User login
Fracking sites tied to increased heart failure hospitalizations
Living near hydraulic fracturing is associated with increased risk of hospitalization in people with heart failure (HF), a new study from Pennsylvania suggests.
The link was strongest among those with more severe heart failure but patients with either HF phenotype showed this association of increased risk with exposure to fracking activities, according to the investigators, led by Tara P. McAlexander, PhD, MPH, Drexel University Dornsife School of Public Health in Philadelphia.
“Our understanding has expanded well beyond the famous Harvard Six Cities study to know that it’s not just a short-term uptick in air pollution that›s going to send someone to the hospital a couple days later,” said Dr. McAlexander in an interview, referring to the study conducted from the mid-1970s through 1991. “We know that people who live in these environments and are exposed for long periods of time may have long-term detrimental effects.”
Although questions remain about specific mechanisms and how best to assess exposure, the evidence is mounting in a way that is consistent with the biologic hypotheses of how fracking would adversely affect health, Dr. McAlexander said. “We have many studies now on adverse pregnancy and birth outcomes, and that’s just the tip of the iceberg.”
Pennsylvania is a hot spot for fracking, also known as unconventional natural gas development (UNGD), with more than 12,000 wells drilled in the Marcellus shale since 2004. The shale extends from upstate New York in the north to northeastern Kentucky and Tennessee in the south and covers about 72,000 square miles. Last year, Pennsylvania pledged $3 million to study clusters of rare pediatric cancers and asthma near fracking operations. A recent grand jury report concluded government officials failed to protect residents from the health effects of fracking.
Fracking involves a cascade of activities that can trigger neural circuitry, sympathetic activation, and inflammation – all well-known pathways that potentiate heart failure, said Sanjay Rajagopalan, MD, who has researched the health effects of air pollution for two decades and was not involved with the study.
“If you think about it, it’s like environmental perturbation on steroids in some ways where they are pulling the trigger from a variety of different ways: noise, air pollution, social displacement, psychosocial impacts, economic disparities. So it’s not at all surprising that they saw an association,” said Dr. Rajagopalan, chief of cardiovascular medicine at University Hospitals Harrington Heart & Vascular Institute and director of the Case Western Cardiovascular Research Institute, both in Cleveland, Ohio.
As reported in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology, Dr. McAlexander and colleagues at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, used electronic health data from the Geisinger Health System to identify 9,054 patients with heart failure seen between 2008 and 2015. Of these, 5,839 patients had an incident HF hospitalization and 3,215 served as controls. Geisinger operates 13 hospitals and two research centers in 45 of Pennsylvania’s 67 counties, serving more than 3 million of the state’s residents.
Patients’ residential addresses were used to identify latitude and longitude coordinates that were matched with 9,669 UNGD wells in Pennsylvania and the location of major and minor roadways. The researchers also calculated a measure of community socioeconomic deprivation.
The adjusted odds of hospitalization were higher for patients in the highest quartile of exposure for three of the four UNGD phases: pad preparation (odds ratio, 1.70; 95% confidence interval, 1.35-2.13), stimulation or the actual fracking (OR, 1.80; 95% CI, 1.35-2.40), and production (OR, 1.62; 95% CI, 1.07-2.45).
Dr. McAlexander said she initially thought the lack of association with drilling (OR, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.75-1.27) was a mistake but noted that the drilling metric reflects a shorter time period than, for example, 30 days needed to clear the well pad and bring in the necessary equipment.
Stronger associations between pad preparation, fracking, and production are also consistent with the known increases in air pollution, traffic, and noise associated with these phases.
Individuals with more severe HF had greater odds of hospitalization, but the effect sizes were generally comparable between HF with preserved versus reduced ejection fraction. For those with the highest exposure to fracking, the odds ratios for hospitalization reached 2.25 (95% CI, 1.56-3.25) and 2.09 (95% CI, 1.44-3.03), respectively.
Notably, patients who could be phenotyped versus those who could not were more likely to die, to be hospitalized for HF, and to have a higher Charlson Comorbidity Index and other relevant diagnoses like myocardial infarction.
“Clinicians need to be increasingly aware that the environments their patients are in are a huge factor in their disease progression and outlook,” McAlexander said. “We know that UNGD, specifically now, is something that could be impacting a heart failure patient’s survival.”
She also suggested that the findings may also spur more advocacy work and “across-silo” collaboration between clinicians and environmental researchers.
Dr. Rajagopalan said there is increasing recognition that physicians need to be aware of environmental health links as extreme events like the California and Oregon wildfires and coastal flooding become increasingly common. “Unfortunately, unconventional is becoming the new convention.”
The problem for many physicians, however, is just having enough bandwidth to get through the day and get enough learning to keep above water, he said. Artificial intelligence could be used to seed electronic medical records with other personalized information from a bevy of sources including smartphones and the internet of things, but fundamental changes are also needed in the educational process to emphasize the environment.
“It’s going to take a huge societal shift in the way we view commodities, what we consider healthy, etc, but it can happen very quickly because all it takes is a crisis like COVID-19 to bring people to their knees and make them understand how this is going to take over our lives over the next decade,” Dr. Rajagopalan said.
The scientific community has been calling for “good” epidemiologic studies on the health effects of fracking since the early 2010s, Barrak Alahmad, MBChB, MPH, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, and Haitham Khraishah, MD, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Harvard Medical School, Boston, point out in an accompanying editorial.
The current study applied “extensive and rigorous methods” involving both the design and statistical approach, including use of a negative control analysis to assess for sources of spurious causal inference, several sensitivity analyses, and controlled for a wide range of covariates.
“Their results were consistent and robust across all these measures,” the editorialists wrote. “Most importantly, the effect size is probably too large to be explained away by an unmeasured confounder.”
Dr. Alahmad and Dr. Khraishah call for advancements in exposure assessment, citing a recent study reporting that ambient particle radioactivity near unconventional oil and gas sites could induce adverse health effects. Other unmet needs include a better understanding of racial disparities in the impacts of fracking and a fine-tuning of cause-specific cardiovascular morbidity and mortality.
The study was supported by training grants from the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences to Dr. McAlexander and principal investigator Brian Schwartz, MD. The authors, Dr. Rajagopalan, Dr. Alahmad, and Dr. Khraishah have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
Living near hydraulic fracturing is associated with increased risk of hospitalization in people with heart failure (HF), a new study from Pennsylvania suggests.
The link was strongest among those with more severe heart failure but patients with either HF phenotype showed this association of increased risk with exposure to fracking activities, according to the investigators, led by Tara P. McAlexander, PhD, MPH, Drexel University Dornsife School of Public Health in Philadelphia.
“Our understanding has expanded well beyond the famous Harvard Six Cities study to know that it’s not just a short-term uptick in air pollution that›s going to send someone to the hospital a couple days later,” said Dr. McAlexander in an interview, referring to the study conducted from the mid-1970s through 1991. “We know that people who live in these environments and are exposed for long periods of time may have long-term detrimental effects.”
Although questions remain about specific mechanisms and how best to assess exposure, the evidence is mounting in a way that is consistent with the biologic hypotheses of how fracking would adversely affect health, Dr. McAlexander said. “We have many studies now on adverse pregnancy and birth outcomes, and that’s just the tip of the iceberg.”
Pennsylvania is a hot spot for fracking, also known as unconventional natural gas development (UNGD), with more than 12,000 wells drilled in the Marcellus shale since 2004. The shale extends from upstate New York in the north to northeastern Kentucky and Tennessee in the south and covers about 72,000 square miles. Last year, Pennsylvania pledged $3 million to study clusters of rare pediatric cancers and asthma near fracking operations. A recent grand jury report concluded government officials failed to protect residents from the health effects of fracking.
Fracking involves a cascade of activities that can trigger neural circuitry, sympathetic activation, and inflammation – all well-known pathways that potentiate heart failure, said Sanjay Rajagopalan, MD, who has researched the health effects of air pollution for two decades and was not involved with the study.
“If you think about it, it’s like environmental perturbation on steroids in some ways where they are pulling the trigger from a variety of different ways: noise, air pollution, social displacement, psychosocial impacts, economic disparities. So it’s not at all surprising that they saw an association,” said Dr. Rajagopalan, chief of cardiovascular medicine at University Hospitals Harrington Heart & Vascular Institute and director of the Case Western Cardiovascular Research Institute, both in Cleveland, Ohio.
As reported in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology, Dr. McAlexander and colleagues at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, used electronic health data from the Geisinger Health System to identify 9,054 patients with heart failure seen between 2008 and 2015. Of these, 5,839 patients had an incident HF hospitalization and 3,215 served as controls. Geisinger operates 13 hospitals and two research centers in 45 of Pennsylvania’s 67 counties, serving more than 3 million of the state’s residents.
Patients’ residential addresses were used to identify latitude and longitude coordinates that were matched with 9,669 UNGD wells in Pennsylvania and the location of major and minor roadways. The researchers also calculated a measure of community socioeconomic deprivation.
The adjusted odds of hospitalization were higher for patients in the highest quartile of exposure for three of the four UNGD phases: pad preparation (odds ratio, 1.70; 95% confidence interval, 1.35-2.13), stimulation or the actual fracking (OR, 1.80; 95% CI, 1.35-2.40), and production (OR, 1.62; 95% CI, 1.07-2.45).
Dr. McAlexander said she initially thought the lack of association with drilling (OR, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.75-1.27) was a mistake but noted that the drilling metric reflects a shorter time period than, for example, 30 days needed to clear the well pad and bring in the necessary equipment.
Stronger associations between pad preparation, fracking, and production are also consistent with the known increases in air pollution, traffic, and noise associated with these phases.
Individuals with more severe HF had greater odds of hospitalization, but the effect sizes were generally comparable between HF with preserved versus reduced ejection fraction. For those with the highest exposure to fracking, the odds ratios for hospitalization reached 2.25 (95% CI, 1.56-3.25) and 2.09 (95% CI, 1.44-3.03), respectively.
Notably, patients who could be phenotyped versus those who could not were more likely to die, to be hospitalized for HF, and to have a higher Charlson Comorbidity Index and other relevant diagnoses like myocardial infarction.
“Clinicians need to be increasingly aware that the environments their patients are in are a huge factor in their disease progression and outlook,” McAlexander said. “We know that UNGD, specifically now, is something that could be impacting a heart failure patient’s survival.”
She also suggested that the findings may also spur more advocacy work and “across-silo” collaboration between clinicians and environmental researchers.
Dr. Rajagopalan said there is increasing recognition that physicians need to be aware of environmental health links as extreme events like the California and Oregon wildfires and coastal flooding become increasingly common. “Unfortunately, unconventional is becoming the new convention.”
The problem for many physicians, however, is just having enough bandwidth to get through the day and get enough learning to keep above water, he said. Artificial intelligence could be used to seed electronic medical records with other personalized information from a bevy of sources including smartphones and the internet of things, but fundamental changes are also needed in the educational process to emphasize the environment.
“It’s going to take a huge societal shift in the way we view commodities, what we consider healthy, etc, but it can happen very quickly because all it takes is a crisis like COVID-19 to bring people to their knees and make them understand how this is going to take over our lives over the next decade,” Dr. Rajagopalan said.
The scientific community has been calling for “good” epidemiologic studies on the health effects of fracking since the early 2010s, Barrak Alahmad, MBChB, MPH, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, and Haitham Khraishah, MD, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Harvard Medical School, Boston, point out in an accompanying editorial.
The current study applied “extensive and rigorous methods” involving both the design and statistical approach, including use of a negative control analysis to assess for sources of spurious causal inference, several sensitivity analyses, and controlled for a wide range of covariates.
“Their results were consistent and robust across all these measures,” the editorialists wrote. “Most importantly, the effect size is probably too large to be explained away by an unmeasured confounder.”
Dr. Alahmad and Dr. Khraishah call for advancements in exposure assessment, citing a recent study reporting that ambient particle radioactivity near unconventional oil and gas sites could induce adverse health effects. Other unmet needs include a better understanding of racial disparities in the impacts of fracking and a fine-tuning of cause-specific cardiovascular morbidity and mortality.
The study was supported by training grants from the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences to Dr. McAlexander and principal investigator Brian Schwartz, MD. The authors, Dr. Rajagopalan, Dr. Alahmad, and Dr. Khraishah have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
Living near hydraulic fracturing is associated with increased risk of hospitalization in people with heart failure (HF), a new study from Pennsylvania suggests.
The link was strongest among those with more severe heart failure but patients with either HF phenotype showed this association of increased risk with exposure to fracking activities, according to the investigators, led by Tara P. McAlexander, PhD, MPH, Drexel University Dornsife School of Public Health in Philadelphia.
“Our understanding has expanded well beyond the famous Harvard Six Cities study to know that it’s not just a short-term uptick in air pollution that›s going to send someone to the hospital a couple days later,” said Dr. McAlexander in an interview, referring to the study conducted from the mid-1970s through 1991. “We know that people who live in these environments and are exposed for long periods of time may have long-term detrimental effects.”
Although questions remain about specific mechanisms and how best to assess exposure, the evidence is mounting in a way that is consistent with the biologic hypotheses of how fracking would adversely affect health, Dr. McAlexander said. “We have many studies now on adverse pregnancy and birth outcomes, and that’s just the tip of the iceberg.”
Pennsylvania is a hot spot for fracking, also known as unconventional natural gas development (UNGD), with more than 12,000 wells drilled in the Marcellus shale since 2004. The shale extends from upstate New York in the north to northeastern Kentucky and Tennessee in the south and covers about 72,000 square miles. Last year, Pennsylvania pledged $3 million to study clusters of rare pediatric cancers and asthma near fracking operations. A recent grand jury report concluded government officials failed to protect residents from the health effects of fracking.
Fracking involves a cascade of activities that can trigger neural circuitry, sympathetic activation, and inflammation – all well-known pathways that potentiate heart failure, said Sanjay Rajagopalan, MD, who has researched the health effects of air pollution for two decades and was not involved with the study.
“If you think about it, it’s like environmental perturbation on steroids in some ways where they are pulling the trigger from a variety of different ways: noise, air pollution, social displacement, psychosocial impacts, economic disparities. So it’s not at all surprising that they saw an association,” said Dr. Rajagopalan, chief of cardiovascular medicine at University Hospitals Harrington Heart & Vascular Institute and director of the Case Western Cardiovascular Research Institute, both in Cleveland, Ohio.
As reported in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology, Dr. McAlexander and colleagues at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, used electronic health data from the Geisinger Health System to identify 9,054 patients with heart failure seen between 2008 and 2015. Of these, 5,839 patients had an incident HF hospitalization and 3,215 served as controls. Geisinger operates 13 hospitals and two research centers in 45 of Pennsylvania’s 67 counties, serving more than 3 million of the state’s residents.
Patients’ residential addresses were used to identify latitude and longitude coordinates that were matched with 9,669 UNGD wells in Pennsylvania and the location of major and minor roadways. The researchers also calculated a measure of community socioeconomic deprivation.
The adjusted odds of hospitalization were higher for patients in the highest quartile of exposure for three of the four UNGD phases: pad preparation (odds ratio, 1.70; 95% confidence interval, 1.35-2.13), stimulation or the actual fracking (OR, 1.80; 95% CI, 1.35-2.40), and production (OR, 1.62; 95% CI, 1.07-2.45).
Dr. McAlexander said she initially thought the lack of association with drilling (OR, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.75-1.27) was a mistake but noted that the drilling metric reflects a shorter time period than, for example, 30 days needed to clear the well pad and bring in the necessary equipment.
Stronger associations between pad preparation, fracking, and production are also consistent with the known increases in air pollution, traffic, and noise associated with these phases.
Individuals with more severe HF had greater odds of hospitalization, but the effect sizes were generally comparable between HF with preserved versus reduced ejection fraction. For those with the highest exposure to fracking, the odds ratios for hospitalization reached 2.25 (95% CI, 1.56-3.25) and 2.09 (95% CI, 1.44-3.03), respectively.
Notably, patients who could be phenotyped versus those who could not were more likely to die, to be hospitalized for HF, and to have a higher Charlson Comorbidity Index and other relevant diagnoses like myocardial infarction.
“Clinicians need to be increasingly aware that the environments their patients are in are a huge factor in their disease progression and outlook,” McAlexander said. “We know that UNGD, specifically now, is something that could be impacting a heart failure patient’s survival.”
She also suggested that the findings may also spur more advocacy work and “across-silo” collaboration between clinicians and environmental researchers.
Dr. Rajagopalan said there is increasing recognition that physicians need to be aware of environmental health links as extreme events like the California and Oregon wildfires and coastal flooding become increasingly common. “Unfortunately, unconventional is becoming the new convention.”
The problem for many physicians, however, is just having enough bandwidth to get through the day and get enough learning to keep above water, he said. Artificial intelligence could be used to seed electronic medical records with other personalized information from a bevy of sources including smartphones and the internet of things, but fundamental changes are also needed in the educational process to emphasize the environment.
“It’s going to take a huge societal shift in the way we view commodities, what we consider healthy, etc, but it can happen very quickly because all it takes is a crisis like COVID-19 to bring people to their knees and make them understand how this is going to take over our lives over the next decade,” Dr. Rajagopalan said.
The scientific community has been calling for “good” epidemiologic studies on the health effects of fracking since the early 2010s, Barrak Alahmad, MBChB, MPH, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, and Haitham Khraishah, MD, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Harvard Medical School, Boston, point out in an accompanying editorial.
The current study applied “extensive and rigorous methods” involving both the design and statistical approach, including use of a negative control analysis to assess for sources of spurious causal inference, several sensitivity analyses, and controlled for a wide range of covariates.
“Their results were consistent and robust across all these measures,” the editorialists wrote. “Most importantly, the effect size is probably too large to be explained away by an unmeasured confounder.”
Dr. Alahmad and Dr. Khraishah call for advancements in exposure assessment, citing a recent study reporting that ambient particle radioactivity near unconventional oil and gas sites could induce adverse health effects. Other unmet needs include a better understanding of racial disparities in the impacts of fracking and a fine-tuning of cause-specific cardiovascular morbidity and mortality.
The study was supported by training grants from the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences to Dr. McAlexander and principal investigator Brian Schwartz, MD. The authors, Dr. Rajagopalan, Dr. Alahmad, and Dr. Khraishah have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
Colchicine a case study for what’s wrong with U.S. drug pricing
Public spending on colchicine has grown exponentially over the past decade despite generics suggesting an uphill slog for patients seeking access to long-term therapy for gout or cardiac conditions.
Medicaid spending on single-ingredient colchicine jumped 2,833%, from $1.1 million in 2008 to $32.2 million in 2017, new findings show. Medicaid expansion likely played a role in the increase, but 58% was due to price hikes alone.
The centuries-old drug sold for pennies in the United States before increasing 50-fold to about $5 per pill in 2009 after the first FDA-approved colchicine product, Colcrys, was granted 3 years’ market exclusivity for the treatment of acute gout based on a 1-week trial.
If prices had remained at pre-Colcrys levels, Medicaid spending in 2017 would have totaled just $2.1 million rather than $32.2 million according to the analysis, published online Nov. 30 in JAMA Internal Medicine (doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2020.5017).
The study was motivated by difficulties gout patients have in accessing colchicine, but also last year’s COLCOT trial, which reported fewer ischemic cardiovascular events in patients receiving colchicine after MI, observed Natalie McCormick, PhD, of Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, both in Boston.
“They were suggesting it could be a cost-effective way for secondary prevention and it is fairly inexpensive in most countries, but not the U.S.,” she said in an interview. “So there’s really a potential to increase public spending if more and more patients are then taking colchicine for prevention of cardiovascular events and the prices don’t change.”
The current pandemic could potentially further increase demand. Results initially slated for September are expected this month from the COLCORONA trial, which is testing whether the anti-inflammatory agent can prevent hospitalizations, lung complications, and death when given early in the course of COVID-19.
University of Oxford (England) researchers also announced last week that colchicine is being added to the massive RECOVERY trial, which is studying treatments for hospitalized COVID-19 patients.
Notably, the Canadian-based COLCOT trial did not use Colcrys, but rather a colchicine product that costs just $0.26 a pill in Canada, roughly the price of most generics available worldwide.
Authorized generics typically drive down drug prices when competing with independent generics, but this competition is missing in the United States, where Colcrys holds patents until 2029, Dr. McCormick and colleagues noted. More than a half-dozen independent generics have FDA approval to date, but only authorized generics with price points set by the brand-name companies are available to treat acute gout, pericarditis, and potentially millions with MI.
“One of the key takeaways is this difference between the brand names and the authorized generics and the independents,” she said. “The authorized [generics] have really not saved money. The list prices were just slightly lower and patients can also have more difficulty in getting those covered.”
For this analysis, the investigators used Medicaid and Medicare data to examine prices for all available forms of colchicine from 2008 to 2017, including unregulated/unapproved colchicine (2008-2010), generic combination probenecid-colchicine (2008-2017), Colcrys (2009-2017), brand-name single-ingredient colchicine Mitigare (approved in late 2014 but not marketed until 2015), and their authorized generics (2015-2017). Medicare trends from 2012 to 2017 were analyzed separately because pre-Colcrys Medicare data were not available.
Based on the results, combined spending on Medicare and Medicaid claims for single-ingredient colchicine exceeded $340 million in 2017.
Inflation- and rebate-adjusted Medicaid unit prices rose from $0.24 a pill in 2008, when unapproved formulations were still available, to $4.20 a pill in 2011 (Colcrys only), and peaked at $4.66 a pill in 2015 (Colcrys plus authorized generics).
Prescribing of lower-priced probenecid-colchicine ($0.66/pill in 2017) remained stable throughout. Medicaid rebate-adjusted prices in 2017 were $3.99/pill for all single-ingredient colchicine products, $5.13/pill for Colcrys, $4.49/pill for Mitigare, and $3.88/pill for authorized generics.
Medicare rebate-adjusted 2017 per-pill prices were $5.81 for all single-ingredient colchicine products, $6.78 for Colcrys, $5.68 for Mitigare, $5.16 for authorized generics, and $0.70 for probenecid-colchicine.
“Authorized generics have still driven high spending,” Dr. McCormick said. “We really need to encourage more competition in order to improve access.”
In an accompanying commentary, B. Joseph Guglielmo, PharmD, University of California, San Francisco, pointed out that the estimated median research and development cost to bring a drug to market is between $985 million and $1,335 million, which inevitably translates into a high selling price for the drug. Such investment and its resultant cost, however, should be associated with potential worth to society.
“Only a fraction of an investment was required for Colcrys, a product that has provided no increased value and an unnecessary, long-term cost burden to the health care system,” he wrote. “The current study findings illustrate that we can never allow such an egregious case to take place again.”
Dr. McCormick reported grants from Canadian Institutes of Health Research during the conduct of the study. Dr. Guglielmo reported having no relevant conflicts of interest.
This article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Public spending on colchicine has grown exponentially over the past decade despite generics suggesting an uphill slog for patients seeking access to long-term therapy for gout or cardiac conditions.
Medicaid spending on single-ingredient colchicine jumped 2,833%, from $1.1 million in 2008 to $32.2 million in 2017, new findings show. Medicaid expansion likely played a role in the increase, but 58% was due to price hikes alone.
The centuries-old drug sold for pennies in the United States before increasing 50-fold to about $5 per pill in 2009 after the first FDA-approved colchicine product, Colcrys, was granted 3 years’ market exclusivity for the treatment of acute gout based on a 1-week trial.
If prices had remained at pre-Colcrys levels, Medicaid spending in 2017 would have totaled just $2.1 million rather than $32.2 million according to the analysis, published online Nov. 30 in JAMA Internal Medicine (doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2020.5017).
The study was motivated by difficulties gout patients have in accessing colchicine, but also last year’s COLCOT trial, which reported fewer ischemic cardiovascular events in patients receiving colchicine after MI, observed Natalie McCormick, PhD, of Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, both in Boston.
“They were suggesting it could be a cost-effective way for secondary prevention and it is fairly inexpensive in most countries, but not the U.S.,” she said in an interview. “So there’s really a potential to increase public spending if more and more patients are then taking colchicine for prevention of cardiovascular events and the prices don’t change.”
The current pandemic could potentially further increase demand. Results initially slated for September are expected this month from the COLCORONA trial, which is testing whether the anti-inflammatory agent can prevent hospitalizations, lung complications, and death when given early in the course of COVID-19.
University of Oxford (England) researchers also announced last week that colchicine is being added to the massive RECOVERY trial, which is studying treatments for hospitalized COVID-19 patients.
Notably, the Canadian-based COLCOT trial did not use Colcrys, but rather a colchicine product that costs just $0.26 a pill in Canada, roughly the price of most generics available worldwide.
Authorized generics typically drive down drug prices when competing with independent generics, but this competition is missing in the United States, where Colcrys holds patents until 2029, Dr. McCormick and colleagues noted. More than a half-dozen independent generics have FDA approval to date, but only authorized generics with price points set by the brand-name companies are available to treat acute gout, pericarditis, and potentially millions with MI.
“One of the key takeaways is this difference between the brand names and the authorized generics and the independents,” she said. “The authorized [generics] have really not saved money. The list prices were just slightly lower and patients can also have more difficulty in getting those covered.”
For this analysis, the investigators used Medicaid and Medicare data to examine prices for all available forms of colchicine from 2008 to 2017, including unregulated/unapproved colchicine (2008-2010), generic combination probenecid-colchicine (2008-2017), Colcrys (2009-2017), brand-name single-ingredient colchicine Mitigare (approved in late 2014 but not marketed until 2015), and their authorized generics (2015-2017). Medicare trends from 2012 to 2017 were analyzed separately because pre-Colcrys Medicare data were not available.
Based on the results, combined spending on Medicare and Medicaid claims for single-ingredient colchicine exceeded $340 million in 2017.
Inflation- and rebate-adjusted Medicaid unit prices rose from $0.24 a pill in 2008, when unapproved formulations were still available, to $4.20 a pill in 2011 (Colcrys only), and peaked at $4.66 a pill in 2015 (Colcrys plus authorized generics).
Prescribing of lower-priced probenecid-colchicine ($0.66/pill in 2017) remained stable throughout. Medicaid rebate-adjusted prices in 2017 were $3.99/pill for all single-ingredient colchicine products, $5.13/pill for Colcrys, $4.49/pill for Mitigare, and $3.88/pill for authorized generics.
Medicare rebate-adjusted 2017 per-pill prices were $5.81 for all single-ingredient colchicine products, $6.78 for Colcrys, $5.68 for Mitigare, $5.16 for authorized generics, and $0.70 for probenecid-colchicine.
“Authorized generics have still driven high spending,” Dr. McCormick said. “We really need to encourage more competition in order to improve access.”
In an accompanying commentary, B. Joseph Guglielmo, PharmD, University of California, San Francisco, pointed out that the estimated median research and development cost to bring a drug to market is between $985 million and $1,335 million, which inevitably translates into a high selling price for the drug. Such investment and its resultant cost, however, should be associated with potential worth to society.
“Only a fraction of an investment was required for Colcrys, a product that has provided no increased value and an unnecessary, long-term cost burden to the health care system,” he wrote. “The current study findings illustrate that we can never allow such an egregious case to take place again.”
Dr. McCormick reported grants from Canadian Institutes of Health Research during the conduct of the study. Dr. Guglielmo reported having no relevant conflicts of interest.
This article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Public spending on colchicine has grown exponentially over the past decade despite generics suggesting an uphill slog for patients seeking access to long-term therapy for gout or cardiac conditions.
Medicaid spending on single-ingredient colchicine jumped 2,833%, from $1.1 million in 2008 to $32.2 million in 2017, new findings show. Medicaid expansion likely played a role in the increase, but 58% was due to price hikes alone.
The centuries-old drug sold for pennies in the United States before increasing 50-fold to about $5 per pill in 2009 after the first FDA-approved colchicine product, Colcrys, was granted 3 years’ market exclusivity for the treatment of acute gout based on a 1-week trial.
If prices had remained at pre-Colcrys levels, Medicaid spending in 2017 would have totaled just $2.1 million rather than $32.2 million according to the analysis, published online Nov. 30 in JAMA Internal Medicine (doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2020.5017).
The study was motivated by difficulties gout patients have in accessing colchicine, but also last year’s COLCOT trial, which reported fewer ischemic cardiovascular events in patients receiving colchicine after MI, observed Natalie McCormick, PhD, of Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, both in Boston.
“They were suggesting it could be a cost-effective way for secondary prevention and it is fairly inexpensive in most countries, but not the U.S.,” she said in an interview. “So there’s really a potential to increase public spending if more and more patients are then taking colchicine for prevention of cardiovascular events and the prices don’t change.”
The current pandemic could potentially further increase demand. Results initially slated for September are expected this month from the COLCORONA trial, which is testing whether the anti-inflammatory agent can prevent hospitalizations, lung complications, and death when given early in the course of COVID-19.
University of Oxford (England) researchers also announced last week that colchicine is being added to the massive RECOVERY trial, which is studying treatments for hospitalized COVID-19 patients.
Notably, the Canadian-based COLCOT trial did not use Colcrys, but rather a colchicine product that costs just $0.26 a pill in Canada, roughly the price of most generics available worldwide.
Authorized generics typically drive down drug prices when competing with independent generics, but this competition is missing in the United States, where Colcrys holds patents until 2029, Dr. McCormick and colleagues noted. More than a half-dozen independent generics have FDA approval to date, but only authorized generics with price points set by the brand-name companies are available to treat acute gout, pericarditis, and potentially millions with MI.
“One of the key takeaways is this difference between the brand names and the authorized generics and the independents,” she said. “The authorized [generics] have really not saved money. The list prices were just slightly lower and patients can also have more difficulty in getting those covered.”
For this analysis, the investigators used Medicaid and Medicare data to examine prices for all available forms of colchicine from 2008 to 2017, including unregulated/unapproved colchicine (2008-2010), generic combination probenecid-colchicine (2008-2017), Colcrys (2009-2017), brand-name single-ingredient colchicine Mitigare (approved in late 2014 but not marketed until 2015), and their authorized generics (2015-2017). Medicare trends from 2012 to 2017 were analyzed separately because pre-Colcrys Medicare data were not available.
Based on the results, combined spending on Medicare and Medicaid claims for single-ingredient colchicine exceeded $340 million in 2017.
Inflation- and rebate-adjusted Medicaid unit prices rose from $0.24 a pill in 2008, when unapproved formulations were still available, to $4.20 a pill in 2011 (Colcrys only), and peaked at $4.66 a pill in 2015 (Colcrys plus authorized generics).
Prescribing of lower-priced probenecid-colchicine ($0.66/pill in 2017) remained stable throughout. Medicaid rebate-adjusted prices in 2017 were $3.99/pill for all single-ingredient colchicine products, $5.13/pill for Colcrys, $4.49/pill for Mitigare, and $3.88/pill for authorized generics.
Medicare rebate-adjusted 2017 per-pill prices were $5.81 for all single-ingredient colchicine products, $6.78 for Colcrys, $5.68 for Mitigare, $5.16 for authorized generics, and $0.70 for probenecid-colchicine.
“Authorized generics have still driven high spending,” Dr. McCormick said. “We really need to encourage more competition in order to improve access.”
In an accompanying commentary, B. Joseph Guglielmo, PharmD, University of California, San Francisco, pointed out that the estimated median research and development cost to bring a drug to market is between $985 million and $1,335 million, which inevitably translates into a high selling price for the drug. Such investment and its resultant cost, however, should be associated with potential worth to society.
“Only a fraction of an investment was required for Colcrys, a product that has provided no increased value and an unnecessary, long-term cost burden to the health care system,” he wrote. “The current study findings illustrate that we can never allow such an egregious case to take place again.”
Dr. McCormick reported grants from Canadian Institutes of Health Research during the conduct of the study. Dr. Guglielmo reported having no relevant conflicts of interest.
This article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Boston Scientific bails on Lotus Edge aortic valve system
Boston Scientific said it is voluntarily recalling all unused inventory of the Lotus Edge transcatheter aortic valve replacement system effective immediately.
In making the announcement today, Boston Scientific chair and CEO Mike Mahoney said the company has been increasingly challenged by the intricacies of the delivery system required to allow physicians to fully reposition and recapture the valve – key features of the system.
“The complexity of the delivery system, manufacturing challenges, the continued need for further technical enhancements, and current market adoption rates led us to the difficult decision to stop investing in the Lotus Edge platform,” Mr. Mahoney said.
Instead, the company will focus on the ACURATE neo2 aortic valve system, the Sentinel cerebral embolic protection device, and other high-growth areas, he noted.
The decision is expected to result in a $225 million to $300 million pretax charge, with $100 million to $150 million of these charges to impact the company’s adjusted results.
The Lotus device was approved in the United States in April 2019 for use in patients with severe aortic stenosis at high surgical risk based on the REPRISE 3 trial.
The Lotus Edge valve was approved in Europe in 2016, but final testing and rollout of the valve in the United States were delayed following a 2017 global recall of all Lotus valves because of reports of premature release of a pin connecting the valve to the delivery system.
Issues with the delivery system led to other Lotus valve recalls in both 2016 and 2014.
“Given the additional time and investment required to develop and reintroduce an enhanced delivery system, the company has chosen to retire the entire Lotus product platform immediately. All related commercial, clinical, research & development and manufacturing activities will also cease,” the statement said.
There is no safety issue for patients who currently have an implanted Lotus Edge valve, the company said.
This article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Boston Scientific said it is voluntarily recalling all unused inventory of the Lotus Edge transcatheter aortic valve replacement system effective immediately.
In making the announcement today, Boston Scientific chair and CEO Mike Mahoney said the company has been increasingly challenged by the intricacies of the delivery system required to allow physicians to fully reposition and recapture the valve – key features of the system.
“The complexity of the delivery system, manufacturing challenges, the continued need for further technical enhancements, and current market adoption rates led us to the difficult decision to stop investing in the Lotus Edge platform,” Mr. Mahoney said.
Instead, the company will focus on the ACURATE neo2 aortic valve system, the Sentinel cerebral embolic protection device, and other high-growth areas, he noted.
The decision is expected to result in a $225 million to $300 million pretax charge, with $100 million to $150 million of these charges to impact the company’s adjusted results.
The Lotus device was approved in the United States in April 2019 for use in patients with severe aortic stenosis at high surgical risk based on the REPRISE 3 trial.
The Lotus Edge valve was approved in Europe in 2016, but final testing and rollout of the valve in the United States were delayed following a 2017 global recall of all Lotus valves because of reports of premature release of a pin connecting the valve to the delivery system.
Issues with the delivery system led to other Lotus valve recalls in both 2016 and 2014.
“Given the additional time and investment required to develop and reintroduce an enhanced delivery system, the company has chosen to retire the entire Lotus product platform immediately. All related commercial, clinical, research & development and manufacturing activities will also cease,” the statement said.
There is no safety issue for patients who currently have an implanted Lotus Edge valve, the company said.
This article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Boston Scientific said it is voluntarily recalling all unused inventory of the Lotus Edge transcatheter aortic valve replacement system effective immediately.
In making the announcement today, Boston Scientific chair and CEO Mike Mahoney said the company has been increasingly challenged by the intricacies of the delivery system required to allow physicians to fully reposition and recapture the valve – key features of the system.
“The complexity of the delivery system, manufacturing challenges, the continued need for further technical enhancements, and current market adoption rates led us to the difficult decision to stop investing in the Lotus Edge platform,” Mr. Mahoney said.
Instead, the company will focus on the ACURATE neo2 aortic valve system, the Sentinel cerebral embolic protection device, and other high-growth areas, he noted.
The decision is expected to result in a $225 million to $300 million pretax charge, with $100 million to $150 million of these charges to impact the company’s adjusted results.
The Lotus device was approved in the United States in April 2019 for use in patients with severe aortic stenosis at high surgical risk based on the REPRISE 3 trial.
The Lotus Edge valve was approved in Europe in 2016, but final testing and rollout of the valve in the United States were delayed following a 2017 global recall of all Lotus valves because of reports of premature release of a pin connecting the valve to the delivery system.
Issues with the delivery system led to other Lotus valve recalls in both 2016 and 2014.
“Given the additional time and investment required to develop and reintroduce an enhanced delivery system, the company has chosen to retire the entire Lotus product platform immediately. All related commercial, clinical, research & development and manufacturing activities will also cease,” the statement said.
There is no safety issue for patients who currently have an implanted Lotus Edge valve, the company said.
This article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Combined OCT, cardiac MRI unravels root cause in most MINOCA
Optical CT (OCT) plus cardiac MRI (CMR) provides a more specific diagnosis in the majority of women presenting with myocardial infarction with nonobstructive coronary arteries (MINOCA).
The multimodal imaging strategy identified the underlying cause of MINOCA in 85% of women in the HARP-MINOCA study. Overall, 64% of women had a true MI and 21% had an alternate nonischemic diagnosis, most commonly myocarditis.
“OCTCMR findings correlated well with OCT culprit lesions, demonstrating that nonobstructive culprit lesions frequently cause MINOCA,” said study author Harmony Reynolds, MD, director of New York University Langone’s Sarah Ross Soter Center for Women’s Cardiovascular Research.
The results were presented at the virtual American Heart Association (AHA) Scientific Sessions 2020 and published simultaneously in Circulation.
MINOCA occurs in up to 15% of patients with MI and is defined as MI meeting the universal definition but with less than 50% stenosis in all major epicardial arteries on angiography and no specific alternate diagnosis to explain the presentation.
It is three times more common in women than in men and also disproportionately affects Black, Hispanic, Maori, and Pacific persons. MINOCA has several causes, leading to uncertainty in diagnostic testing and treatment.
“Different doctors tell patients different messages about MINOCA and may incorrectly say the event wasn’t a heart attack,” Dr. Reynolds said in an earlier press briefing. “I had a patient who was told ‘your arteries are open,’ and they gave her Xanax.”
As part of the Women’s Heart Attack Research Program (HARP), researchers enrolled 301 women with a clinical diagnosis of MI, of whom 170 were diagnosed with MINOCA during angiography and underwent OCT at that time, followed by CMR within 1 week of the acute presentation.
All images were interpreted by an independent core laboratory blinded to results of the other tests and clinical information. The final cohort included 145 women with interpretable OCT images.
Their median age was 60 years, 49.7% were white non-Hispanic, and 97% presented with a provisional diagnosis of non–ST-segment MI. Their median peak troponin level was 0.94 ng/mL.
OCT identified a definite or probable culprit lesion in 46% of women, most commonly atherosclerosis or thrombosis. On multivariable analysis, having a culprit lesion was associated with older age, abnormal angiography findings at the site, and diabetes, but not peak troponin level or severity of angiographic stenosis.
CMR available in 116 women showed evidence of infarction or regional injury in 69%. Multivariate predictors of an abnormal CMR were higher peak troponin and diastolic blood pressure but not an OCT culprit lesion or angiographic stenosis severity.
When the OCT and CMR results were combined, a cause of MINOCA was identified in 84.5% of women. Three-fourths of the causes were ischemic (64% MI) and one-quarter were nonischemic (15% myocarditis, 3% Takotsubo syndrome, and 3% nonischemic cardiomyopathy). In the remaining 15%, no cause of MINOCA was identified.
To emphasize the effect multimodal imaging can have on treatment, Dr. Reynolds highlighted a 44-year-old woman with no risk factors for coronary artery disease who had chest pain in the context of heavy menstrual bleeding, a low hemoglobin level, and peak troponin level of 3.25 ng/mL.
Unexpectedly, imaging revealed a left anterior descending (LAD) plaque rupture in a thin-cap fibroatheroma, causing a small transmural infarction at the terminus of the LAD.
“Without this diagnosis, it’s unlikely she would have received antiplatelet therapy or statins and might have been given a diagnosis of supply/demand mismatch, when the real diagnosis was MI,” Dr. Reynolds observed.
“Finally we can say this is not just crazy women. There is really something going on,” said panelist Roxana Mehran, MD, of the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York. “You have now told us this is most likely atherosclerosis for pretty much 85% of the cases. So make the diagnosis and, of course, make sure you treat these patients accordingly for risk factor modification, really thinking about a ruptured plaque.”
Combining OCT and MRI may result in a more specific diagnosis and better treatment but also raises costs and logistical considerations.
“Implementation challenges are that not every form of testing is available in every medical center,” Dr. Reynolds said in an interview. “Many centers have cardiac MRI,” whereas “OCT is not currently available at most medical centers where heart attack patients are treated but is available at specialized centers.”
Asked during the session about the use of CT angiography, invited discussant Martha Gulati, MD, president-elect of the American Society for Preventive Cardiology, said, “For me, CT is helpful when I’m not sure if there’s any plaque because the angiogram looked really normal and there was no opportunity to do intracoronary imaging. And sometimes that will help me, in particular, if a patient doesn’t want to take a statin.”
Dr. Gulati pointed out that the European Society of Cardiology MINOCA guidelines recommend OCT and CMR, whereas the 2019 AHA statement on MINOCA, which she coauthored, also recommends OCT and CMR, but almost as one or the other.
“We already said that you should do cardiac MR to try to make a diagnosis, but I think the combination of the two needs to be emphasized when we next draft these guidelines. It really will help,” Dr. Gulati said in an interview.
“But using OCT, particularly, needs to be in the setting of the MI. I don’t think you want to do a procedure again,” she said. “So we really need it to become more widely available because at the time of an MI, you won’t necessarily know that you’re not going to find an obstructive lesion.”
Dr. Gulati pointed out several unanswered questions, including whether the diagnosis was missed in some patients, because OCT of all three vessels was available in only 59%, and how the use of high-sensitivity troponin, which was left up to the individual institution, might affect the usefulness of OCT and CMR.
It’s also unknown whether the mechanism is different for ST-segment elevation MI, as the trial included very few cases, although MINOCA often occurs in this setting. Future OCT/CMR studies will also need to enroll men to determine potential sex differences, if any.
Commenting on the study, B. Hadley Wilson, MD, Sanger Heart & Vascular Institute in Charlotte, N.C., said, “There would need to be further justification of this invasive interventional procedure to be sure that the benefit outweighed the risk of putting a wire and an OCT catheter down patients without any significant angiographic blockage and to assure interventional cardiologists of its value here.”
He pointed out that noninvasive CMR appears helpful in the diagnosis of nearly three-quarters of these patients and perhaps could be done first to direct which of those with an ischemic cause might benefit from invasive OCT at catheterization. This seems most pertinent in patients with a high suspicion of coronary artery disease or recurrent MINOCA.
“Overall, we need to consider the expense, logistics, and small risk of these combined modalities, particularly in everyday practice, before making recommendations,” Dr. Wilson said. “ Since OCT is much less available than intravascular ultrasound, it would require a challenging marketplace paradigm shift to implement this multimodality imaging strategy regionally and locally in the U.S., including the added costs. However, further study to direct the more judicious use of either CMR and/or combined with OCT is warranted in these patients.”
The study was funded by the AHA through a grant from the Go Red for Women Strategically Focused Research Network. Dr. Reynolds reported in-kind donations from Abbott Vascular and Siemens related to the study and nonfinancial support from BioTelemetry outside the study. Dr. Gulati and Dr. Wilson reported having no relevant disclosures.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
Optical CT (OCT) plus cardiac MRI (CMR) provides a more specific diagnosis in the majority of women presenting with myocardial infarction with nonobstructive coronary arteries (MINOCA).
The multimodal imaging strategy identified the underlying cause of MINOCA in 85% of women in the HARP-MINOCA study. Overall, 64% of women had a true MI and 21% had an alternate nonischemic diagnosis, most commonly myocarditis.
“OCTCMR findings correlated well with OCT culprit lesions, demonstrating that nonobstructive culprit lesions frequently cause MINOCA,” said study author Harmony Reynolds, MD, director of New York University Langone’s Sarah Ross Soter Center for Women’s Cardiovascular Research.
The results were presented at the virtual American Heart Association (AHA) Scientific Sessions 2020 and published simultaneously in Circulation.
MINOCA occurs in up to 15% of patients with MI and is defined as MI meeting the universal definition but with less than 50% stenosis in all major epicardial arteries on angiography and no specific alternate diagnosis to explain the presentation.
It is three times more common in women than in men and also disproportionately affects Black, Hispanic, Maori, and Pacific persons. MINOCA has several causes, leading to uncertainty in diagnostic testing and treatment.
“Different doctors tell patients different messages about MINOCA and may incorrectly say the event wasn’t a heart attack,” Dr. Reynolds said in an earlier press briefing. “I had a patient who was told ‘your arteries are open,’ and they gave her Xanax.”
As part of the Women’s Heart Attack Research Program (HARP), researchers enrolled 301 women with a clinical diagnosis of MI, of whom 170 were diagnosed with MINOCA during angiography and underwent OCT at that time, followed by CMR within 1 week of the acute presentation.
All images were interpreted by an independent core laboratory blinded to results of the other tests and clinical information. The final cohort included 145 women with interpretable OCT images.
Their median age was 60 years, 49.7% were white non-Hispanic, and 97% presented with a provisional diagnosis of non–ST-segment MI. Their median peak troponin level was 0.94 ng/mL.
OCT identified a definite or probable culprit lesion in 46% of women, most commonly atherosclerosis or thrombosis. On multivariable analysis, having a culprit lesion was associated with older age, abnormal angiography findings at the site, and diabetes, but not peak troponin level or severity of angiographic stenosis.
CMR available in 116 women showed evidence of infarction or regional injury in 69%. Multivariate predictors of an abnormal CMR were higher peak troponin and diastolic blood pressure but not an OCT culprit lesion or angiographic stenosis severity.
When the OCT and CMR results were combined, a cause of MINOCA was identified in 84.5% of women. Three-fourths of the causes were ischemic (64% MI) and one-quarter were nonischemic (15% myocarditis, 3% Takotsubo syndrome, and 3% nonischemic cardiomyopathy). In the remaining 15%, no cause of MINOCA was identified.
To emphasize the effect multimodal imaging can have on treatment, Dr. Reynolds highlighted a 44-year-old woman with no risk factors for coronary artery disease who had chest pain in the context of heavy menstrual bleeding, a low hemoglobin level, and peak troponin level of 3.25 ng/mL.
Unexpectedly, imaging revealed a left anterior descending (LAD) plaque rupture in a thin-cap fibroatheroma, causing a small transmural infarction at the terminus of the LAD.
“Without this diagnosis, it’s unlikely she would have received antiplatelet therapy or statins and might have been given a diagnosis of supply/demand mismatch, when the real diagnosis was MI,” Dr. Reynolds observed.
“Finally we can say this is not just crazy women. There is really something going on,” said panelist Roxana Mehran, MD, of the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York. “You have now told us this is most likely atherosclerosis for pretty much 85% of the cases. So make the diagnosis and, of course, make sure you treat these patients accordingly for risk factor modification, really thinking about a ruptured plaque.”
Combining OCT and MRI may result in a more specific diagnosis and better treatment but also raises costs and logistical considerations.
“Implementation challenges are that not every form of testing is available in every medical center,” Dr. Reynolds said in an interview. “Many centers have cardiac MRI,” whereas “OCT is not currently available at most medical centers where heart attack patients are treated but is available at specialized centers.”
Asked during the session about the use of CT angiography, invited discussant Martha Gulati, MD, president-elect of the American Society for Preventive Cardiology, said, “For me, CT is helpful when I’m not sure if there’s any plaque because the angiogram looked really normal and there was no opportunity to do intracoronary imaging. And sometimes that will help me, in particular, if a patient doesn’t want to take a statin.”
Dr. Gulati pointed out that the European Society of Cardiology MINOCA guidelines recommend OCT and CMR, whereas the 2019 AHA statement on MINOCA, which she coauthored, also recommends OCT and CMR, but almost as one or the other.
“We already said that you should do cardiac MR to try to make a diagnosis, but I think the combination of the two needs to be emphasized when we next draft these guidelines. It really will help,” Dr. Gulati said in an interview.
“But using OCT, particularly, needs to be in the setting of the MI. I don’t think you want to do a procedure again,” she said. “So we really need it to become more widely available because at the time of an MI, you won’t necessarily know that you’re not going to find an obstructive lesion.”
Dr. Gulati pointed out several unanswered questions, including whether the diagnosis was missed in some patients, because OCT of all three vessels was available in only 59%, and how the use of high-sensitivity troponin, which was left up to the individual institution, might affect the usefulness of OCT and CMR.
It’s also unknown whether the mechanism is different for ST-segment elevation MI, as the trial included very few cases, although MINOCA often occurs in this setting. Future OCT/CMR studies will also need to enroll men to determine potential sex differences, if any.
Commenting on the study, B. Hadley Wilson, MD, Sanger Heart & Vascular Institute in Charlotte, N.C., said, “There would need to be further justification of this invasive interventional procedure to be sure that the benefit outweighed the risk of putting a wire and an OCT catheter down patients without any significant angiographic blockage and to assure interventional cardiologists of its value here.”
He pointed out that noninvasive CMR appears helpful in the diagnosis of nearly three-quarters of these patients and perhaps could be done first to direct which of those with an ischemic cause might benefit from invasive OCT at catheterization. This seems most pertinent in patients with a high suspicion of coronary artery disease or recurrent MINOCA.
“Overall, we need to consider the expense, logistics, and small risk of these combined modalities, particularly in everyday practice, before making recommendations,” Dr. Wilson said. “ Since OCT is much less available than intravascular ultrasound, it would require a challenging marketplace paradigm shift to implement this multimodality imaging strategy regionally and locally in the U.S., including the added costs. However, further study to direct the more judicious use of either CMR and/or combined with OCT is warranted in these patients.”
The study was funded by the AHA through a grant from the Go Red for Women Strategically Focused Research Network. Dr. Reynolds reported in-kind donations from Abbott Vascular and Siemens related to the study and nonfinancial support from BioTelemetry outside the study. Dr. Gulati and Dr. Wilson reported having no relevant disclosures.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
Optical CT (OCT) plus cardiac MRI (CMR) provides a more specific diagnosis in the majority of women presenting with myocardial infarction with nonobstructive coronary arteries (MINOCA).
The multimodal imaging strategy identified the underlying cause of MINOCA in 85% of women in the HARP-MINOCA study. Overall, 64% of women had a true MI and 21% had an alternate nonischemic diagnosis, most commonly myocarditis.
“OCTCMR findings correlated well with OCT culprit lesions, demonstrating that nonobstructive culprit lesions frequently cause MINOCA,” said study author Harmony Reynolds, MD, director of New York University Langone’s Sarah Ross Soter Center for Women’s Cardiovascular Research.
The results were presented at the virtual American Heart Association (AHA) Scientific Sessions 2020 and published simultaneously in Circulation.
MINOCA occurs in up to 15% of patients with MI and is defined as MI meeting the universal definition but with less than 50% stenosis in all major epicardial arteries on angiography and no specific alternate diagnosis to explain the presentation.
It is three times more common in women than in men and also disproportionately affects Black, Hispanic, Maori, and Pacific persons. MINOCA has several causes, leading to uncertainty in diagnostic testing and treatment.
“Different doctors tell patients different messages about MINOCA and may incorrectly say the event wasn’t a heart attack,” Dr. Reynolds said in an earlier press briefing. “I had a patient who was told ‘your arteries are open,’ and they gave her Xanax.”
As part of the Women’s Heart Attack Research Program (HARP), researchers enrolled 301 women with a clinical diagnosis of MI, of whom 170 were diagnosed with MINOCA during angiography and underwent OCT at that time, followed by CMR within 1 week of the acute presentation.
All images were interpreted by an independent core laboratory blinded to results of the other tests and clinical information. The final cohort included 145 women with interpretable OCT images.
Their median age was 60 years, 49.7% were white non-Hispanic, and 97% presented with a provisional diagnosis of non–ST-segment MI. Their median peak troponin level was 0.94 ng/mL.
OCT identified a definite or probable culprit lesion in 46% of women, most commonly atherosclerosis or thrombosis. On multivariable analysis, having a culprit lesion was associated with older age, abnormal angiography findings at the site, and diabetes, but not peak troponin level or severity of angiographic stenosis.
CMR available in 116 women showed evidence of infarction or regional injury in 69%. Multivariate predictors of an abnormal CMR were higher peak troponin and diastolic blood pressure but not an OCT culprit lesion or angiographic stenosis severity.
When the OCT and CMR results were combined, a cause of MINOCA was identified in 84.5% of women. Three-fourths of the causes were ischemic (64% MI) and one-quarter were nonischemic (15% myocarditis, 3% Takotsubo syndrome, and 3% nonischemic cardiomyopathy). In the remaining 15%, no cause of MINOCA was identified.
To emphasize the effect multimodal imaging can have on treatment, Dr. Reynolds highlighted a 44-year-old woman with no risk factors for coronary artery disease who had chest pain in the context of heavy menstrual bleeding, a low hemoglobin level, and peak troponin level of 3.25 ng/mL.
Unexpectedly, imaging revealed a left anterior descending (LAD) plaque rupture in a thin-cap fibroatheroma, causing a small transmural infarction at the terminus of the LAD.
“Without this diagnosis, it’s unlikely she would have received antiplatelet therapy or statins and might have been given a diagnosis of supply/demand mismatch, when the real diagnosis was MI,” Dr. Reynolds observed.
“Finally we can say this is not just crazy women. There is really something going on,” said panelist Roxana Mehran, MD, of the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York. “You have now told us this is most likely atherosclerosis for pretty much 85% of the cases. So make the diagnosis and, of course, make sure you treat these patients accordingly for risk factor modification, really thinking about a ruptured plaque.”
Combining OCT and MRI may result in a more specific diagnosis and better treatment but also raises costs and logistical considerations.
“Implementation challenges are that not every form of testing is available in every medical center,” Dr. Reynolds said in an interview. “Many centers have cardiac MRI,” whereas “OCT is not currently available at most medical centers where heart attack patients are treated but is available at specialized centers.”
Asked during the session about the use of CT angiography, invited discussant Martha Gulati, MD, president-elect of the American Society for Preventive Cardiology, said, “For me, CT is helpful when I’m not sure if there’s any plaque because the angiogram looked really normal and there was no opportunity to do intracoronary imaging. And sometimes that will help me, in particular, if a patient doesn’t want to take a statin.”
Dr. Gulati pointed out that the European Society of Cardiology MINOCA guidelines recommend OCT and CMR, whereas the 2019 AHA statement on MINOCA, which she coauthored, also recommends OCT and CMR, but almost as one or the other.
“We already said that you should do cardiac MR to try to make a diagnosis, but I think the combination of the two needs to be emphasized when we next draft these guidelines. It really will help,” Dr. Gulati said in an interview.
“But using OCT, particularly, needs to be in the setting of the MI. I don’t think you want to do a procedure again,” she said. “So we really need it to become more widely available because at the time of an MI, you won’t necessarily know that you’re not going to find an obstructive lesion.”
Dr. Gulati pointed out several unanswered questions, including whether the diagnosis was missed in some patients, because OCT of all three vessels was available in only 59%, and how the use of high-sensitivity troponin, which was left up to the individual institution, might affect the usefulness of OCT and CMR.
It’s also unknown whether the mechanism is different for ST-segment elevation MI, as the trial included very few cases, although MINOCA often occurs in this setting. Future OCT/CMR studies will also need to enroll men to determine potential sex differences, if any.
Commenting on the study, B. Hadley Wilson, MD, Sanger Heart & Vascular Institute in Charlotte, N.C., said, “There would need to be further justification of this invasive interventional procedure to be sure that the benefit outweighed the risk of putting a wire and an OCT catheter down patients without any significant angiographic blockage and to assure interventional cardiologists of its value here.”
He pointed out that noninvasive CMR appears helpful in the diagnosis of nearly three-quarters of these patients and perhaps could be done first to direct which of those with an ischemic cause might benefit from invasive OCT at catheterization. This seems most pertinent in patients with a high suspicion of coronary artery disease or recurrent MINOCA.
“Overall, we need to consider the expense, logistics, and small risk of these combined modalities, particularly in everyday practice, before making recommendations,” Dr. Wilson said. “ Since OCT is much less available than intravascular ultrasound, it would require a challenging marketplace paradigm shift to implement this multimodality imaging strategy regionally and locally in the U.S., including the added costs. However, further study to direct the more judicious use of either CMR and/or combined with OCT is warranted in these patients.”
The study was funded by the AHA through a grant from the Go Red for Women Strategically Focused Research Network. Dr. Reynolds reported in-kind donations from Abbott Vascular and Siemens related to the study and nonfinancial support from BioTelemetry outside the study. Dr. Gulati and Dr. Wilson reported having no relevant disclosures.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
Intravenous iron reduces HF readmissions: AFFIRM-AHF
Iron supplementation reduces heart failure (HF) readmissions in iron-deficient patients hospitalized for acute HF, according to results of the AFFIRM-AHF trial.
After 52 weeks, intravenous ferric carboxymaltose (Ferinject) reduced the risk of total HF hospitalizations and cardiovascular (CV) death by 21% compared with placebo (293 vs 372 events; rate ratio [RR] 0.79; 95% CI, 0.62 - 1.01).
Although the composite primary endpoint failed to achieve statistical significance, it was driven by a significant 26% reduction in the risk of total HF hospital readmissions (P = .013) without an effect on CV mortality (P =.809).
Because the management and follow-up of patients was affected by the COVID-19 pandemic, a prespecified sensitivity analysis was performed that censored patients in each country at the date when its first COVID-19 patient was reported, explained principal investigator Piotr Ponikowski, MD, PhD, Wroclaw Medical University, Wroclaw, Poland.
That analysis revealed a significant 30% reduction in total HF readmissions (P = .005) in patients receiving ferric carboxymaltose (FCM), as well as significant benefits on the primary composite and secondary endpoints.
Notably, 80% of patients required only one or two injections and HF hospitalizations were reduced irrespective of anemia status.
“Iron deficiency should be searched in patients hospitalized with acute heart failure — assessed using a simple blood test — and is now an important therapeutic target,” Ponikowski said at the virtual American Heart Association (AHA) Scientific Sessions 2020.
The results were also published simultaneously in The Lancet.
Iron deficiency is present in up to 70% of patients with acute HF and a predictor of poor outcome, independent of anemia and ejection fraction, he noted.
The FAIR-HF, CONFIRM-HF, and EFFECT-HF trials demonstrated that IV iron supplementation improves exercise capacity, symptoms, and quality of life in iron-deficient HF patients.
However, no such benefit was seen with oral IV in the IRONOUT trial. “So it seems if we are to replace iron, it needs to be done using intravenous therapy,” said John McMurray, MD, University of Glasgow, Scotland, who was invited to discuss the results.
He observed that the reduction in HF hospitalizations in AFFIRM-AHF were relatively modest and that the trial was never expected to show a benefit on CV mortality. Also, the COVID-19 sensitivity analysis providing more convincing effects is a valid approach and one recommended by regulators.
Further, the findings are supported by independent evidence in chronic kidney disease, from the PIVOTAL trial, that intravenous iron reduces HF hospitalizations, McMurray said.
“The million-dollar question, of course, is what will the results of this study mean for the guidelines: I think they probably will change the guidelines,” he said. “Certainly, I hope they will change the US guidelines, which have really given a very lukewarm recommendation for intravenous iron and I think that should probably be stronger.”
In a class IIb recommendation, the 2017 American College of Cardiology/AHA/Heart Failure Society of America heart failure guidelines say intravenous iron “might be reasonable” to improve functional status and quality of life in New York Heart Association class II and III patients with iron deficiency.
The 2016 European Society of Cardiology guidelines include a class IIa recommendation that IV iron “should be considered” in iron-deficient patients with symptomatic HF with reduced ejection fraction.
“This is the first large-scale [trial] of IV supplementation that could potentially change the way we approach patients, particularly those with hospitalized heart failure,” past AHA president Clyde Yancy, MD, MSc, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine in Chicago, said during an earlier press briefing.
He pointed out that clinicians have been circumspect about the early IV iron data. “I have to congratulate you because you’ve changed the narrative,” Yancy said. “We have to start thinking about iron deficiency; we have to think about how we incorporate this in treatment protocols.”
Press briefing panelist Marc Pfeffer, MD, PhD, Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School in Boston, acknowledged he was among those circumspect.
“I’m no longer a skeptic and I want to congratulate them for showing it’s a risk factor,” he said. “It’s one thing to have a risk factor; it’s another to be a modifiable risk factor and I think that’s what’s so exciting about this.”
The double-blind, phase 4 AFFIRM-AHF trial randomly assigned 1132 patients to receive a bolus injection of ferric carboxymaltose or normal saline before hospital discharge for an acute HF episode. Subsequent treatment was given, as needed, up to 24 weeks post-randomization.
At admission, all patients had left ventricular ejection fractions less than 50% and iron deficiency (serum ferritin <100 ng/mL or serum ferritin 100-299 ng/mL if transferrin saturation <20%).
The modified intention-to-treat (mITT) analysis included 558 FCM patients and 550 controls in whom study treatment was started and for whom at least one post-randomization value was available.
Press briefing discussant Nancy Sweitzer, MD, PhD, director of the University of Arizona’s Sarver Heart Center in Tucson, said AFFIRM-AHF is an “important trial likely to change guidelines” and “targeted one of the highest risk populations we have in heart failure.”
Patients with iron deficiency tend to be elderly with more comorbidities, have longer hospital lengths of stay, and higher readmission rates. “So impacting hospitalizations in this population is incredibly impactful,” she said.
“Awareness and assessment of iron deficiency are an important part of inpatient care of patients with ejection fractions less than or equal to 50% and acute decompensated heart failure, and I think all of us in the community need to pay much more attention to this issue.”
As with any new therapy, there are implementation challenges such as how to monitor patients and deliver the therapy in a cost-effective way, Sweitzer said.
The trial focused on the most vulnerable period for HF patients, but these patients should be rechecked every 3 to 4 months for iron deficiency, Ponikowski observed during the briefing.
“This is a modifiable risk factor,” he said. “We only need to remember, we only need to assess it, and we have a very, very simple tool in our hands. We just need to measure two biomarkers, transferrin saturation and ferritin — that’s all.”
Unanswered questions include the mechanism behind the reduction in hospitalization, the relationship of benefit to hemoglobin levels, and whether there is a differential benefit based on age, presence of ischemia, or sex, especially as women tend to be more severely affected by iron deficiency, Sweitzer said.
During the formal presentation, Ponikowski said the primary endpoint was consistent in subgroup analyses across baseline hemoglobin, estimated glomerular filtration rate, and N-terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide levels, HF etiology, ejection fraction, and whether HF was diagnosed prior to the index hospitalization.
Treatment with FCM was safe, with no significant differences between the FCM and placebo groups in serious adverse events (45% vs 51%) or adverse events leading to study discontinuation (18% vs 17%), he reported. The most common adverse events were cardiac disorders (40.1% vs 44.3%) and infections (18.2% vs 22%).
AFFIRM-AHF is the first of three ongoing mortality and morbidity trials in heart failure with intravenous ferric carboxymaltose; the others are FAIR-HF2 and HEART-FID. Additional insights are also expected next year on intravenous iron isomaltoside from the Scottish-based IRONMAN trial in 1300 HF patients with iron deficiency.
The study was sponsored by Vifor International. Ponikowski has received research grants and personal fees from Vifor Pharma; and personal fees from Amgen, Bayer, Novartis, Abbott Vascular, Boehringer Ingelheim, Merck, Pfizer, Servier, AstraZeneca, Berlin Chemie, Cibiem, Renal Guard Solutions Bristol-Myers Squibb, and Impulse Dynamics.
Pfeffer reported honoraria from AstraZeneca, Corvidia, GlaxoSmithKline, Jazz, MyoKardia, Novartis, Roche, Sanofi, and Servier; other relationships with DalCor and Novo Nordisk; research grants from Novartis; and an ownership interest in DalCor. Sweitzer reported research payments from Merck and Novartis; and consulting fees from Myocardia.
McMurray reported relationships with Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Cytokinetics, Novartis, and Servier. Yancy reported a relationship with Abbott and JAMA Network.
Lancet. Published online November 13, 2020. Full text
American Heart Association Scientific Sessions 2020: Presented November 13, 2020.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
Iron supplementation reduces heart failure (HF) readmissions in iron-deficient patients hospitalized for acute HF, according to results of the AFFIRM-AHF trial.
After 52 weeks, intravenous ferric carboxymaltose (Ferinject) reduced the risk of total HF hospitalizations and cardiovascular (CV) death by 21% compared with placebo (293 vs 372 events; rate ratio [RR] 0.79; 95% CI, 0.62 - 1.01).
Although the composite primary endpoint failed to achieve statistical significance, it was driven by a significant 26% reduction in the risk of total HF hospital readmissions (P = .013) without an effect on CV mortality (P =.809).
Because the management and follow-up of patients was affected by the COVID-19 pandemic, a prespecified sensitivity analysis was performed that censored patients in each country at the date when its first COVID-19 patient was reported, explained principal investigator Piotr Ponikowski, MD, PhD, Wroclaw Medical University, Wroclaw, Poland.
That analysis revealed a significant 30% reduction in total HF readmissions (P = .005) in patients receiving ferric carboxymaltose (FCM), as well as significant benefits on the primary composite and secondary endpoints.
Notably, 80% of patients required only one or two injections and HF hospitalizations were reduced irrespective of anemia status.
“Iron deficiency should be searched in patients hospitalized with acute heart failure — assessed using a simple blood test — and is now an important therapeutic target,” Ponikowski said at the virtual American Heart Association (AHA) Scientific Sessions 2020.
The results were also published simultaneously in The Lancet.
Iron deficiency is present in up to 70% of patients with acute HF and a predictor of poor outcome, independent of anemia and ejection fraction, he noted.
The FAIR-HF, CONFIRM-HF, and EFFECT-HF trials demonstrated that IV iron supplementation improves exercise capacity, symptoms, and quality of life in iron-deficient HF patients.
However, no such benefit was seen with oral IV in the IRONOUT trial. “So it seems if we are to replace iron, it needs to be done using intravenous therapy,” said John McMurray, MD, University of Glasgow, Scotland, who was invited to discuss the results.
He observed that the reduction in HF hospitalizations in AFFIRM-AHF were relatively modest and that the trial was never expected to show a benefit on CV mortality. Also, the COVID-19 sensitivity analysis providing more convincing effects is a valid approach and one recommended by regulators.
Further, the findings are supported by independent evidence in chronic kidney disease, from the PIVOTAL trial, that intravenous iron reduces HF hospitalizations, McMurray said.
“The million-dollar question, of course, is what will the results of this study mean for the guidelines: I think they probably will change the guidelines,” he said. “Certainly, I hope they will change the US guidelines, which have really given a very lukewarm recommendation for intravenous iron and I think that should probably be stronger.”
In a class IIb recommendation, the 2017 American College of Cardiology/AHA/Heart Failure Society of America heart failure guidelines say intravenous iron “might be reasonable” to improve functional status and quality of life in New York Heart Association class II and III patients with iron deficiency.
The 2016 European Society of Cardiology guidelines include a class IIa recommendation that IV iron “should be considered” in iron-deficient patients with symptomatic HF with reduced ejection fraction.
“This is the first large-scale [trial] of IV supplementation that could potentially change the way we approach patients, particularly those with hospitalized heart failure,” past AHA president Clyde Yancy, MD, MSc, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine in Chicago, said during an earlier press briefing.
He pointed out that clinicians have been circumspect about the early IV iron data. “I have to congratulate you because you’ve changed the narrative,” Yancy said. “We have to start thinking about iron deficiency; we have to think about how we incorporate this in treatment protocols.”
Press briefing panelist Marc Pfeffer, MD, PhD, Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School in Boston, acknowledged he was among those circumspect.
“I’m no longer a skeptic and I want to congratulate them for showing it’s a risk factor,” he said. “It’s one thing to have a risk factor; it’s another to be a modifiable risk factor and I think that’s what’s so exciting about this.”
The double-blind, phase 4 AFFIRM-AHF trial randomly assigned 1132 patients to receive a bolus injection of ferric carboxymaltose or normal saline before hospital discharge for an acute HF episode. Subsequent treatment was given, as needed, up to 24 weeks post-randomization.
At admission, all patients had left ventricular ejection fractions less than 50% and iron deficiency (serum ferritin <100 ng/mL or serum ferritin 100-299 ng/mL if transferrin saturation <20%).
The modified intention-to-treat (mITT) analysis included 558 FCM patients and 550 controls in whom study treatment was started and for whom at least one post-randomization value was available.
Press briefing discussant Nancy Sweitzer, MD, PhD, director of the University of Arizona’s Sarver Heart Center in Tucson, said AFFIRM-AHF is an “important trial likely to change guidelines” and “targeted one of the highest risk populations we have in heart failure.”
Patients with iron deficiency tend to be elderly with more comorbidities, have longer hospital lengths of stay, and higher readmission rates. “So impacting hospitalizations in this population is incredibly impactful,” she said.
“Awareness and assessment of iron deficiency are an important part of inpatient care of patients with ejection fractions less than or equal to 50% and acute decompensated heart failure, and I think all of us in the community need to pay much more attention to this issue.”
As with any new therapy, there are implementation challenges such as how to monitor patients and deliver the therapy in a cost-effective way, Sweitzer said.
The trial focused on the most vulnerable period for HF patients, but these patients should be rechecked every 3 to 4 months for iron deficiency, Ponikowski observed during the briefing.
“This is a modifiable risk factor,” he said. “We only need to remember, we only need to assess it, and we have a very, very simple tool in our hands. We just need to measure two biomarkers, transferrin saturation and ferritin — that’s all.”
Unanswered questions include the mechanism behind the reduction in hospitalization, the relationship of benefit to hemoglobin levels, and whether there is a differential benefit based on age, presence of ischemia, or sex, especially as women tend to be more severely affected by iron deficiency, Sweitzer said.
During the formal presentation, Ponikowski said the primary endpoint was consistent in subgroup analyses across baseline hemoglobin, estimated glomerular filtration rate, and N-terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide levels, HF etiology, ejection fraction, and whether HF was diagnosed prior to the index hospitalization.
Treatment with FCM was safe, with no significant differences between the FCM and placebo groups in serious adverse events (45% vs 51%) or adverse events leading to study discontinuation (18% vs 17%), he reported. The most common adverse events were cardiac disorders (40.1% vs 44.3%) and infections (18.2% vs 22%).
AFFIRM-AHF is the first of three ongoing mortality and morbidity trials in heart failure with intravenous ferric carboxymaltose; the others are FAIR-HF2 and HEART-FID. Additional insights are also expected next year on intravenous iron isomaltoside from the Scottish-based IRONMAN trial in 1300 HF patients with iron deficiency.
The study was sponsored by Vifor International. Ponikowski has received research grants and personal fees from Vifor Pharma; and personal fees from Amgen, Bayer, Novartis, Abbott Vascular, Boehringer Ingelheim, Merck, Pfizer, Servier, AstraZeneca, Berlin Chemie, Cibiem, Renal Guard Solutions Bristol-Myers Squibb, and Impulse Dynamics.
Pfeffer reported honoraria from AstraZeneca, Corvidia, GlaxoSmithKline, Jazz, MyoKardia, Novartis, Roche, Sanofi, and Servier; other relationships with DalCor and Novo Nordisk; research grants from Novartis; and an ownership interest in DalCor. Sweitzer reported research payments from Merck and Novartis; and consulting fees from Myocardia.
McMurray reported relationships with Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Cytokinetics, Novartis, and Servier. Yancy reported a relationship with Abbott and JAMA Network.
Lancet. Published online November 13, 2020. Full text
American Heart Association Scientific Sessions 2020: Presented November 13, 2020.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
Iron supplementation reduces heart failure (HF) readmissions in iron-deficient patients hospitalized for acute HF, according to results of the AFFIRM-AHF trial.
After 52 weeks, intravenous ferric carboxymaltose (Ferinject) reduced the risk of total HF hospitalizations and cardiovascular (CV) death by 21% compared with placebo (293 vs 372 events; rate ratio [RR] 0.79; 95% CI, 0.62 - 1.01).
Although the composite primary endpoint failed to achieve statistical significance, it was driven by a significant 26% reduction in the risk of total HF hospital readmissions (P = .013) without an effect on CV mortality (P =.809).
Because the management and follow-up of patients was affected by the COVID-19 pandemic, a prespecified sensitivity analysis was performed that censored patients in each country at the date when its first COVID-19 patient was reported, explained principal investigator Piotr Ponikowski, MD, PhD, Wroclaw Medical University, Wroclaw, Poland.
That analysis revealed a significant 30% reduction in total HF readmissions (P = .005) in patients receiving ferric carboxymaltose (FCM), as well as significant benefits on the primary composite and secondary endpoints.
Notably, 80% of patients required only one or two injections and HF hospitalizations were reduced irrespective of anemia status.
“Iron deficiency should be searched in patients hospitalized with acute heart failure — assessed using a simple blood test — and is now an important therapeutic target,” Ponikowski said at the virtual American Heart Association (AHA) Scientific Sessions 2020.
The results were also published simultaneously in The Lancet.
Iron deficiency is present in up to 70% of patients with acute HF and a predictor of poor outcome, independent of anemia and ejection fraction, he noted.
The FAIR-HF, CONFIRM-HF, and EFFECT-HF trials demonstrated that IV iron supplementation improves exercise capacity, symptoms, and quality of life in iron-deficient HF patients.
However, no such benefit was seen with oral IV in the IRONOUT trial. “So it seems if we are to replace iron, it needs to be done using intravenous therapy,” said John McMurray, MD, University of Glasgow, Scotland, who was invited to discuss the results.
He observed that the reduction in HF hospitalizations in AFFIRM-AHF were relatively modest and that the trial was never expected to show a benefit on CV mortality. Also, the COVID-19 sensitivity analysis providing more convincing effects is a valid approach and one recommended by regulators.
Further, the findings are supported by independent evidence in chronic kidney disease, from the PIVOTAL trial, that intravenous iron reduces HF hospitalizations, McMurray said.
“The million-dollar question, of course, is what will the results of this study mean for the guidelines: I think they probably will change the guidelines,” he said. “Certainly, I hope they will change the US guidelines, which have really given a very lukewarm recommendation for intravenous iron and I think that should probably be stronger.”
In a class IIb recommendation, the 2017 American College of Cardiology/AHA/Heart Failure Society of America heart failure guidelines say intravenous iron “might be reasonable” to improve functional status and quality of life in New York Heart Association class II and III patients with iron deficiency.
The 2016 European Society of Cardiology guidelines include a class IIa recommendation that IV iron “should be considered” in iron-deficient patients with symptomatic HF with reduced ejection fraction.
“This is the first large-scale [trial] of IV supplementation that could potentially change the way we approach patients, particularly those with hospitalized heart failure,” past AHA president Clyde Yancy, MD, MSc, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine in Chicago, said during an earlier press briefing.
He pointed out that clinicians have been circumspect about the early IV iron data. “I have to congratulate you because you’ve changed the narrative,” Yancy said. “We have to start thinking about iron deficiency; we have to think about how we incorporate this in treatment protocols.”
Press briefing panelist Marc Pfeffer, MD, PhD, Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School in Boston, acknowledged he was among those circumspect.
“I’m no longer a skeptic and I want to congratulate them for showing it’s a risk factor,” he said. “It’s one thing to have a risk factor; it’s another to be a modifiable risk factor and I think that’s what’s so exciting about this.”
The double-blind, phase 4 AFFIRM-AHF trial randomly assigned 1132 patients to receive a bolus injection of ferric carboxymaltose or normal saline before hospital discharge for an acute HF episode. Subsequent treatment was given, as needed, up to 24 weeks post-randomization.
At admission, all patients had left ventricular ejection fractions less than 50% and iron deficiency (serum ferritin <100 ng/mL or serum ferritin 100-299 ng/mL if transferrin saturation <20%).
The modified intention-to-treat (mITT) analysis included 558 FCM patients and 550 controls in whom study treatment was started and for whom at least one post-randomization value was available.
Press briefing discussant Nancy Sweitzer, MD, PhD, director of the University of Arizona’s Sarver Heart Center in Tucson, said AFFIRM-AHF is an “important trial likely to change guidelines” and “targeted one of the highest risk populations we have in heart failure.”
Patients with iron deficiency tend to be elderly with more comorbidities, have longer hospital lengths of stay, and higher readmission rates. “So impacting hospitalizations in this population is incredibly impactful,” she said.
“Awareness and assessment of iron deficiency are an important part of inpatient care of patients with ejection fractions less than or equal to 50% and acute decompensated heart failure, and I think all of us in the community need to pay much more attention to this issue.”
As with any new therapy, there are implementation challenges such as how to monitor patients and deliver the therapy in a cost-effective way, Sweitzer said.
The trial focused on the most vulnerable period for HF patients, but these patients should be rechecked every 3 to 4 months for iron deficiency, Ponikowski observed during the briefing.
“This is a modifiable risk factor,” he said. “We only need to remember, we only need to assess it, and we have a very, very simple tool in our hands. We just need to measure two biomarkers, transferrin saturation and ferritin — that’s all.”
Unanswered questions include the mechanism behind the reduction in hospitalization, the relationship of benefit to hemoglobin levels, and whether there is a differential benefit based on age, presence of ischemia, or sex, especially as women tend to be more severely affected by iron deficiency, Sweitzer said.
During the formal presentation, Ponikowski said the primary endpoint was consistent in subgroup analyses across baseline hemoglobin, estimated glomerular filtration rate, and N-terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide levels, HF etiology, ejection fraction, and whether HF was diagnosed prior to the index hospitalization.
Treatment with FCM was safe, with no significant differences between the FCM and placebo groups in serious adverse events (45% vs 51%) or adverse events leading to study discontinuation (18% vs 17%), he reported. The most common adverse events were cardiac disorders (40.1% vs 44.3%) and infections (18.2% vs 22%).
AFFIRM-AHF is the first of three ongoing mortality and morbidity trials in heart failure with intravenous ferric carboxymaltose; the others are FAIR-HF2 and HEART-FID. Additional insights are also expected next year on intravenous iron isomaltoside from the Scottish-based IRONMAN trial in 1300 HF patients with iron deficiency.
The study was sponsored by Vifor International. Ponikowski has received research grants and personal fees from Vifor Pharma; and personal fees from Amgen, Bayer, Novartis, Abbott Vascular, Boehringer Ingelheim, Merck, Pfizer, Servier, AstraZeneca, Berlin Chemie, Cibiem, Renal Guard Solutions Bristol-Myers Squibb, and Impulse Dynamics.
Pfeffer reported honoraria from AstraZeneca, Corvidia, GlaxoSmithKline, Jazz, MyoKardia, Novartis, Roche, Sanofi, and Servier; other relationships with DalCor and Novo Nordisk; research grants from Novartis; and an ownership interest in DalCor. Sweitzer reported research payments from Merck and Novartis; and consulting fees from Myocardia.
McMurray reported relationships with Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Cytokinetics, Novartis, and Servier. Yancy reported a relationship with Abbott and JAMA Network.
Lancet. Published online November 13, 2020. Full text
American Heart Association Scientific Sessions 2020: Presented November 13, 2020.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM AHA 2020
HF an added risk in COVID-19, regardless of ejection fraction
People with a history of heart failure – no matter the type – face more complications and death than their peers without HF once hospitalized with COVID-19, a new observational study shows.
A history of HF was associated with a near doubling risk of in-hospital mortality and ICU care and more than a tripling risk of mechanical ventilation despite adjustment for 18 factors including race, obesity, diabetes, previous treatment with renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system (RAAS) inhibitors, and severity of illness.
Adverse outcomes were high regardless of whether patients had HF with a preserved, mid-range, or reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (HFpEF/HFmrEF/HFrEF).
“That for me was the real zinger,” senior author Anuradha Lala, MD, said in an interview . “Because as clinicians, oftentimes, and wrongly so, we think this person has preserved ejection fraction, so they’re not needing my heart failure expertise as much as someone with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction.”
In the peak of the pandemic, that may have meant triaging patients with HFpEF to a regular floor, whereas those with HFrEF were seen by the specialist team.
“What this alerted me to is to take heart failure as a diagnosis very seriously, regardless of ejection fraction, and that is very much in line with all of the emerging data about heart failure with preserved ejection fraction,” said Dr. Lala, from the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York.
“Now when I see patients in the clinic, I incorporate part of our visit to talking about what they are doing to prevent COVID, which I really wasn’t doing before. It was like ‘Oh yeah, what crazy times we’re dealing with’ and then addressing their heart failure as I normally would,” she said. “But now, interwoven into every visit is: Are you wearing a mask, what’s your social distancing policy, who are you living with at home, has anyone at home or who you’ve interacted with been sick? I’m asking those questions just as a knee-jerk reaction for these patients because I know the repercussions. We have to keep in mind these are observational studies, so I can’t prove causality but these are observations that are, nonetheless, quite robust.”
Although cardiovascular disease, including HF, is recognized as a risk factor for worse outcomes in COVID-19 patients, data are sparse on the clinical course and prognosis of patients with preexisting HF.
“I would have expected that there would have been a gradation of risk from the people with very low ejection fractions up into the normal range, but here it didn’t seem to matter at all. So that’s an important point that bad outcomes were independent of ejection fraction,” commented Lee Goldberg, MD, professor of medicine and chief of advanced heart failure and cardiac transplant at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.
The study also validated that there is no association between use of RAAS inhibitors and bad outcomes in patients with COVID-19, he said.
Although this has been demonstrated in several studies, concerns were raised early in the pandemic that ACE inhibitors and angiotensin receptor blockers could facilitate infection with SARS-CoV-2 and increase the risk of severe or lethal COVID-19.
“For most clinicians that question has been put to bed, but we’re still getting patients that will ask during office visits ‘Is it safe for me to stay on?’ They still have that doubt [about] ‘Are we doing the right thing?’ ” Dr. Goldberg said.
“We can reassure them now. A lot of us are able to say there’s nothing to that, we’re very clear about this, stay on the meds. If anything, there’s data that suggest actually it may be better to be on an ACE inhibitor; that the hospitalizations were shorter and the outcomes were a little bit better.”
For the current study, published online Oct. 28 in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology, the investigators analyzed 6,439 patients admitted for COVID-19 at one of five Mount Sinai Health System hospitals in New York between Feb. 27 and June 26. Their mean age was 65.3 years, 45% were women, and one-third were treated with RAAS inhibitors before admission.
Using ICD-9/10 codes and individual chart review, HF was identified in 422 patients (6.6%), of which 250 patients had HFpEF (≥50%), 44 had HFmrEF (41%-49%), and 128 had HFrEF (≤40%).
Patients with HFpEF were older, more frequently women with a higher body mass index and history of lung disease than patients with HFrEF, whereas those with HFmrEF fell in between.
The HFpEF group was also treated with hydroxychloroquine or macrolides and noninvasive ventilation more frequently than the other two groups, whereas antiplatelet and neurohormonal therapies were more common in the HFrEF group.
Patients with a history of HF had significantly longer hospital stays than those without HF (8 days vs. 6 days), increased need for intubation (22.8% vs. 11.9%) and ICU care (23.2% vs. 16.6%), and worse in-hospital mortality (40% vs. 24.9%).
After multivariable regression adjustment, HF persisted as an independent risk factor for ICU care (odds ratio, 1.71; 95% CI, 1.25-2.34), intubation and mechanical ventilation (OR, 3.64; 95% CI, 2.56-5.16), and in-hospital mortality (OR, 1.88; 95% CI, 1.27-2.78).
“I knew to expect higher rates of adverse outcomes but I didn’t expect it to be nearly a twofold increase,” Dr. Lala said. “I thought that was pretty powerful.”
No significant differences were seen across LVEF categories in length of stay, need for ICU care, intubation and mechanical ventilation, acute kidney injury, shock, thromboembolic events, arrhythmias, or 30-day readmission rates.
However, cardiogenic shock (7.8% vs. 2.3% vs. 2%) and HF-related causes for 30-day readmissions (47.1% vs. 0% vs. 8.6%) were significantly higher in patients with HFrEF than in those with HFmrEF or HFpEF.
Also, mortality was lower in those with HFmrEF (22.7%) than with HFrEF (38.3%) and HFpEF (44%). The group was small but the “results suggested that patients with HFmrEF could have a better prognosis, because they can represent a distinct and more favorable HF phenotype,” the authors wrote.
The statistical testing didn’t show much difference and the patient numbers were very small, noted Dr. Goldberg. “So they might be overreaching a little bit there.”
“To me, the take-home message is that just having the phenotype of heart failure, regardless of EF, is associated with bad outcomes and we need to be vigilant on two fronts,” he said. “We really need to be doing prevention in the folks with heart failure because if they get COVID their outcomes are not going to be as good. Second, as clinicians, if we see a patient presenting with COVID who has a history of heart failure we may want to be much more vigilant with that individual than we might otherwise be. So I think there’s something to be said for kind of risk-stratifying people in that way.”
Dr. Goldberg pointed out that the study had many “amazing strengths,” including a large, racially diverse population, direct chart review to identify HF patients, and capturing a patient’s specific HF phenotype.
Weaknesses are that it was a single-center study, so the biases of how these patients were treated are not easily controlled for, he said. “We also don’t know when the hospital system was very strained as they were making some decisions: Were the older patients who had advanced heart and lung disease ultimately less aggressively treated because they felt they wouldn’t survive?”
Dr. Lala has received personal fees from Zoll, outside the submitted work. Dr. Goldberg reported research funding with Respicardia and consulting fees from Abbott.
This article first appeared on Medscape.com.
People with a history of heart failure – no matter the type – face more complications and death than their peers without HF once hospitalized with COVID-19, a new observational study shows.
A history of HF was associated with a near doubling risk of in-hospital mortality and ICU care and more than a tripling risk of mechanical ventilation despite adjustment for 18 factors including race, obesity, diabetes, previous treatment with renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system (RAAS) inhibitors, and severity of illness.
Adverse outcomes were high regardless of whether patients had HF with a preserved, mid-range, or reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (HFpEF/HFmrEF/HFrEF).
“That for me was the real zinger,” senior author Anuradha Lala, MD, said in an interview . “Because as clinicians, oftentimes, and wrongly so, we think this person has preserved ejection fraction, so they’re not needing my heart failure expertise as much as someone with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction.”
In the peak of the pandemic, that may have meant triaging patients with HFpEF to a regular floor, whereas those with HFrEF were seen by the specialist team.
“What this alerted me to is to take heart failure as a diagnosis very seriously, regardless of ejection fraction, and that is very much in line with all of the emerging data about heart failure with preserved ejection fraction,” said Dr. Lala, from the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York.
“Now when I see patients in the clinic, I incorporate part of our visit to talking about what they are doing to prevent COVID, which I really wasn’t doing before. It was like ‘Oh yeah, what crazy times we’re dealing with’ and then addressing their heart failure as I normally would,” she said. “But now, interwoven into every visit is: Are you wearing a mask, what’s your social distancing policy, who are you living with at home, has anyone at home or who you’ve interacted with been sick? I’m asking those questions just as a knee-jerk reaction for these patients because I know the repercussions. We have to keep in mind these are observational studies, so I can’t prove causality but these are observations that are, nonetheless, quite robust.”
Although cardiovascular disease, including HF, is recognized as a risk factor for worse outcomes in COVID-19 patients, data are sparse on the clinical course and prognosis of patients with preexisting HF.
“I would have expected that there would have been a gradation of risk from the people with very low ejection fractions up into the normal range, but here it didn’t seem to matter at all. So that’s an important point that bad outcomes were independent of ejection fraction,” commented Lee Goldberg, MD, professor of medicine and chief of advanced heart failure and cardiac transplant at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.
The study also validated that there is no association between use of RAAS inhibitors and bad outcomes in patients with COVID-19, he said.
Although this has been demonstrated in several studies, concerns were raised early in the pandemic that ACE inhibitors and angiotensin receptor blockers could facilitate infection with SARS-CoV-2 and increase the risk of severe or lethal COVID-19.
“For most clinicians that question has been put to bed, but we’re still getting patients that will ask during office visits ‘Is it safe for me to stay on?’ They still have that doubt [about] ‘Are we doing the right thing?’ ” Dr. Goldberg said.
“We can reassure them now. A lot of us are able to say there’s nothing to that, we’re very clear about this, stay on the meds. If anything, there’s data that suggest actually it may be better to be on an ACE inhibitor; that the hospitalizations were shorter and the outcomes were a little bit better.”
For the current study, published online Oct. 28 in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology, the investigators analyzed 6,439 patients admitted for COVID-19 at one of five Mount Sinai Health System hospitals in New York between Feb. 27 and June 26. Their mean age was 65.3 years, 45% were women, and one-third were treated with RAAS inhibitors before admission.
Using ICD-9/10 codes and individual chart review, HF was identified in 422 patients (6.6%), of which 250 patients had HFpEF (≥50%), 44 had HFmrEF (41%-49%), and 128 had HFrEF (≤40%).
Patients with HFpEF were older, more frequently women with a higher body mass index and history of lung disease than patients with HFrEF, whereas those with HFmrEF fell in between.
The HFpEF group was also treated with hydroxychloroquine or macrolides and noninvasive ventilation more frequently than the other two groups, whereas antiplatelet and neurohormonal therapies were more common in the HFrEF group.
Patients with a history of HF had significantly longer hospital stays than those without HF (8 days vs. 6 days), increased need for intubation (22.8% vs. 11.9%) and ICU care (23.2% vs. 16.6%), and worse in-hospital mortality (40% vs. 24.9%).
After multivariable regression adjustment, HF persisted as an independent risk factor for ICU care (odds ratio, 1.71; 95% CI, 1.25-2.34), intubation and mechanical ventilation (OR, 3.64; 95% CI, 2.56-5.16), and in-hospital mortality (OR, 1.88; 95% CI, 1.27-2.78).
“I knew to expect higher rates of adverse outcomes but I didn’t expect it to be nearly a twofold increase,” Dr. Lala said. “I thought that was pretty powerful.”
No significant differences were seen across LVEF categories in length of stay, need for ICU care, intubation and mechanical ventilation, acute kidney injury, shock, thromboembolic events, arrhythmias, or 30-day readmission rates.
However, cardiogenic shock (7.8% vs. 2.3% vs. 2%) and HF-related causes for 30-day readmissions (47.1% vs. 0% vs. 8.6%) were significantly higher in patients with HFrEF than in those with HFmrEF or HFpEF.
Also, mortality was lower in those with HFmrEF (22.7%) than with HFrEF (38.3%) and HFpEF (44%). The group was small but the “results suggested that patients with HFmrEF could have a better prognosis, because they can represent a distinct and more favorable HF phenotype,” the authors wrote.
The statistical testing didn’t show much difference and the patient numbers were very small, noted Dr. Goldberg. “So they might be overreaching a little bit there.”
“To me, the take-home message is that just having the phenotype of heart failure, regardless of EF, is associated with bad outcomes and we need to be vigilant on two fronts,” he said. “We really need to be doing prevention in the folks with heart failure because if they get COVID their outcomes are not going to be as good. Second, as clinicians, if we see a patient presenting with COVID who has a history of heart failure we may want to be much more vigilant with that individual than we might otherwise be. So I think there’s something to be said for kind of risk-stratifying people in that way.”
Dr. Goldberg pointed out that the study had many “amazing strengths,” including a large, racially diverse population, direct chart review to identify HF patients, and capturing a patient’s specific HF phenotype.
Weaknesses are that it was a single-center study, so the biases of how these patients were treated are not easily controlled for, he said. “We also don’t know when the hospital system was very strained as they were making some decisions: Were the older patients who had advanced heart and lung disease ultimately less aggressively treated because they felt they wouldn’t survive?”
Dr. Lala has received personal fees from Zoll, outside the submitted work. Dr. Goldberg reported research funding with Respicardia and consulting fees from Abbott.
This article first appeared on Medscape.com.
People with a history of heart failure – no matter the type – face more complications and death than their peers without HF once hospitalized with COVID-19, a new observational study shows.
A history of HF was associated with a near doubling risk of in-hospital mortality and ICU care and more than a tripling risk of mechanical ventilation despite adjustment for 18 factors including race, obesity, diabetes, previous treatment with renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system (RAAS) inhibitors, and severity of illness.
Adverse outcomes were high regardless of whether patients had HF with a preserved, mid-range, or reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (HFpEF/HFmrEF/HFrEF).
“That for me was the real zinger,” senior author Anuradha Lala, MD, said in an interview . “Because as clinicians, oftentimes, and wrongly so, we think this person has preserved ejection fraction, so they’re not needing my heart failure expertise as much as someone with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction.”
In the peak of the pandemic, that may have meant triaging patients with HFpEF to a regular floor, whereas those with HFrEF were seen by the specialist team.
“What this alerted me to is to take heart failure as a diagnosis very seriously, regardless of ejection fraction, and that is very much in line with all of the emerging data about heart failure with preserved ejection fraction,” said Dr. Lala, from the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York.
“Now when I see patients in the clinic, I incorporate part of our visit to talking about what they are doing to prevent COVID, which I really wasn’t doing before. It was like ‘Oh yeah, what crazy times we’re dealing with’ and then addressing their heart failure as I normally would,” she said. “But now, interwoven into every visit is: Are you wearing a mask, what’s your social distancing policy, who are you living with at home, has anyone at home or who you’ve interacted with been sick? I’m asking those questions just as a knee-jerk reaction for these patients because I know the repercussions. We have to keep in mind these are observational studies, so I can’t prove causality but these are observations that are, nonetheless, quite robust.”
Although cardiovascular disease, including HF, is recognized as a risk factor for worse outcomes in COVID-19 patients, data are sparse on the clinical course and prognosis of patients with preexisting HF.
“I would have expected that there would have been a gradation of risk from the people with very low ejection fractions up into the normal range, but here it didn’t seem to matter at all. So that’s an important point that bad outcomes were independent of ejection fraction,” commented Lee Goldberg, MD, professor of medicine and chief of advanced heart failure and cardiac transplant at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.
The study also validated that there is no association between use of RAAS inhibitors and bad outcomes in patients with COVID-19, he said.
Although this has been demonstrated in several studies, concerns were raised early in the pandemic that ACE inhibitors and angiotensin receptor blockers could facilitate infection with SARS-CoV-2 and increase the risk of severe or lethal COVID-19.
“For most clinicians that question has been put to bed, but we’re still getting patients that will ask during office visits ‘Is it safe for me to stay on?’ They still have that doubt [about] ‘Are we doing the right thing?’ ” Dr. Goldberg said.
“We can reassure them now. A lot of us are able to say there’s nothing to that, we’re very clear about this, stay on the meds. If anything, there’s data that suggest actually it may be better to be on an ACE inhibitor; that the hospitalizations were shorter and the outcomes were a little bit better.”
For the current study, published online Oct. 28 in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology, the investigators analyzed 6,439 patients admitted for COVID-19 at one of five Mount Sinai Health System hospitals in New York between Feb. 27 and June 26. Their mean age was 65.3 years, 45% were women, and one-third were treated with RAAS inhibitors before admission.
Using ICD-9/10 codes and individual chart review, HF was identified in 422 patients (6.6%), of which 250 patients had HFpEF (≥50%), 44 had HFmrEF (41%-49%), and 128 had HFrEF (≤40%).
Patients with HFpEF were older, more frequently women with a higher body mass index and history of lung disease than patients with HFrEF, whereas those with HFmrEF fell in between.
The HFpEF group was also treated with hydroxychloroquine or macrolides and noninvasive ventilation more frequently than the other two groups, whereas antiplatelet and neurohormonal therapies were more common in the HFrEF group.
Patients with a history of HF had significantly longer hospital stays than those without HF (8 days vs. 6 days), increased need for intubation (22.8% vs. 11.9%) and ICU care (23.2% vs. 16.6%), and worse in-hospital mortality (40% vs. 24.9%).
After multivariable regression adjustment, HF persisted as an independent risk factor for ICU care (odds ratio, 1.71; 95% CI, 1.25-2.34), intubation and mechanical ventilation (OR, 3.64; 95% CI, 2.56-5.16), and in-hospital mortality (OR, 1.88; 95% CI, 1.27-2.78).
“I knew to expect higher rates of adverse outcomes but I didn’t expect it to be nearly a twofold increase,” Dr. Lala said. “I thought that was pretty powerful.”
No significant differences were seen across LVEF categories in length of stay, need for ICU care, intubation and mechanical ventilation, acute kidney injury, shock, thromboembolic events, arrhythmias, or 30-day readmission rates.
However, cardiogenic shock (7.8% vs. 2.3% vs. 2%) and HF-related causes for 30-day readmissions (47.1% vs. 0% vs. 8.6%) were significantly higher in patients with HFrEF than in those with HFmrEF or HFpEF.
Also, mortality was lower in those with HFmrEF (22.7%) than with HFrEF (38.3%) and HFpEF (44%). The group was small but the “results suggested that patients with HFmrEF could have a better prognosis, because they can represent a distinct and more favorable HF phenotype,” the authors wrote.
The statistical testing didn’t show much difference and the patient numbers were very small, noted Dr. Goldberg. “So they might be overreaching a little bit there.”
“To me, the take-home message is that just having the phenotype of heart failure, regardless of EF, is associated with bad outcomes and we need to be vigilant on two fronts,” he said. “We really need to be doing prevention in the folks with heart failure because if they get COVID their outcomes are not going to be as good. Second, as clinicians, if we see a patient presenting with COVID who has a history of heart failure we may want to be much more vigilant with that individual than we might otherwise be. So I think there’s something to be said for kind of risk-stratifying people in that way.”
Dr. Goldberg pointed out that the study had many “amazing strengths,” including a large, racially diverse population, direct chart review to identify HF patients, and capturing a patient’s specific HF phenotype.
Weaknesses are that it was a single-center study, so the biases of how these patients were treated are not easily controlled for, he said. “We also don’t know when the hospital system was very strained as they were making some decisions: Were the older patients who had advanced heart and lung disease ultimately less aggressively treated because they felt they wouldn’t survive?”
Dr. Lala has received personal fees from Zoll, outside the submitted work. Dr. Goldberg reported research funding with Respicardia and consulting fees from Abbott.
This article first appeared on Medscape.com.
COMPARE CRUSH: Crushed prehospital prasugrel misses mark in STEMI
Giving crushed prasugrel (Effient) to patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) en route to a planned primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) does not improve reperfusion rates, results of the COMPARE CRUSH trial show.
Patients assigned to prasugrel as crushed or integral tablets had similar rates of the study’s co-primary endpoints of thrombolysis in myocardial infarction (TIMI) 3 flow in the infarct-related artery at first angiography (31% vs. 32.7%; P = .64) and complete ST-segment resolution 1 hour post PCI (59.9% vs. 57.3%; P = .55).
“These findings hold in spite of the fact that crushed tablets of prasugrel led to more potent platelet inhibition compared with integral tablets,” said study author Georgios Vlachojannis, MD, PhD, University Medical Center Utrecht, the Netherlands.
“Whether faster and more potent antiplatelet therapy can improve coronary reperfusion in contemporary STEMI treatment regimen warrants further investigation.”
The results were reported in a late-breaking clinical science session at the Transcatheter Cardiovascular Therapeutics virtual annual meeting and published simultaneously in the journal Circulation. The meeting was sponsored by the Cardiovascular Research Foundation.
Fibrinolytics and glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors have demonstrated improved coronary reperfusion and outcomes when given pre hospital. Prior studies have also shown that early administration of a crushed P2Y12 inhibitor increases bioavailability and speeds platelet inhibition in STEMI patients, Dr. Vlachojannis noted.
However, the large randomized ATLANTIC trial, which compared prehospital to cath lab administration of crushed or integral ticagrelor (Brilinta), also found no difference in either TIMI flow in the infarct-related artery or ST-segment resolution.
Between November 2017 and March 2020, the investigator-initiated COMPARE CRUSH trial randomly allocated 727 STEMI patients (mean age, 62 years; 23% female) undergoing primary PCI to receive in the ambulance a 60-mg loading dose of prasugrel as either crushed or integral tablets.
The median time from onset of symptoms to first medical contact was 59 minutes, from first medical contact to study treatment 22 minutes, and from study treatment to primary PCI 57 minutes. These times did not differ between groups.
Platelet reactivity at the beginning of coronary angiography was significantly lower in the crushed group than in the integral group (P2Y12 reactivity units 192 vs. 227; P < .01). This resulted in significantly fewer patients in the crushed group with high platelet reactivity, defined as P2Y12 reactivity units >208, prior to the start of PCI (43.3% vs. 62.6%; P < .01).
There was no difference between the crushed and integral groups in the primary safety endpoint of TIMI major and BARC type 3 or higher bleeding within 48 hours after study treatment (0.4% vs 0.7%).
Death, MI, stroke, and urgent revascularization rates were also similar between groups during index hospitalization and at 30 days. Definite stent thrombosis occurred in one patient in the crushed group and two patients in the integral group.
In an exploratory analysis, the co-primary endpoint results were consistent across multiple subgroups, although there was a trend toward greater benefit on TIMI 3 flow in the crushed tablet group in patients older than age 75 years (P for interaction = .04), presenting with anterior infarction (P for interaction = .03), or with a history of prior PCI (P for interaction < .01).
“However, these results should be regarded as hypothesis-generating,” the authors wrote. “Opioids use in the ambulance was remarkably low in our study compared with the ATLANTIC trial, which might explain that we did not observe any significant interaction.”
Notably, morphine was used in half the ATLANTIC patients and was thought to have possibly delayed the absorption of ticagrelor.
During discussion following the presentation, Sunil V. Rao, MD, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, N.C., asked: “Based on what you found, which is really no clinical advantage but no safety issue either, are you having your patients with ST-segment MI administering crushed prasugrel now?”
Dr. Vlachojannis said they didn’t see any clinical impact but reiterated that high platelet reactivity was reduced by one-third. “If this now translates into a safer primary PCI procedure, we can’t say. The study wasn’t powered for this kind of endpoint. Is this enough to give you a recommendation, Sunil, I’m not sure.”
“What we know with COMPARE CRUSH, and this is important, is that we tried to give the medication as soon as possible and tried to give this medication in a formulation which has the most favorable pharmacodynamics profile, and we still see it’s not doing the job,” he added.
Fellow panelist Philippe Gabriel Steg, MD, Imperial College London, questioned whether treatment time may play a role in teasing out the relatively modest differences that platelet reactivity may have on clinical outcomes.
Dr. Vlachojannis said the time from symptom onset to first medical contact was very fast and similar to that in the ATLANTIC trial. “The short time intervals have certainly influenced the outcomes.”
Panelist Marco Valgimigli, MD, PhD, University Hospital Bern, Switzerland, followed up on the morphine issue, asking whether the investigators tested for an interaction between morphine or opioid use and platelet reactivity at the time of PCI.
“We haven’t looked into this but you probably have the ON-TIME 3 data in your mind when you’re asking this, where crushed ticagrelor given in the ambulance didn’t influence platelet reactivity at the time point of PCI,” Dr. Vlachojannis said. “We are going to look further into the data and certainly the platelet reactivity analysis is going to be very interesting in this data set.”
The study was an investigator-initiated trial sponsored by Maasstad Cardiovascular Research B.V. with unrestricted grants from Shanghai MicroPort Medical and Daiichi Sankyo. Dr. Vlachojannis declared receiving consulting fees from AstraZeneca, and research grants from Daiichi Sankyo and Shanghai MicroPort.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
Giving crushed prasugrel (Effient) to patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) en route to a planned primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) does not improve reperfusion rates, results of the COMPARE CRUSH trial show.
Patients assigned to prasugrel as crushed or integral tablets had similar rates of the study’s co-primary endpoints of thrombolysis in myocardial infarction (TIMI) 3 flow in the infarct-related artery at first angiography (31% vs. 32.7%; P = .64) and complete ST-segment resolution 1 hour post PCI (59.9% vs. 57.3%; P = .55).
“These findings hold in spite of the fact that crushed tablets of prasugrel led to more potent platelet inhibition compared with integral tablets,” said study author Georgios Vlachojannis, MD, PhD, University Medical Center Utrecht, the Netherlands.
“Whether faster and more potent antiplatelet therapy can improve coronary reperfusion in contemporary STEMI treatment regimen warrants further investigation.”
The results were reported in a late-breaking clinical science session at the Transcatheter Cardiovascular Therapeutics virtual annual meeting and published simultaneously in the journal Circulation. The meeting was sponsored by the Cardiovascular Research Foundation.
Fibrinolytics and glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors have demonstrated improved coronary reperfusion and outcomes when given pre hospital. Prior studies have also shown that early administration of a crushed P2Y12 inhibitor increases bioavailability and speeds platelet inhibition in STEMI patients, Dr. Vlachojannis noted.
However, the large randomized ATLANTIC trial, which compared prehospital to cath lab administration of crushed or integral ticagrelor (Brilinta), also found no difference in either TIMI flow in the infarct-related artery or ST-segment resolution.
Between November 2017 and March 2020, the investigator-initiated COMPARE CRUSH trial randomly allocated 727 STEMI patients (mean age, 62 years; 23% female) undergoing primary PCI to receive in the ambulance a 60-mg loading dose of prasugrel as either crushed or integral tablets.
The median time from onset of symptoms to first medical contact was 59 minutes, from first medical contact to study treatment 22 minutes, and from study treatment to primary PCI 57 minutes. These times did not differ between groups.
Platelet reactivity at the beginning of coronary angiography was significantly lower in the crushed group than in the integral group (P2Y12 reactivity units 192 vs. 227; P < .01). This resulted in significantly fewer patients in the crushed group with high platelet reactivity, defined as P2Y12 reactivity units >208, prior to the start of PCI (43.3% vs. 62.6%; P < .01).
There was no difference between the crushed and integral groups in the primary safety endpoint of TIMI major and BARC type 3 or higher bleeding within 48 hours after study treatment (0.4% vs 0.7%).
Death, MI, stroke, and urgent revascularization rates were also similar between groups during index hospitalization and at 30 days. Definite stent thrombosis occurred in one patient in the crushed group and two patients in the integral group.
In an exploratory analysis, the co-primary endpoint results were consistent across multiple subgroups, although there was a trend toward greater benefit on TIMI 3 flow in the crushed tablet group in patients older than age 75 years (P for interaction = .04), presenting with anterior infarction (P for interaction = .03), or with a history of prior PCI (P for interaction < .01).
“However, these results should be regarded as hypothesis-generating,” the authors wrote. “Opioids use in the ambulance was remarkably low in our study compared with the ATLANTIC trial, which might explain that we did not observe any significant interaction.”
Notably, morphine was used in half the ATLANTIC patients and was thought to have possibly delayed the absorption of ticagrelor.
During discussion following the presentation, Sunil V. Rao, MD, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, N.C., asked: “Based on what you found, which is really no clinical advantage but no safety issue either, are you having your patients with ST-segment MI administering crushed prasugrel now?”
Dr. Vlachojannis said they didn’t see any clinical impact but reiterated that high platelet reactivity was reduced by one-third. “If this now translates into a safer primary PCI procedure, we can’t say. The study wasn’t powered for this kind of endpoint. Is this enough to give you a recommendation, Sunil, I’m not sure.”
“What we know with COMPARE CRUSH, and this is important, is that we tried to give the medication as soon as possible and tried to give this medication in a formulation which has the most favorable pharmacodynamics profile, and we still see it’s not doing the job,” he added.
Fellow panelist Philippe Gabriel Steg, MD, Imperial College London, questioned whether treatment time may play a role in teasing out the relatively modest differences that platelet reactivity may have on clinical outcomes.
Dr. Vlachojannis said the time from symptom onset to first medical contact was very fast and similar to that in the ATLANTIC trial. “The short time intervals have certainly influenced the outcomes.”
Panelist Marco Valgimigli, MD, PhD, University Hospital Bern, Switzerland, followed up on the morphine issue, asking whether the investigators tested for an interaction between morphine or opioid use and platelet reactivity at the time of PCI.
“We haven’t looked into this but you probably have the ON-TIME 3 data in your mind when you’re asking this, where crushed ticagrelor given in the ambulance didn’t influence platelet reactivity at the time point of PCI,” Dr. Vlachojannis said. “We are going to look further into the data and certainly the platelet reactivity analysis is going to be very interesting in this data set.”
The study was an investigator-initiated trial sponsored by Maasstad Cardiovascular Research B.V. with unrestricted grants from Shanghai MicroPort Medical and Daiichi Sankyo. Dr. Vlachojannis declared receiving consulting fees from AstraZeneca, and research grants from Daiichi Sankyo and Shanghai MicroPort.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
Giving crushed prasugrel (Effient) to patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) en route to a planned primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) does not improve reperfusion rates, results of the COMPARE CRUSH trial show.
Patients assigned to prasugrel as crushed or integral tablets had similar rates of the study’s co-primary endpoints of thrombolysis in myocardial infarction (TIMI) 3 flow in the infarct-related artery at first angiography (31% vs. 32.7%; P = .64) and complete ST-segment resolution 1 hour post PCI (59.9% vs. 57.3%; P = .55).
“These findings hold in spite of the fact that crushed tablets of prasugrel led to more potent platelet inhibition compared with integral tablets,” said study author Georgios Vlachojannis, MD, PhD, University Medical Center Utrecht, the Netherlands.
“Whether faster and more potent antiplatelet therapy can improve coronary reperfusion in contemporary STEMI treatment regimen warrants further investigation.”
The results were reported in a late-breaking clinical science session at the Transcatheter Cardiovascular Therapeutics virtual annual meeting and published simultaneously in the journal Circulation. The meeting was sponsored by the Cardiovascular Research Foundation.
Fibrinolytics and glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors have demonstrated improved coronary reperfusion and outcomes when given pre hospital. Prior studies have also shown that early administration of a crushed P2Y12 inhibitor increases bioavailability and speeds platelet inhibition in STEMI patients, Dr. Vlachojannis noted.
However, the large randomized ATLANTIC trial, which compared prehospital to cath lab administration of crushed or integral ticagrelor (Brilinta), also found no difference in either TIMI flow in the infarct-related artery or ST-segment resolution.
Between November 2017 and March 2020, the investigator-initiated COMPARE CRUSH trial randomly allocated 727 STEMI patients (mean age, 62 years; 23% female) undergoing primary PCI to receive in the ambulance a 60-mg loading dose of prasugrel as either crushed or integral tablets.
The median time from onset of symptoms to first medical contact was 59 minutes, from first medical contact to study treatment 22 minutes, and from study treatment to primary PCI 57 minutes. These times did not differ between groups.
Platelet reactivity at the beginning of coronary angiography was significantly lower in the crushed group than in the integral group (P2Y12 reactivity units 192 vs. 227; P < .01). This resulted in significantly fewer patients in the crushed group with high platelet reactivity, defined as P2Y12 reactivity units >208, prior to the start of PCI (43.3% vs. 62.6%; P < .01).
There was no difference between the crushed and integral groups in the primary safety endpoint of TIMI major and BARC type 3 or higher bleeding within 48 hours after study treatment (0.4% vs 0.7%).
Death, MI, stroke, and urgent revascularization rates were also similar between groups during index hospitalization and at 30 days. Definite stent thrombosis occurred in one patient in the crushed group and two patients in the integral group.
In an exploratory analysis, the co-primary endpoint results were consistent across multiple subgroups, although there was a trend toward greater benefit on TIMI 3 flow in the crushed tablet group in patients older than age 75 years (P for interaction = .04), presenting with anterior infarction (P for interaction = .03), or with a history of prior PCI (P for interaction < .01).
“However, these results should be regarded as hypothesis-generating,” the authors wrote. “Opioids use in the ambulance was remarkably low in our study compared with the ATLANTIC trial, which might explain that we did not observe any significant interaction.”
Notably, morphine was used in half the ATLANTIC patients and was thought to have possibly delayed the absorption of ticagrelor.
During discussion following the presentation, Sunil V. Rao, MD, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, N.C., asked: “Based on what you found, which is really no clinical advantage but no safety issue either, are you having your patients with ST-segment MI administering crushed prasugrel now?”
Dr. Vlachojannis said they didn’t see any clinical impact but reiterated that high platelet reactivity was reduced by one-third. “If this now translates into a safer primary PCI procedure, we can’t say. The study wasn’t powered for this kind of endpoint. Is this enough to give you a recommendation, Sunil, I’m not sure.”
“What we know with COMPARE CRUSH, and this is important, is that we tried to give the medication as soon as possible and tried to give this medication in a formulation which has the most favorable pharmacodynamics profile, and we still see it’s not doing the job,” he added.
Fellow panelist Philippe Gabriel Steg, MD, Imperial College London, questioned whether treatment time may play a role in teasing out the relatively modest differences that platelet reactivity may have on clinical outcomes.
Dr. Vlachojannis said the time from symptom onset to first medical contact was very fast and similar to that in the ATLANTIC trial. “The short time intervals have certainly influenced the outcomes.”
Panelist Marco Valgimigli, MD, PhD, University Hospital Bern, Switzerland, followed up on the morphine issue, asking whether the investigators tested for an interaction between morphine or opioid use and platelet reactivity at the time of PCI.
“We haven’t looked into this but you probably have the ON-TIME 3 data in your mind when you’re asking this, where crushed ticagrelor given in the ambulance didn’t influence platelet reactivity at the time point of PCI,” Dr. Vlachojannis said. “We are going to look further into the data and certainly the platelet reactivity analysis is going to be very interesting in this data set.”
The study was an investigator-initiated trial sponsored by Maasstad Cardiovascular Research B.V. with unrestricted grants from Shanghai MicroPort Medical and Daiichi Sankyo. Dr. Vlachojannis declared receiving consulting fees from AstraZeneca, and research grants from Daiichi Sankyo and Shanghai MicroPort.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
NACMI: Clear benefit with PCI in STEMI COVID-19 patients
Patients with COVID-19 who present with ST-segment elevation MI (STEMI) represent a unique, high-risk population with greater risks for in-hospital death and stroke, according to initial results from the North American COVID-19 ST-Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction Registry (NACMI).
Although COVID-19–confirmed patients were less likely to undergo angiography than patients under investigation (PUI) for COVID-19 or historical STEMI activation controls, 71% underwent primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI).
“Primary PCI is preferable and feasible in COVID-19–positive patients, with door-to-balloon times similar to PUI or COVID-negative patients, and that supports the updated COVID-specific STEMI guidelines,” study cochair Timothy D. Henry, MD, said in a late-breaking clinical science session at TCT 2020, the Transcatheter Cardiovascular Therapeutics virtual annual meeting.
The multisociety COVID-specific guidelines were initially issued in April, endorsing PCI as the standard of care and allowing for consideration of fibrinolysis-based therapy at non-PCI capable hospitals.
Five previous publications on a total of 174 COVID-19 patients with ST-elevation have shown there are more frequent in-hospital STEMI presentations, more cases without a clear culprit lesion, more thrombotic lesions and microthrombi, and higher mortality, ranging from 12% to 72%. Still, there has been considerable controversy over exactly what to do when COVID-19 patients with ST elevation reach the cath lab, he said at the meeting sponsored by the Cardiovascular Research Foundation.
NACMI represents the largest experience with ST-elevation patients and is a unique collaboration between the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions, Canadian Association of Interventional Cardiology, American College of Cardiology, and Midwest STEMI Consortium, noted Dr. Henry, who is medical director of the Lindner Center for Research and Education at the Christ Hospital, Cincinnati.
The registry enrolled any COVID-19–positive patient or person under investigation older than 18 years with ST-segment elevation or new-onset left bundle branch block on electrocardiogram with a clinical correlate of myocardial ischemia such as chest pain, dyspnea, cardiac arrest, shock, or mechanical ventilation. There were no exclusion criteria.
Data from 171 patients with confirmed COVID-19 and 423 PUI from 64 sites were then propensity-matched to a control population from the Midwest STEMI Consortium, a prospective, multicenter registry of consecutive STEMI patients.
The three groups were similar in sex and age but there was a striking difference in race, with 27% of African American and 24% of Hispanic patients COVID-confirmed, compared with 11% and 6% in the PUI group and 4% and 1% in the control group. Likewise, there was a significant increase in diabetes (44% vs. 33% vs. 20%), which has been reported previously with influenza.
COVID-19–positive patients, as compared with PUI and controls, were significantly more likely to present with cardiogenic shock before PCI (20% vs. 14% vs. 5%), but not cardiac arrest (12% vs. 17% vs. 11%), and to have lower left ventricular ejection fractions (45% vs. 45% vs. 50%).
They also presented with more atypical symptoms than PUI patients, particularly infiltrates on chest x-ray (49% vs. 17%) and dyspnea (58% vs. 38%). Data were not available for these outcomes among historic controls.
Importantly, 21% of the COVID-19 patients did not undergo angiography, compared with 5% of PUI patients and 0% of controls (P < .001), “which is much higher than we would expect or have suspected,” Dr. Henry said. Thrombolytic use was very uncommon in those undergoing angiography, likely as a result of the guidelines.
Very surprisingly, there were no differences in door-to-balloon times between the COVID-positive, PUI, and control groups despite the ongoing pandemic (80 min vs. 78 min vs. 86 min).
But there was clear worsening in in-hospital mortality in COVID-19–positive patients (32% vs. 12% and 6%; P < .001), as well as in-hospital stroke (3.4% vs. 2% vs. 0.6%) that reached statistical significance only when compared with historical controls (P = .039). Total length of stay was twice as long in COVID-confirmed patients as in both PUI and controls (6 days vs. 3 days; P < .001).
Following the formal presentation, invited discussant Philippe Gabriel Steg, MD, Imperial College London, said the researchers have provided a great service in reporting the data so quickly but noted that an ongoing French registry of events before, during, and after the first COVID-19 wave has not seen an increased death rate.
“Can you tease out whether the increased death rate is related to cardiovascular deaths or to COVID-related pneumonias, shocks, ARDSs [acute respiratory distress syndromes], and so on and so forth? Because our impression – and that’s what we’ve published in Lancet Public Health – is that the cardiovascular morality rate doesn’t seem that affected by COVID.”
Dr. Henry replied that these are early data but “I will tell you that patients who did get PCI had a mortality rate that was only around 12% or 13%, and the patients who did not undergo angiography or were treated with medical therapy had higher mortality. Now, of course, that’s selected and we need to do a much better matching and look at that, but that’s our goal and we will have that information,” he said.
During a press briefing on the study, discussant Renu Virmani, MD, president and founder of CVPath Institute, noted that, in their analysis of 40 autopsy cases from Bergamot, Italy, small intramyocardial microthrombi were seen in nine patients, whereas epicardial microthrombi were seen in only three or four.
“Some of the cases are being taken as being related to coronary disease but may be more thrombotic than anything else,” she said. “I think there’s a combination, and that’s why the outcomes are so poor. You didn’t show us TIMI flow but that’s something to think about: Was TIMI flow different in the patients who died because you have very high mortality? I think we need to get to the bottom of what is the underlying cause of that thrombosis.”
Future topics of interest include ethnic and regional/country differences; time-to-treatment including chest pain onset-to-arrival; transfer, in-hospital, and no-culprit patients; changes over time during the pandemic; and eventually 1-year outcomes, Dr. Henry said.
Press briefing moderator Ajay Kirtane, MD, director of the cardiac catheterization labs at NewYork-Presbyterian/Columbia University Irving, New York, remarked that “a lot of times people will pooh-pooh observational data, but this is exactly the type of data that we need to try to be able to gather information about what our practices are, how they fit. And I think many of us around the world will see these data, and it will echo their own experience.”
The study was funded by the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions and the Canadian Association of Interventional Cardiology. Dr. Henry has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
Patients with COVID-19 who present with ST-segment elevation MI (STEMI) represent a unique, high-risk population with greater risks for in-hospital death and stroke, according to initial results from the North American COVID-19 ST-Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction Registry (NACMI).
Although COVID-19–confirmed patients were less likely to undergo angiography than patients under investigation (PUI) for COVID-19 or historical STEMI activation controls, 71% underwent primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI).
“Primary PCI is preferable and feasible in COVID-19–positive patients, with door-to-balloon times similar to PUI or COVID-negative patients, and that supports the updated COVID-specific STEMI guidelines,” study cochair Timothy D. Henry, MD, said in a late-breaking clinical science session at TCT 2020, the Transcatheter Cardiovascular Therapeutics virtual annual meeting.
The multisociety COVID-specific guidelines were initially issued in April, endorsing PCI as the standard of care and allowing for consideration of fibrinolysis-based therapy at non-PCI capable hospitals.
Five previous publications on a total of 174 COVID-19 patients with ST-elevation have shown there are more frequent in-hospital STEMI presentations, more cases without a clear culprit lesion, more thrombotic lesions and microthrombi, and higher mortality, ranging from 12% to 72%. Still, there has been considerable controversy over exactly what to do when COVID-19 patients with ST elevation reach the cath lab, he said at the meeting sponsored by the Cardiovascular Research Foundation.
NACMI represents the largest experience with ST-elevation patients and is a unique collaboration between the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions, Canadian Association of Interventional Cardiology, American College of Cardiology, and Midwest STEMI Consortium, noted Dr. Henry, who is medical director of the Lindner Center for Research and Education at the Christ Hospital, Cincinnati.
The registry enrolled any COVID-19–positive patient or person under investigation older than 18 years with ST-segment elevation or new-onset left bundle branch block on electrocardiogram with a clinical correlate of myocardial ischemia such as chest pain, dyspnea, cardiac arrest, shock, or mechanical ventilation. There were no exclusion criteria.
Data from 171 patients with confirmed COVID-19 and 423 PUI from 64 sites were then propensity-matched to a control population from the Midwest STEMI Consortium, a prospective, multicenter registry of consecutive STEMI patients.
The three groups were similar in sex and age but there was a striking difference in race, with 27% of African American and 24% of Hispanic patients COVID-confirmed, compared with 11% and 6% in the PUI group and 4% and 1% in the control group. Likewise, there was a significant increase in diabetes (44% vs. 33% vs. 20%), which has been reported previously with influenza.
COVID-19–positive patients, as compared with PUI and controls, were significantly more likely to present with cardiogenic shock before PCI (20% vs. 14% vs. 5%), but not cardiac arrest (12% vs. 17% vs. 11%), and to have lower left ventricular ejection fractions (45% vs. 45% vs. 50%).
They also presented with more atypical symptoms than PUI patients, particularly infiltrates on chest x-ray (49% vs. 17%) and dyspnea (58% vs. 38%). Data were not available for these outcomes among historic controls.
Importantly, 21% of the COVID-19 patients did not undergo angiography, compared with 5% of PUI patients and 0% of controls (P < .001), “which is much higher than we would expect or have suspected,” Dr. Henry said. Thrombolytic use was very uncommon in those undergoing angiography, likely as a result of the guidelines.
Very surprisingly, there were no differences in door-to-balloon times between the COVID-positive, PUI, and control groups despite the ongoing pandemic (80 min vs. 78 min vs. 86 min).
But there was clear worsening in in-hospital mortality in COVID-19–positive patients (32% vs. 12% and 6%; P < .001), as well as in-hospital stroke (3.4% vs. 2% vs. 0.6%) that reached statistical significance only when compared with historical controls (P = .039). Total length of stay was twice as long in COVID-confirmed patients as in both PUI and controls (6 days vs. 3 days; P < .001).
Following the formal presentation, invited discussant Philippe Gabriel Steg, MD, Imperial College London, said the researchers have provided a great service in reporting the data so quickly but noted that an ongoing French registry of events before, during, and after the first COVID-19 wave has not seen an increased death rate.
“Can you tease out whether the increased death rate is related to cardiovascular deaths or to COVID-related pneumonias, shocks, ARDSs [acute respiratory distress syndromes], and so on and so forth? Because our impression – and that’s what we’ve published in Lancet Public Health – is that the cardiovascular morality rate doesn’t seem that affected by COVID.”
Dr. Henry replied that these are early data but “I will tell you that patients who did get PCI had a mortality rate that was only around 12% or 13%, and the patients who did not undergo angiography or were treated with medical therapy had higher mortality. Now, of course, that’s selected and we need to do a much better matching and look at that, but that’s our goal and we will have that information,” he said.
During a press briefing on the study, discussant Renu Virmani, MD, president and founder of CVPath Institute, noted that, in their analysis of 40 autopsy cases from Bergamot, Italy, small intramyocardial microthrombi were seen in nine patients, whereas epicardial microthrombi were seen in only three or four.
“Some of the cases are being taken as being related to coronary disease but may be more thrombotic than anything else,” she said. “I think there’s a combination, and that’s why the outcomes are so poor. You didn’t show us TIMI flow but that’s something to think about: Was TIMI flow different in the patients who died because you have very high mortality? I think we need to get to the bottom of what is the underlying cause of that thrombosis.”
Future topics of interest include ethnic and regional/country differences; time-to-treatment including chest pain onset-to-arrival; transfer, in-hospital, and no-culprit patients; changes over time during the pandemic; and eventually 1-year outcomes, Dr. Henry said.
Press briefing moderator Ajay Kirtane, MD, director of the cardiac catheterization labs at NewYork-Presbyterian/Columbia University Irving, New York, remarked that “a lot of times people will pooh-pooh observational data, but this is exactly the type of data that we need to try to be able to gather information about what our practices are, how they fit. And I think many of us around the world will see these data, and it will echo their own experience.”
The study was funded by the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions and the Canadian Association of Interventional Cardiology. Dr. Henry has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
Patients with COVID-19 who present with ST-segment elevation MI (STEMI) represent a unique, high-risk population with greater risks for in-hospital death and stroke, according to initial results from the North American COVID-19 ST-Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction Registry (NACMI).
Although COVID-19–confirmed patients were less likely to undergo angiography than patients under investigation (PUI) for COVID-19 or historical STEMI activation controls, 71% underwent primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI).
“Primary PCI is preferable and feasible in COVID-19–positive patients, with door-to-balloon times similar to PUI or COVID-negative patients, and that supports the updated COVID-specific STEMI guidelines,” study cochair Timothy D. Henry, MD, said in a late-breaking clinical science session at TCT 2020, the Transcatheter Cardiovascular Therapeutics virtual annual meeting.
The multisociety COVID-specific guidelines were initially issued in April, endorsing PCI as the standard of care and allowing for consideration of fibrinolysis-based therapy at non-PCI capable hospitals.
Five previous publications on a total of 174 COVID-19 patients with ST-elevation have shown there are more frequent in-hospital STEMI presentations, more cases without a clear culprit lesion, more thrombotic lesions and microthrombi, and higher mortality, ranging from 12% to 72%. Still, there has been considerable controversy over exactly what to do when COVID-19 patients with ST elevation reach the cath lab, he said at the meeting sponsored by the Cardiovascular Research Foundation.
NACMI represents the largest experience with ST-elevation patients and is a unique collaboration between the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions, Canadian Association of Interventional Cardiology, American College of Cardiology, and Midwest STEMI Consortium, noted Dr. Henry, who is medical director of the Lindner Center for Research and Education at the Christ Hospital, Cincinnati.
The registry enrolled any COVID-19–positive patient or person under investigation older than 18 years with ST-segment elevation or new-onset left bundle branch block on electrocardiogram with a clinical correlate of myocardial ischemia such as chest pain, dyspnea, cardiac arrest, shock, or mechanical ventilation. There were no exclusion criteria.
Data from 171 patients with confirmed COVID-19 and 423 PUI from 64 sites were then propensity-matched to a control population from the Midwest STEMI Consortium, a prospective, multicenter registry of consecutive STEMI patients.
The three groups were similar in sex and age but there was a striking difference in race, with 27% of African American and 24% of Hispanic patients COVID-confirmed, compared with 11% and 6% in the PUI group and 4% and 1% in the control group. Likewise, there was a significant increase in diabetes (44% vs. 33% vs. 20%), which has been reported previously with influenza.
COVID-19–positive patients, as compared with PUI and controls, were significantly more likely to present with cardiogenic shock before PCI (20% vs. 14% vs. 5%), but not cardiac arrest (12% vs. 17% vs. 11%), and to have lower left ventricular ejection fractions (45% vs. 45% vs. 50%).
They also presented with more atypical symptoms than PUI patients, particularly infiltrates on chest x-ray (49% vs. 17%) and dyspnea (58% vs. 38%). Data were not available for these outcomes among historic controls.
Importantly, 21% of the COVID-19 patients did not undergo angiography, compared with 5% of PUI patients and 0% of controls (P < .001), “which is much higher than we would expect or have suspected,” Dr. Henry said. Thrombolytic use was very uncommon in those undergoing angiography, likely as a result of the guidelines.
Very surprisingly, there were no differences in door-to-balloon times between the COVID-positive, PUI, and control groups despite the ongoing pandemic (80 min vs. 78 min vs. 86 min).
But there was clear worsening in in-hospital mortality in COVID-19–positive patients (32% vs. 12% and 6%; P < .001), as well as in-hospital stroke (3.4% vs. 2% vs. 0.6%) that reached statistical significance only when compared with historical controls (P = .039). Total length of stay was twice as long in COVID-confirmed patients as in both PUI and controls (6 days vs. 3 days; P < .001).
Following the formal presentation, invited discussant Philippe Gabriel Steg, MD, Imperial College London, said the researchers have provided a great service in reporting the data so quickly but noted that an ongoing French registry of events before, during, and after the first COVID-19 wave has not seen an increased death rate.
“Can you tease out whether the increased death rate is related to cardiovascular deaths or to COVID-related pneumonias, shocks, ARDSs [acute respiratory distress syndromes], and so on and so forth? Because our impression – and that’s what we’ve published in Lancet Public Health – is that the cardiovascular morality rate doesn’t seem that affected by COVID.”
Dr. Henry replied that these are early data but “I will tell you that patients who did get PCI had a mortality rate that was only around 12% or 13%, and the patients who did not undergo angiography or were treated with medical therapy had higher mortality. Now, of course, that’s selected and we need to do a much better matching and look at that, but that’s our goal and we will have that information,” he said.
During a press briefing on the study, discussant Renu Virmani, MD, president and founder of CVPath Institute, noted that, in their analysis of 40 autopsy cases from Bergamot, Italy, small intramyocardial microthrombi were seen in nine patients, whereas epicardial microthrombi were seen in only three or four.
“Some of the cases are being taken as being related to coronary disease but may be more thrombotic than anything else,” she said. “I think there’s a combination, and that’s why the outcomes are so poor. You didn’t show us TIMI flow but that’s something to think about: Was TIMI flow different in the patients who died because you have very high mortality? I think we need to get to the bottom of what is the underlying cause of that thrombosis.”
Future topics of interest include ethnic and regional/country differences; time-to-treatment including chest pain onset-to-arrival; transfer, in-hospital, and no-culprit patients; changes over time during the pandemic; and eventually 1-year outcomes, Dr. Henry said.
Press briefing moderator Ajay Kirtane, MD, director of the cardiac catheterization labs at NewYork-Presbyterian/Columbia University Irving, New York, remarked that “a lot of times people will pooh-pooh observational data, but this is exactly the type of data that we need to try to be able to gather information about what our practices are, how they fit. And I think many of us around the world will see these data, and it will echo their own experience.”
The study was funded by the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions and the Canadian Association of Interventional Cardiology. Dr. Henry has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
Female cardiac advantage essentially lost after MI
Women are known to lag 5-10 years behind men in experiencing coronary heart disease (CHD), but new research suggests the gap narrows substantially following a myocardial infarction.
“Women lose a considerable portion, but not all, of their coronary and survival advantage – i.e., the lower event rates – after suffering a MI,” study author Sanne Peters, PhD, George Institute for Global Health, Imperial College London, said in an interview.
Previous studies of sex differences in event rates after a coronary event have produced mixed results and were primarily focused on mortality following MI. Importantly, the studies also lacked a control group without a history of CHD and, thus, were unable to provide a reference point for the disparity in event rates, she explained.
Using the MarketScan and Medicare databases, however, Dr. Peters and colleagues matched 339,890 U.S. adults hospitalized for an MI between January 2015 and December 2016 with 1,359,560 U.S. adults without a history of CHD.
Over a median 1.3 years follow-up, there were 12,518 MIs in the non-CHD group and 27,115 recurrent MIs in the MI group.
The age-standardized rate of MI per 1,000 person-years was 4.0 in women and 6.1 in men without a history of CHD, compared with 57.6 in women and 62.7 in men with a prior MI.
After multivariate adjustment, the women-to-men hazard ratio for MI was 0.64 (95% confidence interval, 0.62-0.67) in the non-CHD group and 0.94 (95% CI, 0.92-0.96) in the prior MI group, the authors reported Oct. 5 in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology
Additional results show the multivariate adjusted women-to-men hazard ratios for three other cardiovascular outcomes follow a similar pattern in the non-CHD and prior MI groups:
- CHD events: 0.53 (95% CI, 0.51-0.54) and 0.87 (95% CI, 0.85-0.89).
- Heart failure hospitalization: 0.93 (95% CI, 0.90-0.96) and 1.02 (95% CI, 1.00-1.04).
- All-cause mortality: 0.72 (95% CI, 0.71-0.73) and 0.90 (95% CI, 0.89-0.92).
“By including a control group of individuals without CHD, we demonstrated that the magnitude of the sex difference in cardiac event rates and survival is considerably smaller among those with prior MI than among those without a history of CHD,” Dr. Peters said.
Of note, the sex differences were consistent across age and race/ethnicity groups for all events, except for heart failure hospitalizations, where the adjusted hazard ratio for women vs. men age 80 years or older was 0.95 for those without a history of CHD (95% CI, 0.91-0.98) and 0.99 (95% CI, 0.96-1.02) for participants with a previous MI.
Dr. Peters said it’s not clear why the female advantage is attenuated post-MI but that one explanation is that women are less likely than men to receive guideline-recommended treatments and dosages or to adhere to prescribed therapies after MI hospitalization, which could put them at a higher risk of subsequent events and worse outcomes than men.
“Sex differences in pathophysiology of CHD and its complications may also explain, to some extent, why the rates of recurrent events are considerably more similar between the sexes than incident event rates,” she said. Compared with men, women have a higher incidence of MI with nonobstructive coronary artery disease and of heart failure with preserved ejection fraction, and evidence-based treatment options are more limited for both conditions.
“After people read this, I think the important thing to recognize is we need to push– as much as we can, with what meds we have, and what data we have – secondary prevention in these women,” Laxmi Mehta, MD, director of preventive cardiology and women’s cardiovascular health at Ohio State University, Columbus, said in an interview.
The lack of a female advantage post-MI should also elicit a “really meaningful conversation with our patients on shared decision-making of why they need to be on medications, remembering on our part to prescribe the medications, remembering to prescribe cardiac rehab, and also reminding our community we do need more data and need to investigate this further,” she said.
In an accompanying editorial, Nanette Wenger, MD, of Emory University, Atlanta, also points out that nonobstructive coronary disease is more common in women and, “yet, guideline-based therapies are those validated for obstructive coronary disease in a predominantly male population but, nonetheless, are applied for nonobstructive coronary disease.”
She advocates for aggressive evaluation and treatment for women with chest pain symptoms as well as early identification of women at risk for CHD, specifically those with metabolic syndrome, preeclampsia, hypertensive disorders of pregnancy, chronic inflammatory conditions, and high-risk race/ethnicity.
“Next, when coronary angiography is undertaken, particularly in younger women, an assiduous search for spontaneous coronary artery dissection and its appropriate management, as well as prompt and evidence-based interventions and medical therapies for an acute coronary event [are indicated],” Dr. Wenger wrote. “However, basic to improving outcomes for women is the elucidation of the optimal noninvasive techniques to identify microvascular disease, which could then enable delineation of appropriate preventive and therapeutic approaches.”
Dr. Peters is supported by a U.K. Medical Research Council Skills Development Fellowship. Dr. Mehta and Dr. Wenger disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
Women are known to lag 5-10 years behind men in experiencing coronary heart disease (CHD), but new research suggests the gap narrows substantially following a myocardial infarction.
“Women lose a considerable portion, but not all, of their coronary and survival advantage – i.e., the lower event rates – after suffering a MI,” study author Sanne Peters, PhD, George Institute for Global Health, Imperial College London, said in an interview.
Previous studies of sex differences in event rates after a coronary event have produced mixed results and were primarily focused on mortality following MI. Importantly, the studies also lacked a control group without a history of CHD and, thus, were unable to provide a reference point for the disparity in event rates, she explained.
Using the MarketScan and Medicare databases, however, Dr. Peters and colleagues matched 339,890 U.S. adults hospitalized for an MI between January 2015 and December 2016 with 1,359,560 U.S. adults without a history of CHD.
Over a median 1.3 years follow-up, there were 12,518 MIs in the non-CHD group and 27,115 recurrent MIs in the MI group.
The age-standardized rate of MI per 1,000 person-years was 4.0 in women and 6.1 in men without a history of CHD, compared with 57.6 in women and 62.7 in men with a prior MI.
After multivariate adjustment, the women-to-men hazard ratio for MI was 0.64 (95% confidence interval, 0.62-0.67) in the non-CHD group and 0.94 (95% CI, 0.92-0.96) in the prior MI group, the authors reported Oct. 5 in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology
Additional results show the multivariate adjusted women-to-men hazard ratios for three other cardiovascular outcomes follow a similar pattern in the non-CHD and prior MI groups:
- CHD events: 0.53 (95% CI, 0.51-0.54) and 0.87 (95% CI, 0.85-0.89).
- Heart failure hospitalization: 0.93 (95% CI, 0.90-0.96) and 1.02 (95% CI, 1.00-1.04).
- All-cause mortality: 0.72 (95% CI, 0.71-0.73) and 0.90 (95% CI, 0.89-0.92).
“By including a control group of individuals without CHD, we demonstrated that the magnitude of the sex difference in cardiac event rates and survival is considerably smaller among those with prior MI than among those without a history of CHD,” Dr. Peters said.
Of note, the sex differences were consistent across age and race/ethnicity groups for all events, except for heart failure hospitalizations, where the adjusted hazard ratio for women vs. men age 80 years or older was 0.95 for those without a history of CHD (95% CI, 0.91-0.98) and 0.99 (95% CI, 0.96-1.02) for participants with a previous MI.
Dr. Peters said it’s not clear why the female advantage is attenuated post-MI but that one explanation is that women are less likely than men to receive guideline-recommended treatments and dosages or to adhere to prescribed therapies after MI hospitalization, which could put them at a higher risk of subsequent events and worse outcomes than men.
“Sex differences in pathophysiology of CHD and its complications may also explain, to some extent, why the rates of recurrent events are considerably more similar between the sexes than incident event rates,” she said. Compared with men, women have a higher incidence of MI with nonobstructive coronary artery disease and of heart failure with preserved ejection fraction, and evidence-based treatment options are more limited for both conditions.
“After people read this, I think the important thing to recognize is we need to push– as much as we can, with what meds we have, and what data we have – secondary prevention in these women,” Laxmi Mehta, MD, director of preventive cardiology and women’s cardiovascular health at Ohio State University, Columbus, said in an interview.
The lack of a female advantage post-MI should also elicit a “really meaningful conversation with our patients on shared decision-making of why they need to be on medications, remembering on our part to prescribe the medications, remembering to prescribe cardiac rehab, and also reminding our community we do need more data and need to investigate this further,” she said.
In an accompanying editorial, Nanette Wenger, MD, of Emory University, Atlanta, also points out that nonobstructive coronary disease is more common in women and, “yet, guideline-based therapies are those validated for obstructive coronary disease in a predominantly male population but, nonetheless, are applied for nonobstructive coronary disease.”
She advocates for aggressive evaluation and treatment for women with chest pain symptoms as well as early identification of women at risk for CHD, specifically those with metabolic syndrome, preeclampsia, hypertensive disorders of pregnancy, chronic inflammatory conditions, and high-risk race/ethnicity.
“Next, when coronary angiography is undertaken, particularly in younger women, an assiduous search for spontaneous coronary artery dissection and its appropriate management, as well as prompt and evidence-based interventions and medical therapies for an acute coronary event [are indicated],” Dr. Wenger wrote. “However, basic to improving outcomes for women is the elucidation of the optimal noninvasive techniques to identify microvascular disease, which could then enable delineation of appropriate preventive and therapeutic approaches.”
Dr. Peters is supported by a U.K. Medical Research Council Skills Development Fellowship. Dr. Mehta and Dr. Wenger disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
Women are known to lag 5-10 years behind men in experiencing coronary heart disease (CHD), but new research suggests the gap narrows substantially following a myocardial infarction.
“Women lose a considerable portion, but not all, of their coronary and survival advantage – i.e., the lower event rates – after suffering a MI,” study author Sanne Peters, PhD, George Institute for Global Health, Imperial College London, said in an interview.
Previous studies of sex differences in event rates after a coronary event have produced mixed results and were primarily focused on mortality following MI. Importantly, the studies also lacked a control group without a history of CHD and, thus, were unable to provide a reference point for the disparity in event rates, she explained.
Using the MarketScan and Medicare databases, however, Dr. Peters and colleagues matched 339,890 U.S. adults hospitalized for an MI between January 2015 and December 2016 with 1,359,560 U.S. adults without a history of CHD.
Over a median 1.3 years follow-up, there were 12,518 MIs in the non-CHD group and 27,115 recurrent MIs in the MI group.
The age-standardized rate of MI per 1,000 person-years was 4.0 in women and 6.1 in men without a history of CHD, compared with 57.6 in women and 62.7 in men with a prior MI.
After multivariate adjustment, the women-to-men hazard ratio for MI was 0.64 (95% confidence interval, 0.62-0.67) in the non-CHD group and 0.94 (95% CI, 0.92-0.96) in the prior MI group, the authors reported Oct. 5 in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology
Additional results show the multivariate adjusted women-to-men hazard ratios for three other cardiovascular outcomes follow a similar pattern in the non-CHD and prior MI groups:
- CHD events: 0.53 (95% CI, 0.51-0.54) and 0.87 (95% CI, 0.85-0.89).
- Heart failure hospitalization: 0.93 (95% CI, 0.90-0.96) and 1.02 (95% CI, 1.00-1.04).
- All-cause mortality: 0.72 (95% CI, 0.71-0.73) and 0.90 (95% CI, 0.89-0.92).
“By including a control group of individuals without CHD, we demonstrated that the magnitude of the sex difference in cardiac event rates and survival is considerably smaller among those with prior MI than among those without a history of CHD,” Dr. Peters said.
Of note, the sex differences were consistent across age and race/ethnicity groups for all events, except for heart failure hospitalizations, where the adjusted hazard ratio for women vs. men age 80 years or older was 0.95 for those without a history of CHD (95% CI, 0.91-0.98) and 0.99 (95% CI, 0.96-1.02) for participants with a previous MI.
Dr. Peters said it’s not clear why the female advantage is attenuated post-MI but that one explanation is that women are less likely than men to receive guideline-recommended treatments and dosages or to adhere to prescribed therapies after MI hospitalization, which could put them at a higher risk of subsequent events and worse outcomes than men.
“Sex differences in pathophysiology of CHD and its complications may also explain, to some extent, why the rates of recurrent events are considerably more similar between the sexes than incident event rates,” she said. Compared with men, women have a higher incidence of MI with nonobstructive coronary artery disease and of heart failure with preserved ejection fraction, and evidence-based treatment options are more limited for both conditions.
“After people read this, I think the important thing to recognize is we need to push– as much as we can, with what meds we have, and what data we have – secondary prevention in these women,” Laxmi Mehta, MD, director of preventive cardiology and women’s cardiovascular health at Ohio State University, Columbus, said in an interview.
The lack of a female advantage post-MI should also elicit a “really meaningful conversation with our patients on shared decision-making of why they need to be on medications, remembering on our part to prescribe the medications, remembering to prescribe cardiac rehab, and also reminding our community we do need more data and need to investigate this further,” she said.
In an accompanying editorial, Nanette Wenger, MD, of Emory University, Atlanta, also points out that nonobstructive coronary disease is more common in women and, “yet, guideline-based therapies are those validated for obstructive coronary disease in a predominantly male population but, nonetheless, are applied for nonobstructive coronary disease.”
She advocates for aggressive evaluation and treatment for women with chest pain symptoms as well as early identification of women at risk for CHD, specifically those with metabolic syndrome, preeclampsia, hypertensive disorders of pregnancy, chronic inflammatory conditions, and high-risk race/ethnicity.
“Next, when coronary angiography is undertaken, particularly in younger women, an assiduous search for spontaneous coronary artery dissection and its appropriate management, as well as prompt and evidence-based interventions and medical therapies for an acute coronary event [are indicated],” Dr. Wenger wrote. “However, basic to improving outcomes for women is the elucidation of the optimal noninvasive techniques to identify microvascular disease, which could then enable delineation of appropriate preventive and therapeutic approaches.”
Dr. Peters is supported by a U.K. Medical Research Council Skills Development Fellowship. Dr. Mehta and Dr. Wenger disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
The earlier the better for colchicine post-MI: COLCOT
The earlier the anti-inflammatory drug colchicine is initiated after a myocardial infarction (MI) the greater the benefit, a new COLCOT analysis suggests.
The parent trial was conducted in patients with a recent MI because of the intense inflammation present at that time, and added colchicine 0.5 mg daily to standard care within 30 days following MI.
As previously reported, colchicine significantly reduced the risk of the primary end point – a composite of cardiovascular (CV) death, resuscitated cardiac arrest, MI, stroke, or urgent hospitalization for angina requiring revascularization – by 23% compared with placebo.
This new analysis shows the risk was reduced by 48% in patients receiving colchicine within 3 days of an MI (4.3% vs. 8.3%; adjusted hazard ratio, 0.52; 95% confidence interval, 0.32-0.84, P = .007).
Risk of a secondary efficacy end point – CV death, resuscitated cardiac arrest, MI, or stroke – was reduced by 45% over an average follow up of 22.7 months (3.3% vs 6.1%; adjusted HR, 0.55; 95% CI, 0.32-0.95, P = .031).
“We believe that our results support an early, in-hospital initiation of adjunctive colchicine for post-MI prevention,” Nadia Bouabdallaoui, MD, Montreal Heart Institute, Quebec, Canada, said during an online session devoted to colchicine at the European Society of Cardiology Congress 2020.
Session moderator Massimo Imazio, MD, professor of cardiology at the University of Turin, Italy, said the improved outcomes suggest that earlier treatment is better – a finding that parallels his own experience using colchicine in patients with pericarditis.
“This substudy is very important because this is probably also the year in cardiovascular applications [that] early use of the drug could improve outcomes,” he said.
Positive data have been accumulating for colchicine from COLCOT, LoDoCo, and, most recently, the LoDoCo2 trial, even as another anti-inflammatory drug, methotrexate, flamed out as secondary prevention in the CIRT trial.
The new COLCOT substudy included 4,661 of the 4,745 original patients and examined treatment initiation using three strata: within 0-3 days (n = 1,193), 4-7 days (n = 720), and 8-30 days (n = 2,748). Patients who received treatment within 3 days were slightly younger, more likely to be smokers, and to have a shorter time from MI to randomization (2.1 days vs 5.1 days vs. 20.8 days, respectively).
In the subset receiving treatment within 3 days, those assigned to colchicine had the same number of cardiac deaths as those given placebo (2 vs. 2) but fewer resuscitated cardiac arrests (1 vs. 3), MIs (17 vs. 29), strokes (1 vs. 5), and urgent hospitalizations for angina requiring revascularization (6 vs. 17).
“A larger trial might have allowed for a better assessment of individual endpoints and subgroups,” observed Bouabdallaoui.
Although there is growing support for colchicine, experts caution that the drug many not be for everyone. In COLCOT, 1 in 10 patients were unable to tolerate the drug, largely because of gastrointestinal (GI) issues.
Pharmacogenomics substudy
A second COLCOT substudy aimed to identify genetic markers predictive of colchicine response and to gain insights into the mechanisms behind this response. It included 767 patients treated with colchicine and another 755 treated with placebo – or about one-third the patients in the original trial.
A genome-wide association study did not find a significant association for the primary CV endpoint, although a prespecified subgroup analysis in men identified an interesting region on chromosome 9 (variant: rs10811106), which just missed reaching genomewide significance, said Marie-Pierre Dubé, PhD, director of the Université de Montréal Beaulieu-Saucier Pharmacogenomics Centre at the Montreal Heart Institute.
In addition, the genomewide analysis found two significant regions for GI events: one on chromosome 6 (variant: rs6916345) and one on chromosome 10 (variant: rs74795203).
For each of the identified regions, the researchers then tested the effect of the allele in the placebo group and the interaction between the genetic variant and treatment with colchicine. For the chromosome 9 region in males, there was no effect in the placebo group and a significant interaction in the colchicine group.
For the significant GI event findings, there was a small effect for the chromosome 6 region in the placebo group and a very significant interaction with colchicine, Dubé said. Similarly, there was no effect for the chromosome 10 region in the placebo group and a significant interaction with colchicine.
Additional analyses in stratified patient populations showed that males with the protective allele (CC) for the chromosome 9 region represented 83% of the population. The primary CV endpoint occurred in 3.2% of these men treated with colchicine and 6.3% treated with placebo (HR, 0.46; 95% CI, 0.24 - 0.86).
For the gastrointestinal events, 25% of patients carried the risk allele (AA) for the chromosome 6 region and 36.9% of these had GI events when treated with colchicine versus 18.6% when treated with placebo (HR, 2.42; 95% CI, 1.57-3.72).
Similarly, 13% of individuals carried one or two copies of the risk allele (AG+GG) for the chromosome 10 region and the risk of GI events in these was nearly four times higher with colchicine (47.1% vs. 18.9%; HR, 3.98; 95% CI 2.24-7.07).
Functional genomic analyses of the identified regions were also performed and showed that the chromosome 9 locus overlaps with the SAXO1 gene, a stabilizer of axonemal microtubules 1.
“The leading variant at this locus (rs10811106 C allele) correlated with the expression of the HAUS6 gene, which is involved in microtubule generation from existing microtubules, and may interact with the effect of colchicine, which is known to inhibit microtubule formation,” observed Dubé.
Also, the chromosome 6 locus associated with gastrointestinal events was colocalizing with the Crohn’s disease locus, adding further support for this region.
“The results support potential personalized approaches to inflammation reduction for cardiovascular prevention,” Dubé said.
This is a post hoc subgroup analysis, however, and replication is necessary, ideally in prospective randomized trials, she noted.
The substudy is important because it provides further insights into the link between colchicine and microtubule polymerization, affecting the activation of the inflammasome, session moderator Imazio said.
“Second, it is important because pharmacogenomics can help us to better understand the optimal responder to colchicine and colchicine resistance,” he said. “So it can be useful for personalized medicine, leading to the proper use of the drug for the proper patient.”
COLCOT was supported by the government of Quebec, the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, and philanthropic foundations. Bouabdallaoui has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dubé reported grants from the government of Quebec; personal fees from DalCor and GlaxoSmithKline; research support from AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Servier, Sanofi; and minor equity interest in DalCor. Dubé is also coauthor of patents on pharmacogenomics-guided CETP inhibition, and pharmacogenomics markers of response to colchicine.
This article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The earlier the anti-inflammatory drug colchicine is initiated after a myocardial infarction (MI) the greater the benefit, a new COLCOT analysis suggests.
The parent trial was conducted in patients with a recent MI because of the intense inflammation present at that time, and added colchicine 0.5 mg daily to standard care within 30 days following MI.
As previously reported, colchicine significantly reduced the risk of the primary end point – a composite of cardiovascular (CV) death, resuscitated cardiac arrest, MI, stroke, or urgent hospitalization for angina requiring revascularization – by 23% compared with placebo.
This new analysis shows the risk was reduced by 48% in patients receiving colchicine within 3 days of an MI (4.3% vs. 8.3%; adjusted hazard ratio, 0.52; 95% confidence interval, 0.32-0.84, P = .007).
Risk of a secondary efficacy end point – CV death, resuscitated cardiac arrest, MI, or stroke – was reduced by 45% over an average follow up of 22.7 months (3.3% vs 6.1%; adjusted HR, 0.55; 95% CI, 0.32-0.95, P = .031).
“We believe that our results support an early, in-hospital initiation of adjunctive colchicine for post-MI prevention,” Nadia Bouabdallaoui, MD, Montreal Heart Institute, Quebec, Canada, said during an online session devoted to colchicine at the European Society of Cardiology Congress 2020.
Session moderator Massimo Imazio, MD, professor of cardiology at the University of Turin, Italy, said the improved outcomes suggest that earlier treatment is better – a finding that parallels his own experience using colchicine in patients with pericarditis.
“This substudy is very important because this is probably also the year in cardiovascular applications [that] early use of the drug could improve outcomes,” he said.
Positive data have been accumulating for colchicine from COLCOT, LoDoCo, and, most recently, the LoDoCo2 trial, even as another anti-inflammatory drug, methotrexate, flamed out as secondary prevention in the CIRT trial.
The new COLCOT substudy included 4,661 of the 4,745 original patients and examined treatment initiation using three strata: within 0-3 days (n = 1,193), 4-7 days (n = 720), and 8-30 days (n = 2,748). Patients who received treatment within 3 days were slightly younger, more likely to be smokers, and to have a shorter time from MI to randomization (2.1 days vs 5.1 days vs. 20.8 days, respectively).
In the subset receiving treatment within 3 days, those assigned to colchicine had the same number of cardiac deaths as those given placebo (2 vs. 2) but fewer resuscitated cardiac arrests (1 vs. 3), MIs (17 vs. 29), strokes (1 vs. 5), and urgent hospitalizations for angina requiring revascularization (6 vs. 17).
“A larger trial might have allowed for a better assessment of individual endpoints and subgroups,” observed Bouabdallaoui.
Although there is growing support for colchicine, experts caution that the drug many not be for everyone. In COLCOT, 1 in 10 patients were unable to tolerate the drug, largely because of gastrointestinal (GI) issues.
Pharmacogenomics substudy
A second COLCOT substudy aimed to identify genetic markers predictive of colchicine response and to gain insights into the mechanisms behind this response. It included 767 patients treated with colchicine and another 755 treated with placebo – or about one-third the patients in the original trial.
A genome-wide association study did not find a significant association for the primary CV endpoint, although a prespecified subgroup analysis in men identified an interesting region on chromosome 9 (variant: rs10811106), which just missed reaching genomewide significance, said Marie-Pierre Dubé, PhD, director of the Université de Montréal Beaulieu-Saucier Pharmacogenomics Centre at the Montreal Heart Institute.
In addition, the genomewide analysis found two significant regions for GI events: one on chromosome 6 (variant: rs6916345) and one on chromosome 10 (variant: rs74795203).
For each of the identified regions, the researchers then tested the effect of the allele in the placebo group and the interaction between the genetic variant and treatment with colchicine. For the chromosome 9 region in males, there was no effect in the placebo group and a significant interaction in the colchicine group.
For the significant GI event findings, there was a small effect for the chromosome 6 region in the placebo group and a very significant interaction with colchicine, Dubé said. Similarly, there was no effect for the chromosome 10 region in the placebo group and a significant interaction with colchicine.
Additional analyses in stratified patient populations showed that males with the protective allele (CC) for the chromosome 9 region represented 83% of the population. The primary CV endpoint occurred in 3.2% of these men treated with colchicine and 6.3% treated with placebo (HR, 0.46; 95% CI, 0.24 - 0.86).
For the gastrointestinal events, 25% of patients carried the risk allele (AA) for the chromosome 6 region and 36.9% of these had GI events when treated with colchicine versus 18.6% when treated with placebo (HR, 2.42; 95% CI, 1.57-3.72).
Similarly, 13% of individuals carried one or two copies of the risk allele (AG+GG) for the chromosome 10 region and the risk of GI events in these was nearly four times higher with colchicine (47.1% vs. 18.9%; HR, 3.98; 95% CI 2.24-7.07).
Functional genomic analyses of the identified regions were also performed and showed that the chromosome 9 locus overlaps with the SAXO1 gene, a stabilizer of axonemal microtubules 1.
“The leading variant at this locus (rs10811106 C allele) correlated with the expression of the HAUS6 gene, which is involved in microtubule generation from existing microtubules, and may interact with the effect of colchicine, which is known to inhibit microtubule formation,” observed Dubé.
Also, the chromosome 6 locus associated with gastrointestinal events was colocalizing with the Crohn’s disease locus, adding further support for this region.
“The results support potential personalized approaches to inflammation reduction for cardiovascular prevention,” Dubé said.
This is a post hoc subgroup analysis, however, and replication is necessary, ideally in prospective randomized trials, she noted.
The substudy is important because it provides further insights into the link between colchicine and microtubule polymerization, affecting the activation of the inflammasome, session moderator Imazio said.
“Second, it is important because pharmacogenomics can help us to better understand the optimal responder to colchicine and colchicine resistance,” he said. “So it can be useful for personalized medicine, leading to the proper use of the drug for the proper patient.”
COLCOT was supported by the government of Quebec, the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, and philanthropic foundations. Bouabdallaoui has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dubé reported grants from the government of Quebec; personal fees from DalCor and GlaxoSmithKline; research support from AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Servier, Sanofi; and minor equity interest in DalCor. Dubé is also coauthor of patents on pharmacogenomics-guided CETP inhibition, and pharmacogenomics markers of response to colchicine.
This article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The earlier the anti-inflammatory drug colchicine is initiated after a myocardial infarction (MI) the greater the benefit, a new COLCOT analysis suggests.
The parent trial was conducted in patients with a recent MI because of the intense inflammation present at that time, and added colchicine 0.5 mg daily to standard care within 30 days following MI.
As previously reported, colchicine significantly reduced the risk of the primary end point – a composite of cardiovascular (CV) death, resuscitated cardiac arrest, MI, stroke, or urgent hospitalization for angina requiring revascularization – by 23% compared with placebo.
This new analysis shows the risk was reduced by 48% in patients receiving colchicine within 3 days of an MI (4.3% vs. 8.3%; adjusted hazard ratio, 0.52; 95% confidence interval, 0.32-0.84, P = .007).
Risk of a secondary efficacy end point – CV death, resuscitated cardiac arrest, MI, or stroke – was reduced by 45% over an average follow up of 22.7 months (3.3% vs 6.1%; adjusted HR, 0.55; 95% CI, 0.32-0.95, P = .031).
“We believe that our results support an early, in-hospital initiation of adjunctive colchicine for post-MI prevention,” Nadia Bouabdallaoui, MD, Montreal Heart Institute, Quebec, Canada, said during an online session devoted to colchicine at the European Society of Cardiology Congress 2020.
Session moderator Massimo Imazio, MD, professor of cardiology at the University of Turin, Italy, said the improved outcomes suggest that earlier treatment is better – a finding that parallels his own experience using colchicine in patients with pericarditis.
“This substudy is very important because this is probably also the year in cardiovascular applications [that] early use of the drug could improve outcomes,” he said.
Positive data have been accumulating for colchicine from COLCOT, LoDoCo, and, most recently, the LoDoCo2 trial, even as another anti-inflammatory drug, methotrexate, flamed out as secondary prevention in the CIRT trial.
The new COLCOT substudy included 4,661 of the 4,745 original patients and examined treatment initiation using three strata: within 0-3 days (n = 1,193), 4-7 days (n = 720), and 8-30 days (n = 2,748). Patients who received treatment within 3 days were slightly younger, more likely to be smokers, and to have a shorter time from MI to randomization (2.1 days vs 5.1 days vs. 20.8 days, respectively).
In the subset receiving treatment within 3 days, those assigned to colchicine had the same number of cardiac deaths as those given placebo (2 vs. 2) but fewer resuscitated cardiac arrests (1 vs. 3), MIs (17 vs. 29), strokes (1 vs. 5), and urgent hospitalizations for angina requiring revascularization (6 vs. 17).
“A larger trial might have allowed for a better assessment of individual endpoints and subgroups,” observed Bouabdallaoui.
Although there is growing support for colchicine, experts caution that the drug many not be for everyone. In COLCOT, 1 in 10 patients were unable to tolerate the drug, largely because of gastrointestinal (GI) issues.
Pharmacogenomics substudy
A second COLCOT substudy aimed to identify genetic markers predictive of colchicine response and to gain insights into the mechanisms behind this response. It included 767 patients treated with colchicine and another 755 treated with placebo – or about one-third the patients in the original trial.
A genome-wide association study did not find a significant association for the primary CV endpoint, although a prespecified subgroup analysis in men identified an interesting region on chromosome 9 (variant: rs10811106), which just missed reaching genomewide significance, said Marie-Pierre Dubé, PhD, director of the Université de Montréal Beaulieu-Saucier Pharmacogenomics Centre at the Montreal Heart Institute.
In addition, the genomewide analysis found two significant regions for GI events: one on chromosome 6 (variant: rs6916345) and one on chromosome 10 (variant: rs74795203).
For each of the identified regions, the researchers then tested the effect of the allele in the placebo group and the interaction between the genetic variant and treatment with colchicine. For the chromosome 9 region in males, there was no effect in the placebo group and a significant interaction in the colchicine group.
For the significant GI event findings, there was a small effect for the chromosome 6 region in the placebo group and a very significant interaction with colchicine, Dubé said. Similarly, there was no effect for the chromosome 10 region in the placebo group and a significant interaction with colchicine.
Additional analyses in stratified patient populations showed that males with the protective allele (CC) for the chromosome 9 region represented 83% of the population. The primary CV endpoint occurred in 3.2% of these men treated with colchicine and 6.3% treated with placebo (HR, 0.46; 95% CI, 0.24 - 0.86).
For the gastrointestinal events, 25% of patients carried the risk allele (AA) for the chromosome 6 region and 36.9% of these had GI events when treated with colchicine versus 18.6% when treated with placebo (HR, 2.42; 95% CI, 1.57-3.72).
Similarly, 13% of individuals carried one or two copies of the risk allele (AG+GG) for the chromosome 10 region and the risk of GI events in these was nearly four times higher with colchicine (47.1% vs. 18.9%; HR, 3.98; 95% CI 2.24-7.07).
Functional genomic analyses of the identified regions were also performed and showed that the chromosome 9 locus overlaps with the SAXO1 gene, a stabilizer of axonemal microtubules 1.
“The leading variant at this locus (rs10811106 C allele) correlated with the expression of the HAUS6 gene, which is involved in microtubule generation from existing microtubules, and may interact with the effect of colchicine, which is known to inhibit microtubule formation,” observed Dubé.
Also, the chromosome 6 locus associated with gastrointestinal events was colocalizing with the Crohn’s disease locus, adding further support for this region.
“The results support potential personalized approaches to inflammation reduction for cardiovascular prevention,” Dubé said.
This is a post hoc subgroup analysis, however, and replication is necessary, ideally in prospective randomized trials, she noted.
The substudy is important because it provides further insights into the link between colchicine and microtubule polymerization, affecting the activation of the inflammasome, session moderator Imazio said.
“Second, it is important because pharmacogenomics can help us to better understand the optimal responder to colchicine and colchicine resistance,” he said. “So it can be useful for personalized medicine, leading to the proper use of the drug for the proper patient.”
COLCOT was supported by the government of Quebec, the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, and philanthropic foundations. Bouabdallaoui has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dubé reported grants from the government of Quebec; personal fees from DalCor and GlaxoSmithKline; research support from AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Servier, Sanofi; and minor equity interest in DalCor. Dubé is also coauthor of patents on pharmacogenomics-guided CETP inhibition, and pharmacogenomics markers of response to colchicine.
This article first appeared on Medscape.com.