropriate shocks during 18 months of follow-up, which happened in 95.9% of patients and was highly statistically significant for meeting the prespecified performance goal of 91.6% that had been set using “standard Food and Drug Administration benchmarks,” with particular reliance on the performance shown in the MADIT-RIT trial (N Engl J Med. 2012 Dec 13;367[24]:2275-83).
 

S-ICDs maintain ‘niche’ status despite advantages

The S-ICD first received Food and Drug Administration clearance for U.S. use in 2012, but despite not requiring placement of a transvenous lead and thus eliminating the possibility for lead complications and deterioration, it so far has had very modest penetration into American practice. Recently, roughly 4% of U.S. patients who’ve received an ICD have had a subcutaneous model placed, relegating the S-ICD to “niche device” status, noted Andrea M. Russo, MD, director of electrophysiology and arrhythmia services at Cooper University Health Care in Camden, N.J. A major limitation of S-ICD devices is that they cannot provide chronic pacing and so aren’t an option for the many patients who also need this function in addition to protection from life-threatening ventricular arrhythmias.

“We have had a bias for whom we place an S-ICD,” explained Dr. Gold. “They have mostly been used in younger patients with less heart disease,” but when used in the current study cohort with markedly depressed heart function, the results showed that “we didn’t appear to harm patients in any way,” including no episodes of syncope because of an arrhythmia. Compared with other S-ICD studies, the patients in the new study, UNTOUCHED, had “lower ejection fractions, more heart failure diagnoses, and a higher rate of ischemic etiology.”

The tested S-ICD device appears to have safety and efficacy that is “just as good, and perhaps better” than many ICDs that use transvenous leads, “which was very surprising to us,” said Dr. Gold during a press briefing. “I think it will change practice” for ICD placement in patients who do not need pacing. “We found the device works even in the sickest patients.”

“This was a classic ICD population, with a low ejection fraction, and the results showed that the device performed well,” commented Dr. Russo, who served on the steering committee for the study. “I agree that the results will help” increase use of this device, but she added that other factors in addition to concerns about the inappropriate shock rate and the lack of most pacing functions have hobbled uptake since the device came on the market. These notably include a somewhat different placement approach than operators need to learn. The device is not always offered as an option to patients by their clinicians “in part because of their lack of familiarity, and concern about inappropriate shocks,” she said in an interview. That’s despite the clear attractions of a leaderless device, which obviates issues of lead deterioration, lead placement complications like perforations and pneumothorax, and sizing issues that can come up for women with narrower veins, as well as cutting the risk both for infections overall and for infections that progress to bacteremia, noted Dr. Russo, who is president of the Heart Rhythm Society.
 

Device improvements boost performance

The low 1-year and 18-month rates of inappropriate shocks likely occurred because of new filtering and programming incorporated into the tested device. “By changing the filter, we could make it more like a transvenous device” that is not fooled by T wave over sensing. The programing also included a high beat threshold, with a conditional zone above 200 beats per minute and an “aggressive shock zone” of 250 bpm, Dr. Gold said. This helped make the tested S-ICD more immune to inappropriately shocking a supraventricular arrhythmia; the study recorded no inappropriate shocks of this type, he reported.

The UNTOUCHED study enrolled 1,116 patients at any of 110 sites in the United States and elsewhere who had a need for primary prevention of sudden cardiac death, a left ventricular ejection fraction of 35% or less, no need for pacing, and had successfully passed an S-ICD screening test. The investigators were able to include 1,111 of these patients in their endpoint analysis. Patients averaged 56 years of age, a quarter were women, and their average ejection fraction was 26%.

In addition to the primary endpoint and the 1-year inappropriate-shock rate, the results also showed an all-cause shock-free rate of 90.6% during 18-months’ follow-up, which significantly surpassed the prespecified performance goal for this metric of 85.8%. The tested device also appeared to successfully apply appropriate shocks when needed, delivering a total of 64 of these with just 1 shock failure, a case where the patient spontaneously reverted to normal rhythm. During the study period, 53 patients died (5%), including 3 arrhythmia-related deaths: 1 caused by asystole and 2 from pulseless electrical activity.

“The data show that in a standard ICD population, the device worked well, and was safe and effective,” Dr. Russo said. “These data say, at least consider this device along with a transvenous device” for appropriate patients. “It’s a great option for some patients. I’ve seen so may lead problems, and this avoids them.”

UNTOUCHED was sponsored by Boston Scientific, the company that markets the tested S-ICD. Dr. Gold has been a consultant to Boston Scientific and Medtronic and has been an investigator for trials sponsored by each of these companies. Dr. Russo served on the steering committee for UNTOUCHED but received no compensation and has no financial disclosures.

[email protected]

Patients with an indication for an implantable cardiac defibrillator for primary prevention of sudden cardiac death and a sharply reduced left ventricular ejection fraction of 35% or less safely received treatment from a refined, subcutaneous device that produced one of the lowest rates of inappropriate cardiac shocks ever seen in a reported ICD study, in a single-arm trial with 1,111 patients followed for 18 months.

The results showed “high efficacy and safety with contemporary devices and programming” despite being “the ‘sickest’ cohort studied to date” for use of a subcutaneous ICD (S-ICD), Michael R. Gold, MD, said at the annual scientific sessions of the Heart Rhythm Society, held online because of COVID-19. The 3.1% 1-year rate of patients who received at least one inappropriate shock was “the lowest reported for the S-ICD, and lower than in many transvenous ICD device studies,” and was also “the lowest 1-year rate reported to date for a multicenter ICD trial,” said Dr. Gold, a cardiac electrophysiologist and professor of medicine at the Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston. The upshot is that these data may help convince clinicians to be more liberal about offering a S-ICD device to patients with left ventricular function in this low range who need an ICD and do not need pacing.

The study’s primary endpoint was the rate of freedom from inappropriate shocks during 18 months of follow-up, which happened in 95.9% of patients and was highly statistically significant for meeting the prespecified performance goal of 91.6% that had been set using “standard Food and Drug Administration benchmarks,” with particular reliance on the performance shown in the MADIT-RIT trial (N Engl J Med. 2012 Dec 13;367[24]:2275-83).
 

S-ICDs maintain ‘niche’ status despite advantages

The S-ICD first received Food and Drug Administration clearance for U.S. use in 2012, but despite not requiring placement of a transvenous lead and thus eliminating the possibility for lead complications and deterioration, it so far has had very modest penetration into American practice. Recently, roughly 4% of U.S. patients who’ve received an ICD have had a subcutaneous model placed, relegating the S-ICD to “niche device” status, noted Andrea M. Russo, MD, director of electrophysiology and arrhythmia services at Cooper University Health Care in Camden, N.J. A major limitation of S-ICD devices is that they cannot provide chronic pacing and so aren’t an option for the many patients who also need this function in addition to protection from life-threatening ventricular arrhythmias.

“We have had a bias for whom we place an S-ICD,” explained Dr. Gold. “They have mostly been used in younger patients with less heart disease,” but when used in the current study cohort with markedly depressed heart function, the results showed that “we didn’t appear to harm patients in any way,” including no episodes of syncope because of an arrhythmia. Compared with other S-ICD studies, the patients in the new study, UNTOUCHED, had “lower ejection fractions, more heart failure diagnoses, and a higher rate of ischemic etiology.”

The tested S-ICD device appears to have safety and efficacy that is “just as good, and perhaps better” than many ICDs that use transvenous leads, “which was very surprising to us,” said Dr. Gold during a press briefing. “I think it will change practice” for ICD placement in patients who do not need pacing. “We found the device works even in the sickest patients.”

“This was a classic ICD population, with a low ejection fraction, and the results showed that the device performed well,” commented Dr. Russo, who served on the steering committee for the study. “I agree that the results will help” increase use of this device, but she added that other factors in addition to concerns about the inappropriate shock rate and the lack of most pacing functions have hobbled uptake since the device came on the market. These notably include a somewhat different placement approach than operators need to learn. The device is not always offered as an option to patients by their clinicians “in part because of their lack of familiarity, and concern about inappropriate shocks,” she said in an interview. That’s despite the clear attractions of a leaderless device, which obviates issues of lead deterioration, lead placement complications like perforations and pneumothorax, and sizing issues that can come up for women with narrower veins, as well as cutting the risk both for infections overall and for infections that progress to bacteremia, noted Dr. Russo, who is president of the Heart Rhythm Society.
 

Device improvements boost performance

The low 1-year and 18-month rates of inappropriate shocks likely occurred because of new filtering and programming incorporated into the tested device. “By changing the filter, we could make it more like a transvenous device” that is not fooled by T wave over sensing. The programing also included a high beat threshold, with a conditional zone above 200 beats per minute and an “aggressive shock zone” of 250 bpm, Dr. Gold said. This helped make the tested S-ICD more immune to inappropriately shocking a supraventricular arrhythmia; the study recorded no inappropriate shocks of this type, he reported.

The UNTOUCHED study enrolled 1,116 patients at any of 110 sites in the United States and elsewhere who had a need for primary prevention of sudden cardiac death, a left ventricular ejection fraction of 35% or less, no need for pacing, and had successfully passed an S-ICD screening test. The investigators were able to include 1,111 of these patients in their endpoint analysis. Patients averaged 56 years of age, a quarter were women, and their average ejection fraction was 26%.

In addition to the primary endpoint and the 1-year inappropriate-shock rate, the results also showed an all-cause shock-free rate of 90.6% during 18-months’ follow-up, which significantly surpassed the prespecified performance goal for this metric of 85.8%. The tested device also appeared to successfully apply appropriate shocks when needed, delivering a total of 64 of these with just 1 shock failure, a case where the patient spontaneously reverted to normal rhythm. During the study period, 53 patients died (5%), including 3 arrhythmia-related deaths: 1 caused by asystole and 2 from pulseless electrical activity.

“The data show that in a standard ICD population, the device worked well, and was safe and effective,” Dr. Russo said. “These data say, at least consider this device along with a transvenous device” for appropriate patients. “It’s a great option for some patients. I’ve seen so may lead problems, and this avoids them.”

UNTOUCHED was sponsored by Boston Scientific, the company that markets the tested S-ICD. Dr. Gold has been a consultant to Boston Scientific and Medtronic and has been an investigator for trials sponsored by each of these companies. Dr. Russo served on the steering committee for UNTOUCHED but received no compensation and has no financial disclosures.

[email protected]

Moderate, daily coffee consumption had no apparent adverse effect for triggering incident heart arrhythmias, and even linked with a small but statistically significant drop in arrhythmias in an analysis of prospectively collected data from nearly 300,000 U.K. residents.

“In this large, population-based, prospective study, moderate habitual coffee drinking was associated with a lower risk of arrhythmia,” EunJeong Kim, MD, said at the annual scientific sessions of the Heart Rhythm Society, held online because of COVID-19.

Her analysis found that on average each additional daily cup of coffee that people said they drank reduced the incidence of arrhythmic episodes by a statistically significant 3%, compared with those who drank fewer daily cups. The relationship held for people who reported drinking as many as five or six cups of coffee daily.

“The main message of our study is that it does not appear to be deleterious to continue with moderate amounts of habitual coffee intake regarding a risk of overall arrhythmia,” said Dr. Kim, a cardiac electrophysiologist at the University of California, San Francisco.

Evidence builds for coffee’s safety

The finding adds to a substantial existing evidence base documenting the safety of moderate, habitual coffee drinking when it comes to heart rhythms. For example, a recent report from the Physicians Health Study of nearly 19,000 American men showed a statistically significant decrease in the incidence of atrial fibrillation during an average follow-up of 9 years among men who reported drinking one to three cups of coffee daily (J Am Heart Assoc. 2019 Aug 6;8[15]:e011346). In addition, a recent review of several reports found that “mild-to-moderate habitual consumption of caffeinated beverages, particularly a daily intake of 2-3 cups of coffee or tea, appears to be safe across a broad range of cardiovascular conditions, and may even be beneficial with respect to diabetes mellitus, atherosclerosis, heart failure, arrhythmia and total mortality,” but also concluded that “acute consumption of high doses of caffeine, particularly in the form of energy drinks, is best avoided”(Trends Cardiovasc Med. 2019 Aug;29[6]:345-50). Specifically about cardiac arrhythmias, the review said “while caffeine is commonly considered a trigger for arrhythmias by physicians and patients alike there is minimal evidence to support this misconception. Rather caffeine is associated with a mild reduction in the incidence of atrial fibrillation in observational studies.”

“There has been a lot of public interest about a possible association of caffeine and arrhythmias,” but an adverse effect from daily consumption of a moderate amount of coffee “is more legend and anecdote than fact based,” commented Andrew D. Krahn, MD, an electrophysiologist, professor of medicine, and head of cardiology at the University of British Columbia and St. Paul’s Hospital in Vancouver. “Increasingly we’re finding that there really is nothing here” when the proarrhythmic effects of moderate coffee undergo detailed assessment, he said in an interview.
 

What the study did

The study run by Dr. Kim and her associates used prospectively collected data from 296,227 participants in the UK Biobank during 2006-2016 who had complete data on their coffee intake and for the other covariables used in the analysis. During an average 5.25 years of follow-up, these people had more than 13,000 incident arrhythmic events, including 4,748 episodes of atrial fibrillation or flutter and 798 supraventricular tachycardia events, as well as fewer numbers of ventricular arrhythmias and many episodes of less clinically relevant events like skipped beats.

The multivariate analysis the researchers ran controlled for more than 20 demographic, lifestyle, and clinical variables, including adjustment for tea intake but not for consumption of other caffeine-containing drinks.

The adjusted analysis showed an average, statistically significant 3% incremental drop in both all incident arrhythmias and in incident atrial fibrillation episodes for each additional cup of coffee drunk a day, for up to 6 daily cups.

A strength of this study is that it included a large number of people, Dr. Krahn noted, and “the UK Biobank includes a very diverse, community-based sample” of people, said Dr. Kim. The analysis excluded people with prevalent arrhythmia at baseline, so the study couldn’t address the impact of coffee consumption in this setting. A limitation of the study is that participants in the UK Biobank are all volunteers, which could result in a selection bias, Dr. Krahn said.
 

What it tells us

While the main message from the results is that moderate daily coffee drinking is not arrhythmogenic, “it is also possible that coffee is beneficial” based on the small but statistically significant decline in new-onset events, Dr. Kim added. “Multiple studies revealed that caffeine and potentially other constituents in coffee have antioxidant and anti-inflammatory properties. Multiple studies have reported the potential benefit of coffee in multiple chronic medical conditions such as cardiovascular disease, diabetes, and certain types of cancers, as well as for all-cause mortality.”

“It’s plausible that a moderate amount of coffee intake a day will not cause big physiologic changes, and moderate coffee intake may link with other characteristics” of moderate behavior that result in average or better than average outcomes, Dr. Krahn commented. “These results add to the existing data in a different and large population,” which strengthens the case that moderate coffee intake isn’t harmful, he said.

The study received no commercial funding. Dr. Kim and Dr. Krahn had no disclosures. The senior author on Dr. Kim’s study, Gregory M. Marcus, MD, has been a consultant to Johnson & Johnson and Incardia, has an equity interest in Incardia, and has received research funding from Baylis, Eight Sleep, and Medtronic.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Kim EJ et al. Heart Rhythm 2020, abstract D-PO01-032.

Moderate, daily coffee consumption had no apparent adverse effect for triggering incident heart arrhythmias, and even linked with a small but statistically significant drop in arrhythmias in an analysis of prospectively collected data from nearly 300,000 U.K. residents.

“In this large, population-based, prospective study, moderate habitual coffee drinking was associated with a lower risk of arrhythmia,” EunJeong Kim, MD, said at the annual scientific sessions of the Heart Rhythm Society, held online because of COVID-19.

Her analysis found that on average each additional daily cup of coffee that people said they drank reduced the incidence of arrhythmic episodes by a statistically significant 3%, compared with those who drank fewer daily cups. The relationship held for people who reported drinking as many as five or six cups of coffee daily.

“The main message of our study is that it does not appear to be deleterious to continue with moderate amounts of habitual coffee intake regarding a risk of overall arrhythmia,” said Dr. Kim, a cardiac electrophysiologist at the University of California, San Francisco.

Evidence builds for coffee’s safety

The finding adds to a substantial existing evidence base documenting the safety of moderate, habitual coffee drinking when it comes to heart rhythms. For example, a recent report from the Physicians Health Study of nearly 19,000 American men showed a statistically significant decrease in the incidence of atrial fibrillation during an average follow-up of 9 years among men who reported drinking one to three cups of coffee daily (J Am Heart Assoc. 2019 Aug 6;8[15]:e011346). In addition, a recent review of several reports found that “mild-to-moderate habitual consumption of caffeinated beverages, particularly a daily intake of 2-3 cups of coffee or tea, appears to be safe across a broad range of cardiovascular conditions, and may even be beneficial with respect to diabetes mellitus, atherosclerosis, heart failure, arrhythmia and total mortality,” but also concluded that “acute consumption of high doses of caffeine, particularly in the form of energy drinks, is best avoided”(Trends Cardiovasc Med. 2019 Aug;29[6]:345-50). Specifically about cardiac arrhythmias, the review said “while caffeine is commonly considered a trigger for arrhythmias by physicians and patients alike there is minimal evidence to support this misconception. Rather caffeine is associated with a mild reduction in the incidence of atrial fibrillation in observational studies.”

“There has been a lot of public interest about a possible association of caffeine and arrhythmias,” but an adverse effect from daily consumption of a moderate amount of coffee “is more legend and anecdote than fact based,” commented Andrew D. Krahn, MD, an electrophysiologist, professor of medicine, and head of cardiology at the University of British Columbia and St. Paul’s Hospital in Vancouver. “Increasingly we’re finding that there really is nothing here” when the proarrhythmic effects of moderate coffee undergo detailed assessment, he said in an interview.
 

What the study did

The study run by Dr. Kim and her associates used prospectively collected data from 296,227 participants in the UK Biobank during 2006-2016 who had complete data on their coffee intake and for the other covariables used in the analysis. During an average 5.25 years of follow-up, these people had more than 13,000 incident arrhythmic events, including 4,748 episodes of atrial fibrillation or flutter and 798 supraventricular tachycardia events, as well as fewer numbers of ventricular arrhythmias and many episodes of less clinically relevant events like skipped beats.

The multivariate analysis the researchers ran controlled for more than 20 demographic, lifestyle, and clinical variables, including adjustment for tea intake but not for consumption of other caffeine-containing drinks.

The adjusted analysis showed an average, statistically significant 3% incremental drop in both all incident arrhythmias and in incident atrial fibrillation episodes for each additional cup of coffee drunk a day, for up to 6 daily cups.

A strength of this study is that it included a large number of people, Dr. Krahn noted, and “the UK Biobank includes a very diverse, community-based sample” of people, said Dr. Kim. The analysis excluded people with prevalent arrhythmia at baseline, so the study couldn’t address the impact of coffee consumption in this setting. A limitation of the study is that participants in the UK Biobank are all volunteers, which could result in a selection bias, Dr. Krahn said.
 

What it tells us

While the main message from the results is that moderate daily coffee drinking is not arrhythmogenic, “it is also possible that coffee is beneficial” based on the small but statistically significant decline in new-onset events, Dr. Kim added. “Multiple studies revealed that caffeine and potentially other constituents in coffee have antioxidant and anti-inflammatory properties. Multiple studies have reported the potential benefit of coffee in multiple chronic medical conditions such as cardiovascular disease, diabetes, and certain types of cancers, as well as for all-cause mortality.”

“It’s plausible that a moderate amount of coffee intake a day will not cause big physiologic changes, and moderate coffee intake may link with other characteristics” of moderate behavior that result in average or better than average outcomes, Dr. Krahn commented. “These results add to the existing data in a different and large population,” which strengthens the case that moderate coffee intake isn’t harmful, he said.

The study received no commercial funding. Dr. Kim and Dr. Krahn had no disclosures. The senior author on Dr. Kim’s study, Gregory M. Marcus, MD, has been a consultant to Johnson & Johnson and Incardia, has an equity interest in Incardia, and has received research funding from Baylis, Eight Sleep, and Medtronic.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Kim EJ et al. Heart Rhythm 2020, abstract D-PO01-032.

Moderate, daily coffee consumption had no apparent adverse effect for triggering incident heart arrhythmias, and even linked with a small but statistically significant drop in arrhythmias in an analysis of prospectively collected data from nearly 300,000 U.K. residents.

“In this large, population-based, prospective study, moderate habitual coffee drinking was associated with a lower risk of arrhythmia,” EunJeong Kim, MD, said at the annual scientific sessions of the Heart Rhythm Society, held online because of COVID-19.

Her analysis found that on average each additional daily cup of coffee that people said they drank reduced the incidence of arrhythmic episodes by a statistically significant 3%, compared with those who drank fewer daily cups. The relationship held for people who reported drinking as many as five or six cups of coffee daily.

“The main message of our study is that it does not appear to be deleterious to continue with moderate amounts of habitual coffee intake regarding a risk of overall arrhythmia,” said Dr. Kim, a cardiac electrophysiologist at the University of California, San Francisco.

Evidence builds for coffee’s safety

The finding adds to a substantial existing evidence base documenting the safety of moderate, habitual coffee drinking when it comes to heart rhythms. For example, a recent report from the Physicians Health Study of nearly 19,000 American men showed a statistically significant decrease in the incidence of atrial fibrillation during an average follow-up of 9 years among men who reported drinking one to three cups of coffee daily (J Am Heart Assoc. 2019 Aug 6;8[15]:e011346). In addition, a recent review of several reports found that “mild-to-moderate habitual consumption of caffeinated beverages, particularly a daily intake of 2-3 cups of coffee or tea, appears to be safe across a broad range of cardiovascular conditions, and may even be beneficial with respect to diabetes mellitus, atherosclerosis, heart failure, arrhythmia and total mortality,” but also concluded that “acute consumption of high doses of caffeine, particularly in the form of energy drinks, is best avoided”(Trends Cardiovasc Med. 2019 Aug;29[6]:345-50). Specifically about cardiac arrhythmias, the review said “while caffeine is commonly considered a trigger for arrhythmias by physicians and patients alike there is minimal evidence to support this misconception. Rather caffeine is associated with a mild reduction in the incidence of atrial fibrillation in observational studies.”

“There has been a lot of public interest about a possible association of caffeine and arrhythmias,” but an adverse effect from daily consumption of a moderate amount of coffee “is more legend and anecdote than fact based,” commented Andrew D. Krahn, MD, an electrophysiologist, professor of medicine, and head of cardiology at the University of British Columbia and St. Paul’s Hospital in Vancouver. “Increasingly we’re finding that there really is nothing here” when the proarrhythmic effects of moderate coffee undergo detailed assessment, he said in an interview.
 

What the study did

The study run by Dr. Kim and her associates used prospectively collected data from 296,227 participants in the UK Biobank during 2006-2016 who had complete data on their coffee intake and for the other covariables used in the analysis. During an average 5.25 years of follow-up, these people had more than 13,000 incident arrhythmic events, including 4,748 episodes of atrial fibrillation or flutter and 798 supraventricular tachycardia events, as well as fewer numbers of ventricular arrhythmias and many episodes of less clinically relevant events like skipped beats.

The multivariate analysis the researchers ran controlled for more than 20 demographic, lifestyle, and clinical variables, including adjustment for tea intake but not for consumption of other caffeine-containing drinks.

The adjusted analysis showed an average, statistically significant 3% incremental drop in both all incident arrhythmias and in incident atrial fibrillation episodes for each additional cup of coffee drunk a day, for up to 6 daily cups.

A strength of this study is that it included a large number of people, Dr. Krahn noted, and “the UK Biobank includes a very diverse, community-based sample” of people, said Dr. Kim. The analysis excluded people with prevalent arrhythmia at baseline, so the study couldn’t address the impact of coffee consumption in this setting. A limitation of the study is that participants in the UK Biobank are all volunteers, which could result in a selection bias, Dr. Krahn said.
 

What it tells us

While the main message from the results is that moderate daily coffee drinking is not arrhythmogenic, “it is also possible that coffee is beneficial” based on the small but statistically significant decline in new-onset events, Dr. Kim added. “Multiple studies revealed that caffeine and potentially other constituents in coffee have antioxidant and anti-inflammatory properties. Multiple studies have reported the potential benefit of coffee in multiple chronic medical conditions such as cardiovascular disease, diabetes, and certain types of cancers, as well as for all-cause mortality.”

“It’s plausible that a moderate amount of coffee intake a day will not cause big physiologic changes, and moderate coffee intake may link with other characteristics” of moderate behavior that result in average or better than average outcomes, Dr. Krahn commented. “These results add to the existing data in a different and large population,” which strengthens the case that moderate coffee intake isn’t harmful, he said.

The study received no commercial funding. Dr. Kim and Dr. Krahn had no disclosures. The senior author on Dr. Kim’s study, Gregory M. Marcus, MD, has been a consultant to Johnson & Johnson and Incardia, has an equity interest in Incardia, and has received research funding from Baylis, Eight Sleep, and Medtronic.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Kim EJ et al. Heart Rhythm 2020, abstract D-PO01-032.