Sue Hughes

The first European consensus on vaccination in patients with multiple sclerosis (MS) has been developed by the European Committee for Treatment and Research in Multiple Sclerosis (ECTRIMS) and the European Academy of Neurology (EAN).

The document, announced at the annual ECTRIMS meeting, proposes a standard for vaccination in patients with MS, including a global vaccination strategy for the general MS patient population and selected subpopulations.

The document does not include any recommendations regarding vaccination against COVID-19, which is the subject of a separate report, announced at the annual meeting. 

The main conclusions in the new report are as follows:

• Vaccinations in general are considered safe for patients with MS and do not modify disease activity/progression.
• Live attenuated vaccines, however, are contraindicated with immunosuppressants.
• Inactivated vaccines can be used safely, but their efficacy may be decreased with immunosuppressants.
• Vaccinations should be considered early in MS management before using immunosuppressants whenever possible.

Presenting the vaccination consensus document, Susana Otero-Romero, MD, from the Multiple Sclerosis Center of Catalonia, Spain, explained that vaccination has become an important part of the risk management strategy in patients with MS treated with highly active drugs but that questions remain as to when and whether to introduce a particular vaccine and which disease-modifying treatments affect vaccine response. 

“The current reference tool has been developed to help professionals to decide on the best vaccination strategy for their patients,” she said.  

The consensus document recommends that, in general, vaccination should be performed at the time of diagnosis of MS or in the early stages of the disease to prevent future delays in starting therapies.

“Ideally, vaccination should take place before the onset of disease-modifying treatment,” Dr. Otero-Romero said. The consensus document recommends inactivated vaccines to be given 2-3 weeks before immunosuppressive therapy is started, and live attenuated vaccines at least 4 weeks beforehand.

In the case of relapse, vaccination should be delayed until clinical resolution or stabilization if possible, the consensus statement recommends.

Serological testing for vaccine-induced antibody titers can be performed 1-2 months after the last dose of the vaccine (suggested for hepatitis B, measles, mumps, and varicella). For attenuated live vaccines, serological tests should be done before starting immunosuppressive therapy. In the case of insufficient response, consideration should be given to administering a booster dose of the vaccine, except for hepatitis B, in which a complete revaccination is recommended, according to the document.

As for vaccination during immunosuppressive therapy, this is considered safe for patients on interferon or glatiramer acetate when indicated, the report says. 

Vaccination should ideally be avoided in patients on dimethyl fumarate, teriflunomide (Aubagio) or natalizumab (Tysabri), although it can be considered in exceptional cases when the potential risk of acquiring the infection is greater than the risk of developing vaccine-related infections (unless the absolute lymphocyte count is below 800/mm³), it adds.

Vaccination should be avoided in patients on S1P modulators (for example, fingolimod [Gilenya]), anti-CD20 therapies, and before immune restoration for cladribine (Leustatin) and alemtuzumab (Lemtrada).

In the case of patients stopping immunosuppressive therapy, inactivated vaccines can be given any time after the discontinuation of therapy but preferably after immune restoration. Live attenuated vaccines should only be administered after a safety interval ensures immune restoration has been met.
 

Which vaccines?

On which vaccines are needed in patients with MS, the consensus document recommends the same routine vaccination schedule as for the general population. In addition, it advises influenza and pneumococcal vaccination if patients are immunosuppressed or have significant disability.

It also recommends human papillomavirus vaccine in women and men independent of their age if they are to be treated with alemtuzumab, fingolimod, cladribine, or anti-CD20 drugs. Hepatitis B vaccination is also advised in patients treated with anti-CD20 drugs.
 

Special populations: pregnancy/elderly

In patients with MS who are pregnant, inactivated flu vaccine can be given in any trimester at the start of the flu season, and vaccination against diphtheria, tetanus, and pertussis can be given during the third trimester, the report says. Live attenuated vaccines should be completed at least 1 month before pregnancy or after delivery and 4-6 weeks prior to the initiation of immunosuppressive therapy.

Elderly patients with MS should receive flu and pneumococcal vaccines annually and would also benefit from the inactivated herpes zoster vaccine.
 

Travel vaccines

On vaccinations needed for travel, the report recommends that patients with MS consult a specialized travel clinic or vaccination expert and start immunizations 2-3 months before departure. Patients with MS with or without immunosuppressive therapy can receive hepatitis A, rabies, Japanese encephalitis, tic-borne encephalitis, polio, and inactivated typhoid vaccine. But yellow fever and oral typhoid are contraindicated in patients on immunosuppressive therapies.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The first European consensus on vaccination in patients with multiple sclerosis (MS) has been developed by the European Committee for Treatment and Research in Multiple Sclerosis (ECTRIMS) and the European Academy of Neurology (EAN).

The document, announced at the annual ECTRIMS meeting, proposes a standard for vaccination in patients with MS, including a global vaccination strategy for the general MS patient population and selected subpopulations.

The document does not include any recommendations regarding vaccination against COVID-19, which is the subject of a separate report, announced at the annual meeting. 

The main conclusions in the new report are as follows:

• Vaccinations in general are considered safe for patients with MS and do not modify disease activity/progression.
• Live attenuated vaccines, however, are contraindicated with immunosuppressants.
• Inactivated vaccines can be used safely, but their efficacy may be decreased with immunosuppressants.
• Vaccinations should be considered early in MS management before using immunosuppressants whenever possible.

Presenting the vaccination consensus document, Susana Otero-Romero, MD, from the Multiple Sclerosis Center of Catalonia, Spain, explained that vaccination has become an important part of the risk management strategy in patients with MS treated with highly active drugs but that questions remain as to when and whether to introduce a particular vaccine and which disease-modifying treatments affect vaccine response. 

“The current reference tool has been developed to help professionals to decide on the best vaccination strategy for their patients,” she said.  

The consensus document recommends that, in general, vaccination should be performed at the time of diagnosis of MS or in the early stages of the disease to prevent future delays in starting therapies.

“Ideally, vaccination should take place before the onset of disease-modifying treatment,” Dr. Otero-Romero said. The consensus document recommends inactivated vaccines to be given 2-3 weeks before immunosuppressive therapy is started, and live attenuated vaccines at least 4 weeks beforehand.

In the case of relapse, vaccination should be delayed until clinical resolution or stabilization if possible, the consensus statement recommends.

Serological testing for vaccine-induced antibody titers can be performed 1-2 months after the last dose of the vaccine (suggested for hepatitis B, measles, mumps, and varicella). For attenuated live vaccines, serological tests should be done before starting immunosuppressive therapy. In the case of insufficient response, consideration should be given to administering a booster dose of the vaccine, except for hepatitis B, in which a complete revaccination is recommended, according to the document.

As for vaccination during immunosuppressive therapy, this is considered safe for patients on interferon or glatiramer acetate when indicated, the report says. 

Vaccination should ideally be avoided in patients on dimethyl fumarate, teriflunomide (Aubagio) or natalizumab (Tysabri), although it can be considered in exceptional cases when the potential risk of acquiring the infection is greater than the risk of developing vaccine-related infections (unless the absolute lymphocyte count is below 800/mm³), it adds.

Vaccination should be avoided in patients on S1P modulators (for example, fingolimod [Gilenya]), anti-CD20 therapies, and before immune restoration for cladribine (Leustatin) and alemtuzumab (Lemtrada).

In the case of patients stopping immunosuppressive therapy, inactivated vaccines can be given any time after the discontinuation of therapy but preferably after immune restoration. Live attenuated vaccines should only be administered after a safety interval ensures immune restoration has been met.
 

Which vaccines?

On which vaccines are needed in patients with MS, the consensus document recommends the same routine vaccination schedule as for the general population. In addition, it advises influenza and pneumococcal vaccination if patients are immunosuppressed or have significant disability.

It also recommends human papillomavirus vaccine in women and men independent of their age if they are to be treated with alemtuzumab, fingolimod, cladribine, or anti-CD20 drugs. Hepatitis B vaccination is also advised in patients treated with anti-CD20 drugs.
 

Special populations: pregnancy/elderly

In patients with MS who are pregnant, inactivated flu vaccine can be given in any trimester at the start of the flu season, and vaccination against diphtheria, tetanus, and pertussis can be given during the third trimester, the report says. Live attenuated vaccines should be completed at least 1 month before pregnancy or after delivery and 4-6 weeks prior to the initiation of immunosuppressive therapy.

Elderly patients with MS should receive flu and pneumococcal vaccines annually and would also benefit from the inactivated herpes zoster vaccine.
 

Travel vaccines

On vaccinations needed for travel, the report recommends that patients with MS consult a specialized travel clinic or vaccination expert and start immunizations 2-3 months before departure. Patients with MS with or without immunosuppressive therapy can receive hepatitis A, rabies, Japanese encephalitis, tic-borne encephalitis, polio, and inactivated typhoid vaccine. But yellow fever and oral typhoid are contraindicated in patients on immunosuppressive therapies.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The first European consensus on vaccination in patients with multiple sclerosis (MS) has been developed by the European Committee for Treatment and Research in Multiple Sclerosis (ECTRIMS) and the European Academy of Neurology (EAN).

The document, announced at the annual ECTRIMS meeting, proposes a standard for vaccination in patients with MS, including a global vaccination strategy for the general MS patient population and selected subpopulations.

The document does not include any recommendations regarding vaccination against COVID-19, which is the subject of a separate report, announced at the annual meeting. 

The main conclusions in the new report are as follows:

• Vaccinations in general are considered safe for patients with MS and do not modify disease activity/progression.
• Live attenuated vaccines, however, are contraindicated with immunosuppressants.
• Inactivated vaccines can be used safely, but their efficacy may be decreased with immunosuppressants.
• Vaccinations should be considered early in MS management before using immunosuppressants whenever possible.

Presenting the vaccination consensus document, Susana Otero-Romero, MD, from the Multiple Sclerosis Center of Catalonia, Spain, explained that vaccination has become an important part of the risk management strategy in patients with MS treated with highly active drugs but that questions remain as to when and whether to introduce a particular vaccine and which disease-modifying treatments affect vaccine response. 

“The current reference tool has been developed to help professionals to decide on the best vaccination strategy for their patients,” she said.  

The consensus document recommends that, in general, vaccination should be performed at the time of diagnosis of MS or in the early stages of the disease to prevent future delays in starting therapies.

“Ideally, vaccination should take place before the onset of disease-modifying treatment,” Dr. Otero-Romero said. The consensus document recommends inactivated vaccines to be given 2-3 weeks before immunosuppressive therapy is started, and live attenuated vaccines at least 4 weeks beforehand.

In the case of relapse, vaccination should be delayed until clinical resolution or stabilization if possible, the consensus statement recommends.

Serological testing for vaccine-induced antibody titers can be performed 1-2 months after the last dose of the vaccine (suggested for hepatitis B, measles, mumps, and varicella). For attenuated live vaccines, serological tests should be done before starting immunosuppressive therapy. In the case of insufficient response, consideration should be given to administering a booster dose of the vaccine, except for hepatitis B, in which a complete revaccination is recommended, according to the document.

As for vaccination during immunosuppressive therapy, this is considered safe for patients on interferon or glatiramer acetate when indicated, the report says. 

Vaccination should ideally be avoided in patients on dimethyl fumarate, teriflunomide (Aubagio) or natalizumab (Tysabri), although it can be considered in exceptional cases when the potential risk of acquiring the infection is greater than the risk of developing vaccine-related infections (unless the absolute lymphocyte count is below 800/mm³), it adds.

Vaccination should be avoided in patients on S1P modulators (for example, fingolimod [Gilenya]), anti-CD20 therapies, and before immune restoration for cladribine (Leustatin) and alemtuzumab (Lemtrada).

In the case of patients stopping immunosuppressive therapy, inactivated vaccines can be given any time after the discontinuation of therapy but preferably after immune restoration. Live attenuated vaccines should only be administered after a safety interval ensures immune restoration has been met.
 

Which vaccines?

On which vaccines are needed in patients with MS, the consensus document recommends the same routine vaccination schedule as for the general population. In addition, it advises influenza and pneumococcal vaccination if patients are immunosuppressed or have significant disability.

It also recommends human papillomavirus vaccine in women and men independent of their age if they are to be treated with alemtuzumab, fingolimod, cladribine, or anti-CD20 drugs. Hepatitis B vaccination is also advised in patients treated with anti-CD20 drugs.
 

Special populations: pregnancy/elderly

In patients with MS who are pregnant, inactivated flu vaccine can be given in any trimester at the start of the flu season, and vaccination against diphtheria, tetanus, and pertussis can be given during the third trimester, the report says. Live attenuated vaccines should be completed at least 1 month before pregnancy or after delivery and 4-6 weeks prior to the initiation of immunosuppressive therapy.

Elderly patients with MS should receive flu and pneumococcal vaccines annually and would also benefit from the inactivated herpes zoster vaccine.
 

Travel vaccines

On vaccinations needed for travel, the report recommends that patients with MS consult a specialized travel clinic or vaccination expert and start immunizations 2-3 months before departure. Patients with MS with or without immunosuppressive therapy can receive hepatitis A, rabies, Japanese encephalitis, tic-borne encephalitis, polio, and inactivated typhoid vaccine. But yellow fever and oral typhoid are contraindicated in patients on immunosuppressive therapies.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The European Committee for Treatment and Research in Multiple Sclerosis (ECTRIMS) and the European Academy of Neurology (EAN) have produced a joint position statement on COVID-19 vaccination for patients with multiple sclerosis (MS).

The statement was released at the annual meeting of the European Committee for Treatment and Research in Multiple Sclerosis (ECTRIMS). The statement concludes that the COVID-19 vaccines that are currently available are safe for patients with MS. Further, it states that the vaccines confer the same protection for patients with MS as they do for the general population. Exceptions may be patients taking the S1P modulator fingolimod and anti-CD20 drugs. For these patients, antibody responses have been shown to be reduced.

This position statement will be published on the ECTRIMS and EAN websites. Owing to the shifting, ongoing nature of evidence, the position statement will be updated periodically.

Presenting the statement, Mauricio Farez, MD, Fundacion FLENI, Buenos Aires, concluded: “Overall, MS patients do not seem to develop more severe forms of COVID-19 as compared with healthy controls, but patients with greater disability, anti-CD20 treatment, or those with recent steroid use have a higher risk of severe disease.”

“So far there are no specific contraindications for any COVID vaccines in MS patients reported,” he added. “We should work with our patients to keep them safe with vaccines while optimizing treatment strategies and MS management, in particular for those treated with anti-CD20 and S1P modulators.”
 

Risk for COVID-19 among patients with MS

On the issue of whether patients with MS are at higher risk for COVID-19 or for having a more severe form of the disease, Dr. Farez noted that studies published to date are reassuring and don’t suggest major problems regarding safety.

The main factors that are associated with more serious forms of COVID in patients with MS are similar to those in the general population. These include age, obesity, diabetes, male sex, and Black race.

As for any risk associated with MS therapies, interferons and glatiramer acetate do not increase the risk of getting COVID-19 or worsen the clinical course of the disease. Fingolimod, teriflunomide, natalizumab, and dimethyl fumarate also do not seem to negatively affect risk for COVID-19, according to the statement.

However, several studies have shown that anti-CD20 therapies, such as ocrelizumab, and steroid pulses can confer an increased risk for COVID-19.
 

COVID-19 vaccine safety

Four COVID-19 vaccines are licensed for use in the European Union. These include two mRNA vaccines – Spikevax (Moderna) and Comimaty (Pfizer) – and two adenovirus-based vaccines, one from Janssen (J&J) and the other from AstraZeneca. Five other COVID-19 vaccines are under review and may be available in the future.

All the currently available vaccines can be administered to patients with MS, including patients receiving immunosuppressant disease-modifying therapies, the statement notes.

In real-life clinical practice, no red flags have been observed for patients with MS who have received mRNA vaccines to date. Nevertheless, because immunocompromised patients and those taking immunomodulators were excluded from trials, continued surveillance for immune-mediated adverse effects is warranted, Dr. Farez said.

Regarding possible effects of vaccines on MS relapses/disability, no significant adverse effects occurred in a study conducted in Israel (by Achiron and colleagues) that involved 435 patients with MS who were fully vaccinated with the Pfizer mRNA vaccine. The relapse rate was 1.6%, similar to the rate among patients who did not have MS. A study by Di Filippo and colleagues showed no significant changes in relapse rate in the 2 months following immunization with the Pfizer vaccine among 324 patients with MS.

“There are no specific contraindications to any of the vaccines particularly for MS patients compared with the general population,” Dr. Farez noted.
 

Are there different recommendations for different MS therapies?

On the issue of vaccine effects in patients taking various disease-modifying treatments, the statement says that the data on this are limited. Patients taking interferons, glatiramer acetate, teriflunomide, and fumarates whose lymphocyte counts are normal will most likely be adequately protected. Patients with moderate to severe lymphopenia may not mount an adequate immune response to COVID-19 vaccination, so absolute lymphocyte count may be checked before vaccination.

Patients taking natalizumab will also likely be protected with COVID vaccination.

It is likely that for patients taking alemtuzumab, immune cellular and humoral response to COVID-10 vaccines will be attenuated, especially in the first 6 months during maximum lymphopenia. If possible, vaccination should be delayed until at least 6 months after treatment. It is thought that patients who have completed both courses of alemtuzumab with complete immune reconstitution will mount a full immune response.

In studies, all patients with MS who were treated with cladribine demonstrated a protective humoral immune response to the COVID-19 vaccine. In those studies, the antibody response was evident about 4 months after the last treatment dose, and the titer did not differ from that of healthy persons, Dr. Farez reported.
 

Low antibody level with fingolimod

The majority of patients treated with fingolimod have failed to show a protective level of antibodies following COVID-19 vaccination, the statement notes.

Asked whether patients taking fingolimod should receive a COVID vaccination, Dr. Farez said that that was a good question. “We have to think about what is an immune response. Antibodies are only a small fraction of all immune responses. So, until we have data to show otherwise, I think we should vaccinate – any immunity is better than no immunity,” he said.

Dr. Farez also suggested that patients with MS who are taking fingolimod should continue to do so. “Any treatment for MS is better than none. If fingolimod is stopped, MS may rebound. So, the most likely scenario would be to keep treating with fingolimod and to give the vaccination. But these patients may need a more aggressive booster approach – we will be looking at that,” he said.
 

Anti-CD20 antibody drugs

Patients taking ocrelizumab also do not mount an appropriate antibody response regardless of lymphocyte count or the time interval from the last ocrelizumab dose (3-9 months), the statement says. To optimize vaccine efficacy and to balance benefits and risks, the statement advises administering COVID vaccines at least 12 weeks after administering ocrelizumab and 4-6 weeks prior to the next dose, whenever possible.

A study by Apostolidis and colleagues provides strong evidence of immune priming by COVID vaccination in patients treated with anti-CD20 medications. Although for most of these patients, antibody responses are not optimal, T-cell priming is largely intact, Dr. Farez noted.
 

Booster doses/antibody tests

The need for and timing of COVID vaccine booster doses have not been established. “This is being discussed now for the general population. The recommendations for MS patients will not differ significantly from those for the general population, apart from perhaps for specific populations such as those on anti-CD20 drugs or fingolimod,” Dr. Farez said.

Antibody testing is not currently recommended for assessing immunity following COVID vaccination because the clinical utility and serologic correlates of protection after vaccination have not been established. Antibody testing does not evaluate the cellular immune response, which may play a role in vaccine-mediated protection, according to the statement.


Vaccination strategy after COVID

People should be offered vaccination regardless of their history of symptomatic or asymptomatic COVID-19, including people with prolonged post-COVID symptoms. Data from clinical trials indicate that the currently authorized vaccines can be given safely to people with evidence of prior SARS-CoV-2 infection. For people who are known to be currently infected with SARS-CoV-2, vaccination should be deferred until the acute illness has passed.

Pregnancy/children

Data on the safety of COVID vaccines during pregnancy are limited. On the basis of current knowledge, experts believe that it is unlikely that COVID vaccines pose a risk to the pregnant person or fetus, and thus pregnant people with MS are eligible for and can receive a COVID-19 vaccine, the statement notes.

Adolescents aged 12-17 are eligible to receive the authorized mRNA vaccine, but children younger than 12 are not authorized to receive any COVID vaccine at this time, it adds.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The European Committee for Treatment and Research in Multiple Sclerosis (ECTRIMS) and the European Academy of Neurology (EAN) have produced a joint position statement on COVID-19 vaccination for patients with multiple sclerosis (MS).

The statement was released at the annual meeting of the European Committee for Treatment and Research in Multiple Sclerosis (ECTRIMS). The statement concludes that the COVID-19 vaccines that are currently available are safe for patients with MS. Further, it states that the vaccines confer the same protection for patients with MS as they do for the general population. Exceptions may be patients taking the S1P modulator fingolimod and anti-CD20 drugs. For these patients, antibody responses have been shown to be reduced.

This position statement will be published on the ECTRIMS and EAN websites. Owing to the shifting, ongoing nature of evidence, the position statement will be updated periodically.

Presenting the statement, Mauricio Farez, MD, Fundacion FLENI, Buenos Aires, concluded: “Overall, MS patients do not seem to develop more severe forms of COVID-19 as compared with healthy controls, but patients with greater disability, anti-CD20 treatment, or those with recent steroid use have a higher risk of severe disease.”

“So far there are no specific contraindications for any COVID vaccines in MS patients reported,” he added. “We should work with our patients to keep them safe with vaccines while optimizing treatment strategies and MS management, in particular for those treated with anti-CD20 and S1P modulators.”
 

Risk for COVID-19 among patients with MS

On the issue of whether patients with MS are at higher risk for COVID-19 or for having a more severe form of the disease, Dr. Farez noted that studies published to date are reassuring and don’t suggest major problems regarding safety.

The main factors that are associated with more serious forms of COVID in patients with MS are similar to those in the general population. These include age, obesity, diabetes, male sex, and Black race.

As for any risk associated with MS therapies, interferons and glatiramer acetate do not increase the risk of getting COVID-19 or worsen the clinical course of the disease. Fingolimod, teriflunomide, natalizumab, and dimethyl fumarate also do not seem to negatively affect risk for COVID-19, according to the statement.

However, several studies have shown that anti-CD20 therapies, such as ocrelizumab, and steroid pulses can confer an increased risk for COVID-19.
 

COVID-19 vaccine safety

Four COVID-19 vaccines are licensed for use in the European Union. These include two mRNA vaccines – Spikevax (Moderna) and Comimaty (Pfizer) – and two adenovirus-based vaccines, one from Janssen (J&J) and the other from AstraZeneca. Five other COVID-19 vaccines are under review and may be available in the future.

All the currently available vaccines can be administered to patients with MS, including patients receiving immunosuppressant disease-modifying therapies, the statement notes.

In real-life clinical practice, no red flags have been observed for patients with MS who have received mRNA vaccines to date. Nevertheless, because immunocompromised patients and those taking immunomodulators were excluded from trials, continued surveillance for immune-mediated adverse effects is warranted, Dr. Farez said.

Regarding possible effects of vaccines on MS relapses/disability, no significant adverse effects occurred in a study conducted in Israel (by Achiron and colleagues) that involved 435 patients with MS who were fully vaccinated with the Pfizer mRNA vaccine. The relapse rate was 1.6%, similar to the rate among patients who did not have MS. A study by Di Filippo and colleagues showed no significant changes in relapse rate in the 2 months following immunization with the Pfizer vaccine among 324 patients with MS.

“There are no specific contraindications to any of the vaccines particularly for MS patients compared with the general population,” Dr. Farez noted.
 

Are there different recommendations for different MS therapies?

On the issue of vaccine effects in patients taking various disease-modifying treatments, the statement says that the data on this are limited. Patients taking interferons, glatiramer acetate, teriflunomide, and fumarates whose lymphocyte counts are normal will most likely be adequately protected. Patients with moderate to severe lymphopenia may not mount an adequate immune response to COVID-19 vaccination, so absolute lymphocyte count may be checked before vaccination.

Patients taking natalizumab will also likely be protected with COVID vaccination.

It is likely that for patients taking alemtuzumab, immune cellular and humoral response to COVID-10 vaccines will be attenuated, especially in the first 6 months during maximum lymphopenia. If possible, vaccination should be delayed until at least 6 months after treatment. It is thought that patients who have completed both courses of alemtuzumab with complete immune reconstitution will mount a full immune response.

In studies, all patients with MS who were treated with cladribine demonstrated a protective humoral immune response to the COVID-19 vaccine. In those studies, the antibody response was evident about 4 months after the last treatment dose, and the titer did not differ from that of healthy persons, Dr. Farez reported.
 

Low antibody level with fingolimod

The majority of patients treated with fingolimod have failed to show a protective level of antibodies following COVID-19 vaccination, the statement notes.

Asked whether patients taking fingolimod should receive a COVID vaccination, Dr. Farez said that that was a good question. “We have to think about what is an immune response. Antibodies are only a small fraction of all immune responses. So, until we have data to show otherwise, I think we should vaccinate – any immunity is better than no immunity,” he said.

Dr. Farez also suggested that patients with MS who are taking fingolimod should continue to do so. “Any treatment for MS is better than none. If fingolimod is stopped, MS may rebound. So, the most likely scenario would be to keep treating with fingolimod and to give the vaccination. But these patients may need a more aggressive booster approach – we will be looking at that,” he said.
 

Anti-CD20 antibody drugs

Patients taking ocrelizumab also do not mount an appropriate antibody response regardless of lymphocyte count or the time interval from the last ocrelizumab dose (3-9 months), the statement says. To optimize vaccine efficacy and to balance benefits and risks, the statement advises administering COVID vaccines at least 12 weeks after administering ocrelizumab and 4-6 weeks prior to the next dose, whenever possible.

A study by Apostolidis and colleagues provides strong evidence of immune priming by COVID vaccination in patients treated with anti-CD20 medications. Although for most of these patients, antibody responses are not optimal, T-cell priming is largely intact, Dr. Farez noted.
 

Booster doses/antibody tests

The need for and timing of COVID vaccine booster doses have not been established. “This is being discussed now for the general population. The recommendations for MS patients will not differ significantly from those for the general population, apart from perhaps for specific populations such as those on anti-CD20 drugs or fingolimod,” Dr. Farez said.

Antibody testing is not currently recommended for assessing immunity following COVID vaccination because the clinical utility and serologic correlates of protection after vaccination have not been established. Antibody testing does not evaluate the cellular immune response, which may play a role in vaccine-mediated protection, according to the statement.


Vaccination strategy after COVID

People should be offered vaccination regardless of their history of symptomatic or asymptomatic COVID-19, including people with prolonged post-COVID symptoms. Data from clinical trials indicate that the currently authorized vaccines can be given safely to people with evidence of prior SARS-CoV-2 infection. For people who are known to be currently infected with SARS-CoV-2, vaccination should be deferred until the acute illness has passed.

Pregnancy/children

Data on the safety of COVID vaccines during pregnancy are limited. On the basis of current knowledge, experts believe that it is unlikely that COVID vaccines pose a risk to the pregnant person or fetus, and thus pregnant people with MS are eligible for and can receive a COVID-19 vaccine, the statement notes.

Adolescents aged 12-17 are eligible to receive the authorized mRNA vaccine, but children younger than 12 are not authorized to receive any COVID vaccine at this time, it adds.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The European Committee for Treatment and Research in Multiple Sclerosis (ECTRIMS) and the European Academy of Neurology (EAN) have produced a joint position statement on COVID-19 vaccination for patients with multiple sclerosis (MS).

The statement was released at the annual meeting of the European Committee for Treatment and Research in Multiple Sclerosis (ECTRIMS). The statement concludes that the COVID-19 vaccines that are currently available are safe for patients with MS. Further, it states that the vaccines confer the same protection for patients with MS as they do for the general population. Exceptions may be patients taking the S1P modulator fingolimod and anti-CD20 drugs. For these patients, antibody responses have been shown to be reduced.

This position statement will be published on the ECTRIMS and EAN websites. Owing to the shifting, ongoing nature of evidence, the position statement will be updated periodically.

Presenting the statement, Mauricio Farez, MD, Fundacion FLENI, Buenos Aires, concluded: “Overall, MS patients do not seem to develop more severe forms of COVID-19 as compared with healthy controls, but patients with greater disability, anti-CD20 treatment, or those with recent steroid use have a higher risk of severe disease.”

“So far there are no specific contraindications for any COVID vaccines in MS patients reported,” he added. “We should work with our patients to keep them safe with vaccines while optimizing treatment strategies and MS management, in particular for those treated with anti-CD20 and S1P modulators.”
 

Risk for COVID-19 among patients with MS

On the issue of whether patients with MS are at higher risk for COVID-19 or for having a more severe form of the disease, Dr. Farez noted that studies published to date are reassuring and don’t suggest major problems regarding safety.

The main factors that are associated with more serious forms of COVID in patients with MS are similar to those in the general population. These include age, obesity, diabetes, male sex, and Black race.

As for any risk associated with MS therapies, interferons and glatiramer acetate do not increase the risk of getting COVID-19 or worsen the clinical course of the disease. Fingolimod, teriflunomide, natalizumab, and dimethyl fumarate also do not seem to negatively affect risk for COVID-19, according to the statement.

However, several studies have shown that anti-CD20 therapies, such as ocrelizumab, and steroid pulses can confer an increased risk for COVID-19.
 

COVID-19 vaccine safety

Four COVID-19 vaccines are licensed for use in the European Union. These include two mRNA vaccines – Spikevax (Moderna) and Comimaty (Pfizer) – and two adenovirus-based vaccines, one from Janssen (J&J) and the other from AstraZeneca. Five other COVID-19 vaccines are under review and may be available in the future.

All the currently available vaccines can be administered to patients with MS, including patients receiving immunosuppressant disease-modifying therapies, the statement notes.

In real-life clinical practice, no red flags have been observed for patients with MS who have received mRNA vaccines to date. Nevertheless, because immunocompromised patients and those taking immunomodulators were excluded from trials, continued surveillance for immune-mediated adverse effects is warranted, Dr. Farez said.

Regarding possible effects of vaccines on MS relapses/disability, no significant adverse effects occurred in a study conducted in Israel (by Achiron and colleagues) that involved 435 patients with MS who were fully vaccinated with the Pfizer mRNA vaccine. The relapse rate was 1.6%, similar to the rate among patients who did not have MS. A study by Di Filippo and colleagues showed no significant changes in relapse rate in the 2 months following immunization with the Pfizer vaccine among 324 patients with MS.

“There are no specific contraindications to any of the vaccines particularly for MS patients compared with the general population,” Dr. Farez noted.
 

Are there different recommendations for different MS therapies?

On the issue of vaccine effects in patients taking various disease-modifying treatments, the statement says that the data on this are limited. Patients taking interferons, glatiramer acetate, teriflunomide, and fumarates whose lymphocyte counts are normal will most likely be adequately protected. Patients with moderate to severe lymphopenia may not mount an adequate immune response to COVID-19 vaccination, so absolute lymphocyte count may be checked before vaccination.

Patients taking natalizumab will also likely be protected with COVID vaccination.

It is likely that for patients taking alemtuzumab, immune cellular and humoral response to COVID-10 vaccines will be attenuated, especially in the first 6 months during maximum lymphopenia. If possible, vaccination should be delayed until at least 6 months after treatment. It is thought that patients who have completed both courses of alemtuzumab with complete immune reconstitution will mount a full immune response.

In studies, all patients with MS who were treated with cladribine demonstrated a protective humoral immune response to the COVID-19 vaccine. In those studies, the antibody response was evident about 4 months after the last treatment dose, and the titer did not differ from that of healthy persons, Dr. Farez reported.
 

Low antibody level with fingolimod

The majority of patients treated with fingolimod have failed to show a protective level of antibodies following COVID-19 vaccination, the statement notes.

Asked whether patients taking fingolimod should receive a COVID vaccination, Dr. Farez said that that was a good question. “We have to think about what is an immune response. Antibodies are only a small fraction of all immune responses. So, until we have data to show otherwise, I think we should vaccinate – any immunity is better than no immunity,” he said.

Dr. Farez also suggested that patients with MS who are taking fingolimod should continue to do so. “Any treatment for MS is better than none. If fingolimod is stopped, MS may rebound. So, the most likely scenario would be to keep treating with fingolimod and to give the vaccination. But these patients may need a more aggressive booster approach – we will be looking at that,” he said.
 

Anti-CD20 antibody drugs

Patients taking ocrelizumab also do not mount an appropriate antibody response regardless of lymphocyte count or the time interval from the last ocrelizumab dose (3-9 months), the statement says. To optimize vaccine efficacy and to balance benefits and risks, the statement advises administering COVID vaccines at least 12 weeks after administering ocrelizumab and 4-6 weeks prior to the next dose, whenever possible.

A study by Apostolidis and colleagues provides strong evidence of immune priming by COVID vaccination in patients treated with anti-CD20 medications. Although for most of these patients, antibody responses are not optimal, T-cell priming is largely intact, Dr. Farez noted.
 

Booster doses/antibody tests

The need for and timing of COVID vaccine booster doses have not been established. “This is being discussed now for the general population. The recommendations for MS patients will not differ significantly from those for the general population, apart from perhaps for specific populations such as those on anti-CD20 drugs or fingolimod,” Dr. Farez said.

Antibody testing is not currently recommended for assessing immunity following COVID vaccination because the clinical utility and serologic correlates of protection after vaccination have not been established. Antibody testing does not evaluate the cellular immune response, which may play a role in vaccine-mediated protection, according to the statement.


Vaccination strategy after COVID

People should be offered vaccination regardless of their history of symptomatic or asymptomatic COVID-19, including people with prolonged post-COVID symptoms. Data from clinical trials indicate that the currently authorized vaccines can be given safely to people with evidence of prior SARS-CoV-2 infection. For people who are known to be currently infected with SARS-CoV-2, vaccination should be deferred until the acute illness has passed.

Pregnancy/children

Data on the safety of COVID vaccines during pregnancy are limited. On the basis of current knowledge, experts believe that it is unlikely that COVID vaccines pose a risk to the pregnant person or fetus, and thus pregnant people with MS are eligible for and can receive a COVID-19 vaccine, the statement notes.

Adolescents aged 12-17 are eligible to receive the authorized mRNA vaccine, but children younger than 12 are not authorized to receive any COVID vaccine at this time, it adds.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

New data from two phase 3 studies found that in patients with relapsing forms of multiple sclerosis (MS), the new anti-CD20 monoclonal antibody drug, ublituximab, is associated with significant improvement in the multiple sclerosis functional composite (MSFC) score, a measure of disability, compared with teriflunomide (Aubagio).

The results were presented by Lawrence Steinman, MD, of Stanford (Calif.) University, at the annual meeting of the European Committee for Treatment and Research in Multiple Sclerosis (ECTRIMS).   

Main results from the ULTIMATE I and II phase 3 trials, reported previously, showed a significant reduction in annualized relapse rate (ARR) over a 96-week period (22 months) with ublituximab versus teriflunomide, as well as significant reductions in MRI lesions and improvements in the number of patients with no evidence of disease activity (NEDA).

Data from these two trials are being used to support a recent approval application to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for ublituximab to treat patients with relapsing remitting MS.

Although ublituximab was associated with an increased proportion of patients with 12-week and 24-week confirmed disability improvement compared with teriflunomide, there was no significant difference between the two groups in confirmed disability progression.

Another ULTIMATE investigator, University of California, San Francisco neurologist Bruce Cree, MD, PhD, explained that the measures of confirmed disability improvement and confirmed disability progression used in MS clinical trials are based on changes in the Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS). But he pointed out that this scale is a challenging score to use, as it typically changes very slightly over the course of a trial. He adds that the scale can also be variable.  

“Because confirmed disability worsening was not met as one of the secondary endpoints, one of the critiques of these trials could be that there wasn’t an effect of ublituximab. But worsening disability was rare in both treatment arms, so it would be very difficult, if not impossible to demonstrate a difference without much greater numbers of patients being included,” he said.

Dr. Cree noted that the multiple sclerosis functional composite (MSFC) score was an alternative, more sensitive, measure of disability that includes three different tests: the 9-hole peg test, which assesses upper arm mobility; the timed 25-foot walk test, which gauges walking ability; and the paced auditory serial addition test (PASAT), a measure of attention and processing.

He reported results showing that ublituximab significantly improved the MFSC score in ULTIMATE I by 76% and by 89% in ULTIMATE II, compared with teriflunomide. In ULTIMATE 1, the MSFC score improved by 0.266 points during the 96-week trial in the teriflunomide group and by 0.469 points in the ublituximab group (P = .048). In ULTIMATE II, the MSFC score improved by 0.275 points in the teriflunomide group and by 0.521 points in the ublituximab group (P = .017).

These changes were driven by improvements in the 9-hole peg test and the timed 25-foot walk test, with no difference seen in the PASAT test.

Asked how ublituximab compares with other anti-CD20 antibodies already in use such as ocrelizumab (Ocrevus), Dr. Cree noted that ublituximab is associated with fewer infusion reactions, so it can be infused more quickly. It is given over just 1 hour, compared with several hours needed for the ocrelizumab infusion.

“In the ULTIMATE studies the only reaction with ublituximab during infusion was a mild increase in temperature, and this can be minimized by pretreatment with acetaminophen. The allergic-type reactions of itchiness and scratchiness seen with ocrelizumab infusions were far less common with ublituximab.”

Dr. Cree attributes this to the glycol-engineering of the ublituximab antibody, which he says “allows the cytokines released from the B cells to be metabolized within phagocytes rather than to be released into the bloodstream.”

The ULTIMATE trials were funded by TG Therapeutics.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

New data from two phase 3 studies found that in patients with relapsing forms of multiple sclerosis (MS), the new anti-CD20 monoclonal antibody drug, ublituximab, is associated with significant improvement in the multiple sclerosis functional composite (MSFC) score, a measure of disability, compared with teriflunomide (Aubagio).

The results were presented by Lawrence Steinman, MD, of Stanford (Calif.) University, at the annual meeting of the European Committee for Treatment and Research in Multiple Sclerosis (ECTRIMS).   

Main results from the ULTIMATE I and II phase 3 trials, reported previously, showed a significant reduction in annualized relapse rate (ARR) over a 96-week period (22 months) with ublituximab versus teriflunomide, as well as significant reductions in MRI lesions and improvements in the number of patients with no evidence of disease activity (NEDA).

Data from these two trials are being used to support a recent approval application to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for ublituximab to treat patients with relapsing remitting MS.

Although ublituximab was associated with an increased proportion of patients with 12-week and 24-week confirmed disability improvement compared with teriflunomide, there was no significant difference between the two groups in confirmed disability progression.

Another ULTIMATE investigator, University of California, San Francisco neurologist Bruce Cree, MD, PhD, explained that the measures of confirmed disability improvement and confirmed disability progression used in MS clinical trials are based on changes in the Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS). But he pointed out that this scale is a challenging score to use, as it typically changes very slightly over the course of a trial. He adds that the scale can also be variable.  

“Because confirmed disability worsening was not met as one of the secondary endpoints, one of the critiques of these trials could be that there wasn’t an effect of ublituximab. But worsening disability was rare in both treatment arms, so it would be very difficult, if not impossible to demonstrate a difference without much greater numbers of patients being included,” he said.

Dr. Cree noted that the multiple sclerosis functional composite (MSFC) score was an alternative, more sensitive, measure of disability that includes three different tests: the 9-hole peg test, which assesses upper arm mobility; the timed 25-foot walk test, which gauges walking ability; and the paced auditory serial addition test (PASAT), a measure of attention and processing.

He reported results showing that ublituximab significantly improved the MFSC score in ULTIMATE I by 76% and by 89% in ULTIMATE II, compared with teriflunomide. In ULTIMATE 1, the MSFC score improved by 0.266 points during the 96-week trial in the teriflunomide group and by 0.469 points in the ublituximab group (P = .048). In ULTIMATE II, the MSFC score improved by 0.275 points in the teriflunomide group and by 0.521 points in the ublituximab group (P = .017).

These changes were driven by improvements in the 9-hole peg test and the timed 25-foot walk test, with no difference seen in the PASAT test.

Asked how ublituximab compares with other anti-CD20 antibodies already in use such as ocrelizumab (Ocrevus), Dr. Cree noted that ublituximab is associated with fewer infusion reactions, so it can be infused more quickly. It is given over just 1 hour, compared with several hours needed for the ocrelizumab infusion.

“In the ULTIMATE studies the only reaction with ublituximab during infusion was a mild increase in temperature, and this can be minimized by pretreatment with acetaminophen. The allergic-type reactions of itchiness and scratchiness seen with ocrelizumab infusions were far less common with ublituximab.”

Dr. Cree attributes this to the glycol-engineering of the ublituximab antibody, which he says “allows the cytokines released from the B cells to be metabolized within phagocytes rather than to be released into the bloodstream.”

The ULTIMATE trials were funded by TG Therapeutics.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

New data from two phase 3 studies found that in patients with relapsing forms of multiple sclerosis (MS), the new anti-CD20 monoclonal antibody drug, ublituximab, is associated with significant improvement in the multiple sclerosis functional composite (MSFC) score, a measure of disability, compared with teriflunomide (Aubagio).

The results were presented by Lawrence Steinman, MD, of Stanford (Calif.) University, at the annual meeting of the European Committee for Treatment and Research in Multiple Sclerosis (ECTRIMS).   

Main results from the ULTIMATE I and II phase 3 trials, reported previously, showed a significant reduction in annualized relapse rate (ARR) over a 96-week period (22 months) with ublituximab versus teriflunomide, as well as significant reductions in MRI lesions and improvements in the number of patients with no evidence of disease activity (NEDA).

Data from these two trials are being used to support a recent approval application to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for ublituximab to treat patients with relapsing remitting MS.

Although ublituximab was associated with an increased proportion of patients with 12-week and 24-week confirmed disability improvement compared with teriflunomide, there was no significant difference between the two groups in confirmed disability progression.

Another ULTIMATE investigator, University of California, San Francisco neurologist Bruce Cree, MD, PhD, explained that the measures of confirmed disability improvement and confirmed disability progression used in MS clinical trials are based on changes in the Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS). But he pointed out that this scale is a challenging score to use, as it typically changes very slightly over the course of a trial. He adds that the scale can also be variable.  

“Because confirmed disability worsening was not met as one of the secondary endpoints, one of the critiques of these trials could be that there wasn’t an effect of ublituximab. But worsening disability was rare in both treatment arms, so it would be very difficult, if not impossible to demonstrate a difference without much greater numbers of patients being included,” he said.

Dr. Cree noted that the multiple sclerosis functional composite (MSFC) score was an alternative, more sensitive, measure of disability that includes three different tests: the 9-hole peg test, which assesses upper arm mobility; the timed 25-foot walk test, which gauges walking ability; and the paced auditory serial addition test (PASAT), a measure of attention and processing.

He reported results showing that ublituximab significantly improved the MFSC score in ULTIMATE I by 76% and by 89% in ULTIMATE II, compared with teriflunomide. In ULTIMATE 1, the MSFC score improved by 0.266 points during the 96-week trial in the teriflunomide group and by 0.469 points in the ublituximab group (P = .048). In ULTIMATE II, the MSFC score improved by 0.275 points in the teriflunomide group and by 0.521 points in the ublituximab group (P = .017).

These changes were driven by improvements in the 9-hole peg test and the timed 25-foot walk test, with no difference seen in the PASAT test.

Asked how ublituximab compares with other anti-CD20 antibodies already in use such as ocrelizumab (Ocrevus), Dr. Cree noted that ublituximab is associated with fewer infusion reactions, so it can be infused more quickly. It is given over just 1 hour, compared with several hours needed for the ocrelizumab infusion.

“In the ULTIMATE studies the only reaction with ublituximab during infusion was a mild increase in temperature, and this can be minimized by pretreatment with acetaminophen. The allergic-type reactions of itchiness and scratchiness seen with ocrelizumab infusions were far less common with ublituximab.”

Dr. Cree attributes this to the glycol-engineering of the ublituximab antibody, which he says “allows the cytokines released from the B cells to be metabolized within phagocytes rather than to be released into the bloodstream.”

The ULTIMATE trials were funded by TG Therapeutics.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

New data on COVID vaccination in patients with multiple sclerosis (MS) has shown a reduced humoral response in patients treated with the anti-CD20 antibodies ocrelizumab or rituximab, but not in those receiving the similar product, ofatumumab.

The results also show a reduced response to COVID vaccination in some patients on fingolimod.

The data come from a new series of vaccinated patients with MS from Madrid, which was presented at the annual meeting of the European Committee for Treatment and Research in Multiple Sclerosis (ECTRIMS).

Presenting the data, Celia Oreja-Guevara, MD, Hospital Clínico San Carlos, Madrid, concluded that “currently approved COVID-19 vaccines appear safe in MS patients and are effective in most patients. However, vaccine strategy in patients treated with anti-CD20 and S1P inhibitors [such as fingolimod] need further study.”

“We showed that patients on ocrelizumab or rituximab had a very low or no antibody response to COVID vaccination,” she added. “However, some previous studies have shown some T-cell response to vaccination in these patients, and we are looking at that now.”
 

Assessing postvaccination antibody response

For the current study, the researchers analyzed the antibody response to COVID-19 vaccination at week 3, week 6, and month 3 after the first dose in 165 patients with MS and 200 healthy controls.

Of the patients with MS, 120 received both doses of mRNA vaccine and 42 received the AstraZeneca vaccine. The mean age of the MS patients was 45 years and 46 years in the healthy controls.

Adverse events were similar in the two groups, and no increase in relapse activity was seen in the patients with MS.

Mean antibody titers were slightly lower in the patients with MS versus the healthy controls. At 3 weeks, mean titers were 7,910 AU/mL in the patients with MS and 9,397 in the healthy controls. At 6 weeks, mean levels were 16,347 AU/mL in the patients with MS and 18,120 in the healthy controls.

Patients with MS treated with interferon-beta, glatiramer acetate, teriflunomide, dimethyl fumarate, cladribine, and natalizumab who received mRNA vaccines developed a similar postvaccination humoral response as the healthy controls at each of 3, 6, and 12 weeks after the first dose.

Patients with MS receiving the AstraZeneca vaccine mounted a lower humoral response than those receiving the mRNA vaccine, but this same effect was also seen in the healthy controls.

However, patients on the anti-CD20 drugs ocrelizumab or rituximab showed a lower humoral response to COVID vaccination. Only 3 of 20 patients who had been treated with ocrelizumab developed antibodies, but these patients had longer washout periods (at least 6 months) between receiving ocrelizumab and the COVID vaccine. All six patients treated with rituximab had no antibody response to the COVID vaccination.

Dr. Oreja-Guevara suggested that ocrelizumab-treated patients may have a worse outcome after COVID-19 infection. “In the first wave of infection in Madrid, we recorded five patients on ocrelizumab with COVID-19, four of whom were hospitalized,” she noted.

“In patients on ocrelizumab we need to try and have a long interval between giving this drug and giving the COVID vaccine. The longer the washout period, the more antibodies are seen,” she said.

She noted that two patients in the study received the COVID vaccine 1 year after ocrelizumab administration and had a normal humoral response, similar to the healthy controls.

The new anti-CD20 drug, ofatumumab, did not seem to affect the COVID vaccine antibody response as much as ocrelizumab or rituximab. In the current study, four of five patients treated with ofatumumab had an antibody response.

Dr. Oreja-Guevara suggested that this was probably because the depletion of B cells is not so strong with ofatumumab. “This drug is dosed every 4 weeks and it doesn’t deplete all the B cells and they are replaced quite quickly.”

Fingolimod is another MS drug that seems to affect the antibody response to COVID-19 vaccination.

Dr. Oreja-Guevara described the response to COVID vaccination in patients on fingolimod as “very variable.” Of 16 patients treated with fingolimod, 4 failed to develop a humoral response, 7 had a low antibody response, and 5 had a similar response to that seen in the healthy controls (three of these patients had also had a previous COVID-19 infection). The response to vaccination in fingolimod-treated patients did not appear to be related to lymphopenia.
 

Cellular response also impaired with fingolimod

These data are consistent with those from another cohort from Israel reported previously.

In that study, which was published earlier in 2021, a team led by Anat Achiron, MD, Sheba Medical Center, Tel Aviv, analyzed humoral immunity in 125 patients with MS 1 month after the second dose of the Pfizer COVID vaccine. A group of healthy people similarly vaccinated served as control.

Results showed that protective humoral immunity occurred in 97.9% of the control group after vaccination, compared with 100% in untreated patients and 100% in patients treated with cladribine but in just 22.7% of those treated with ocrelizumab and only 3.8% of those taking fingolimod.

For ocrelizumab-treated patients, the failure to mount appropriate IgG immune response was regardless of the absolute lymphocyte counts that were in the normal range or to the time interval from the last ocrelizumab treatment dose that ranged from 3.1 to 8.9 months, “suggesting the need to postpone the next dosing to enable an effective postvaccination humoral response,” the authors said.

They noted that the majority of the fingolimod-treated patients in the study had a low lymphocyte count (<1,000 cells/mm³), which may be the cause for failing to mount an immune response. But even in the small group of fingolimod-treated MS patients with an absolute lymphocyte count above 1,000 cells/mm³, no humoral response was detected.

At the ECTRIMS meeting, Dr. Achiron presented further results from this study on memory B-cell and T-cell responses to the COVID vaccine in these patients.

The results showed that COVID-specific B- and T-cell responses were only present in about half of healthy subjects, untreated patients with MS, and those treated with cladribine.

While the B-cell response was almost completely impaired in the ocrelizumab-treated patients, the T-cell response was present to the same extent as in the control group. But fingolimod patients showed no B- or T-cell responses.

Dr. Achiron concluded that patients on ocrelizumab should wait at least 9 months following the last dose before receiving COVID vaccination, and that patients taking fingolimod should consider a switch to a different medication.

But she pointed out that, despite the lack of humoral cellular responses in the fingolimod group, in this study there does not seem to have been an increase in COVID infection in patients taking fingolimod in a large registry study.

“This leads us to the idea that maybe lymphopenia is not the only story, and maybe innate immunity is playing a role. We still don’t really know the answer for that.”

Dr. Achiron said she was also surprised to see that even untreated and healthy subjects did not develop complete B-cell and T-cell responses after double COVID vaccination. And similar results have been seen in patients who have recovered from natural COVID infection, where the B-cell response is “not 100%,” she added.

“This points to the suggestion that everyone might need a third vaccination, MS patients or not,” she concluded.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

New data on COVID vaccination in patients with multiple sclerosis (MS) has shown a reduced humoral response in patients treated with the anti-CD20 antibodies ocrelizumab or rituximab, but not in those receiving the similar product, ofatumumab.

The results also show a reduced response to COVID vaccination in some patients on fingolimod.

The data come from a new series of vaccinated patients with MS from Madrid, which was presented at the annual meeting of the European Committee for Treatment and Research in Multiple Sclerosis (ECTRIMS).

Presenting the data, Celia Oreja-Guevara, MD, Hospital Clínico San Carlos, Madrid, concluded that “currently approved COVID-19 vaccines appear safe in MS patients and are effective in most patients. However, vaccine strategy in patients treated with anti-CD20 and S1P inhibitors [such as fingolimod] need further study.”

“We showed that patients on ocrelizumab or rituximab had a very low or no antibody response to COVID vaccination,” she added. “However, some previous studies have shown some T-cell response to vaccination in these patients, and we are looking at that now.”
 

Assessing postvaccination antibody response

For the current study, the researchers analyzed the antibody response to COVID-19 vaccination at week 3, week 6, and month 3 after the first dose in 165 patients with MS and 200 healthy controls.

Of the patients with MS, 120 received both doses of mRNA vaccine and 42 received the AstraZeneca vaccine. The mean age of the MS patients was 45 years and 46 years in the healthy controls.

Adverse events were similar in the two groups, and no increase in relapse activity was seen in the patients with MS.

Mean antibody titers were slightly lower in the patients with MS versus the healthy controls. At 3 weeks, mean titers were 7,910 AU/mL in the patients with MS and 9,397 in the healthy controls. At 6 weeks, mean levels were 16,347 AU/mL in the patients with MS and 18,120 in the healthy controls.

Patients with MS treated with interferon-beta, glatiramer acetate, teriflunomide, dimethyl fumarate, cladribine, and natalizumab who received mRNA vaccines developed a similar postvaccination humoral response as the healthy controls at each of 3, 6, and 12 weeks after the first dose.

Patients with MS receiving the AstraZeneca vaccine mounted a lower humoral response than those receiving the mRNA vaccine, but this same effect was also seen in the healthy controls.

However, patients on the anti-CD20 drugs ocrelizumab or rituximab showed a lower humoral response to COVID vaccination. Only 3 of 20 patients who had been treated with ocrelizumab developed antibodies, but these patients had longer washout periods (at least 6 months) between receiving ocrelizumab and the COVID vaccine. All six patients treated with rituximab had no antibody response to the COVID vaccination.

Dr. Oreja-Guevara suggested that ocrelizumab-treated patients may have a worse outcome after COVID-19 infection. “In the first wave of infection in Madrid, we recorded five patients on ocrelizumab with COVID-19, four of whom were hospitalized,” she noted.

“In patients on ocrelizumab we need to try and have a long interval between giving this drug and giving the COVID vaccine. The longer the washout period, the more antibodies are seen,” she said.

She noted that two patients in the study received the COVID vaccine 1 year after ocrelizumab administration and had a normal humoral response, similar to the healthy controls.

The new anti-CD20 drug, ofatumumab, did not seem to affect the COVID vaccine antibody response as much as ocrelizumab or rituximab. In the current study, four of five patients treated with ofatumumab had an antibody response.

Dr. Oreja-Guevara suggested that this was probably because the depletion of B cells is not so strong with ofatumumab. “This drug is dosed every 4 weeks and it doesn’t deplete all the B cells and they are replaced quite quickly.”

Fingolimod is another MS drug that seems to affect the antibody response to COVID-19 vaccination.

Dr. Oreja-Guevara described the response to COVID vaccination in patients on fingolimod as “very variable.” Of 16 patients treated with fingolimod, 4 failed to develop a humoral response, 7 had a low antibody response, and 5 had a similar response to that seen in the healthy controls (three of these patients had also had a previous COVID-19 infection). The response to vaccination in fingolimod-treated patients did not appear to be related to lymphopenia.
 

Cellular response also impaired with fingolimod

These data are consistent with those from another cohort from Israel reported previously.

In that study, which was published earlier in 2021, a team led by Anat Achiron, MD, Sheba Medical Center, Tel Aviv, analyzed humoral immunity in 125 patients with MS 1 month after the second dose of the Pfizer COVID vaccine. A group of healthy people similarly vaccinated served as control.

Results showed that protective humoral immunity occurred in 97.9% of the control group after vaccination, compared with 100% in untreated patients and 100% in patients treated with cladribine but in just 22.7% of those treated with ocrelizumab and only 3.8% of those taking fingolimod.

For ocrelizumab-treated patients, the failure to mount appropriate IgG immune response was regardless of the absolute lymphocyte counts that were in the normal range or to the time interval from the last ocrelizumab treatment dose that ranged from 3.1 to 8.9 months, “suggesting the need to postpone the next dosing to enable an effective postvaccination humoral response,” the authors said.

They noted that the majority of the fingolimod-treated patients in the study had a low lymphocyte count (<1,000 cells/mm³), which may be the cause for failing to mount an immune response. But even in the small group of fingolimod-treated MS patients with an absolute lymphocyte count above 1,000 cells/mm³, no humoral response was detected.

At the ECTRIMS meeting, Dr. Achiron presented further results from this study on memory B-cell and T-cell responses to the COVID vaccine in these patients.

The results showed that COVID-specific B- and T-cell responses were only present in about half of healthy subjects, untreated patients with MS, and those treated with cladribine.

While the B-cell response was almost completely impaired in the ocrelizumab-treated patients, the T-cell response was present to the same extent as in the control group. But fingolimod patients showed no B- or T-cell responses.

Dr. Achiron concluded that patients on ocrelizumab should wait at least 9 months following the last dose before receiving COVID vaccination, and that patients taking fingolimod should consider a switch to a different medication.

But she pointed out that, despite the lack of humoral cellular responses in the fingolimod group, in this study there does not seem to have been an increase in COVID infection in patients taking fingolimod in a large registry study.

“This leads us to the idea that maybe lymphopenia is not the only story, and maybe innate immunity is playing a role. We still don’t really know the answer for that.”

Dr. Achiron said she was also surprised to see that even untreated and healthy subjects did not develop complete B-cell and T-cell responses after double COVID vaccination. And similar results have been seen in patients who have recovered from natural COVID infection, where the B-cell response is “not 100%,” she added.

“This points to the suggestion that everyone might need a third vaccination, MS patients or not,” she concluded.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

New data on COVID vaccination in patients with multiple sclerosis (MS) has shown a reduced humoral response in patients treated with the anti-CD20 antibodies ocrelizumab or rituximab, but not in those receiving the similar product, ofatumumab.

The results also show a reduced response to COVID vaccination in some patients on fingolimod.

The data come from a new series of vaccinated patients with MS from Madrid, which was presented at the annual meeting of the European Committee for Treatment and Research in Multiple Sclerosis (ECTRIMS).

Presenting the data, Celia Oreja-Guevara, MD, Hospital Clínico San Carlos, Madrid, concluded that “currently approved COVID-19 vaccines appear safe in MS patients and are effective in most patients. However, vaccine strategy in patients treated with anti-CD20 and S1P inhibitors [such as fingolimod] need further study.”

“We showed that patients on ocrelizumab or rituximab had a very low or no antibody response to COVID vaccination,” she added. “However, some previous studies have shown some T-cell response to vaccination in these patients, and we are looking at that now.”
 

Assessing postvaccination antibody response

For the current study, the researchers analyzed the antibody response to COVID-19 vaccination at week 3, week 6, and month 3 after the first dose in 165 patients with MS and 200 healthy controls.

Of the patients with MS, 120 received both doses of mRNA vaccine and 42 received the AstraZeneca vaccine. The mean age of the MS patients was 45 years and 46 years in the healthy controls.

Adverse events were similar in the two groups, and no increase in relapse activity was seen in the patients with MS.

Mean antibody titers were slightly lower in the patients with MS versus the healthy controls. At 3 weeks, mean titers were 7,910 AU/mL in the patients with MS and 9,397 in the healthy controls. At 6 weeks, mean levels were 16,347 AU/mL in the patients with MS and 18,120 in the healthy controls.

Patients with MS treated with interferon-beta, glatiramer acetate, teriflunomide, dimethyl fumarate, cladribine, and natalizumab who received mRNA vaccines developed a similar postvaccination humoral response as the healthy controls at each of 3, 6, and 12 weeks after the first dose.

Patients with MS receiving the AstraZeneca vaccine mounted a lower humoral response than those receiving the mRNA vaccine, but this same effect was also seen in the healthy controls.

However, patients on the anti-CD20 drugs ocrelizumab or rituximab showed a lower humoral response to COVID vaccination. Only 3 of 20 patients who had been treated with ocrelizumab developed antibodies, but these patients had longer washout periods (at least 6 months) between receiving ocrelizumab and the COVID vaccine. All six patients treated with rituximab had no antibody response to the COVID vaccination.

Dr. Oreja-Guevara suggested that ocrelizumab-treated patients may have a worse outcome after COVID-19 infection. “In the first wave of infection in Madrid, we recorded five patients on ocrelizumab with COVID-19, four of whom were hospitalized,” she noted.

“In patients on ocrelizumab we need to try and have a long interval between giving this drug and giving the COVID vaccine. The longer the washout period, the more antibodies are seen,” she said.

She noted that two patients in the study received the COVID vaccine 1 year after ocrelizumab administration and had a normal humoral response, similar to the healthy controls.

The new anti-CD20 drug, ofatumumab, did not seem to affect the COVID vaccine antibody response as much as ocrelizumab or rituximab. In the current study, four of five patients treated with ofatumumab had an antibody response.

Dr. Oreja-Guevara suggested that this was probably because the depletion of B cells is not so strong with ofatumumab. “This drug is dosed every 4 weeks and it doesn’t deplete all the B cells and they are replaced quite quickly.”

Fingolimod is another MS drug that seems to affect the antibody response to COVID-19 vaccination.

Dr. Oreja-Guevara described the response to COVID vaccination in patients on fingolimod as “very variable.” Of 16 patients treated with fingolimod, 4 failed to develop a humoral response, 7 had a low antibody response, and 5 had a similar response to that seen in the healthy controls (three of these patients had also had a previous COVID-19 infection). The response to vaccination in fingolimod-treated patients did not appear to be related to lymphopenia.
 

Cellular response also impaired with fingolimod

These data are consistent with those from another cohort from Israel reported previously.

In that study, which was published earlier in 2021, a team led by Anat Achiron, MD, Sheba Medical Center, Tel Aviv, analyzed humoral immunity in 125 patients with MS 1 month after the second dose of the Pfizer COVID vaccine. A group of healthy people similarly vaccinated served as control.

Results showed that protective humoral immunity occurred in 97.9% of the control group after vaccination, compared with 100% in untreated patients and 100% in patients treated with cladribine but in just 22.7% of those treated with ocrelizumab and only 3.8% of those taking fingolimod.

For ocrelizumab-treated patients, the failure to mount appropriate IgG immune response was regardless of the absolute lymphocyte counts that were in the normal range or to the time interval from the last ocrelizumab treatment dose that ranged from 3.1 to 8.9 months, “suggesting the need to postpone the next dosing to enable an effective postvaccination humoral response,” the authors said.

They noted that the majority of the fingolimod-treated patients in the study had a low lymphocyte count (<1,000 cells/mm³), which may be the cause for failing to mount an immune response. But even in the small group of fingolimod-treated MS patients with an absolute lymphocyte count above 1,000 cells/mm³, no humoral response was detected.

At the ECTRIMS meeting, Dr. Achiron presented further results from this study on memory B-cell and T-cell responses to the COVID vaccine in these patients.

The results showed that COVID-specific B- and T-cell responses were only present in about half of healthy subjects, untreated patients with MS, and those treated with cladribine.

While the B-cell response was almost completely impaired in the ocrelizumab-treated patients, the T-cell response was present to the same extent as in the control group. But fingolimod patients showed no B- or T-cell responses.

Dr. Achiron concluded that patients on ocrelizumab should wait at least 9 months following the last dose before receiving COVID vaccination, and that patients taking fingolimod should consider a switch to a different medication.

But she pointed out that, despite the lack of humoral cellular responses in the fingolimod group, in this study there does not seem to have been an increase in COVID infection in patients taking fingolimod in a large registry study.

“This leads us to the idea that maybe lymphopenia is not the only story, and maybe innate immunity is playing a role. We still don’t really know the answer for that.”

Dr. Achiron said she was also surprised to see that even untreated and healthy subjects did not develop complete B-cell and T-cell responses after double COVID vaccination. And similar results have been seen in patients who have recovered from natural COVID infection, where the B-cell response is “not 100%,” she added.

“This points to the suggestion that everyone might need a third vaccination, MS patients or not,” she concluded.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

New draft recommendations from the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) on the use of aspirin for the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease (CVD) have been released and appear to limit the population in which it should be considered.  

David Sucsy/iStockphoto

“The USPSTF concludes with moderate certainty that aspirin use for the primary prevention of CVD events in adults ages 40 to 59 years who have a 10% or greater 10-year CVD risk has a small net benefit,” the recommendation notes. They conclude that for these patients, the decision to use aspirin “should be an individual one.”

“Persons who are not at increased risk for bleeding and are willing to take low-dose aspirin daily are more likely to benefit,” they note.

For older individuals, however, “The USPSTF concludes with moderate certainty that initiating aspirin use for the primary prevention of CVD events in adults age 60 years or older has no net benefit,” the task force concludes.

The new recommendations were posted online Oct. 12 and will be available for public comment until November 8. Once it is finalized, the recommendation will replace the 2016 USPSTF recommendation on aspirin use to prevent CVD and colorectal cancer (CRC), they note.

In that document, the task force recommended initiating low-dose aspirin for the primary prevention of both CVD and CRC in adults 50-59 years of age who had a 10% or greater 10-year CVD risk, were not at increased risk for bleeding, had a life expectancy of at least 10 years, and were willing to take daily low-dose aspirin for at least 10 years, with the decision to start being an individual one.

For older and younger patients, they found at that time that the evidence was “insufficient to assess the balance of benefits and harms of initiating aspirin use for the primary prevention of CVD and CRC in adults younger than age 50 years or adults aged 70 years or older.”

In the new draft document, “the USPSTF has changed the age ranges and grades of its recommendation on aspirin use.” Besides the recommendations for CVD prevention, they have also changed the previous recommendation of aspirin for the prevention of CRC given evidence generated from large primary CVD prevention trials.

“Based on new analyses of the evidence from primary CVD prevention populations, longer-term follow-up data from the Women’s Health Study (WHS) (JE Buring, personal communication, November 23, 2020), and new trial evidence, the USPSTF concluded that the evidence is inadequate that low-dose aspirin use reduces CRC incidence or mortality,” it states.  
 

Optimum dose

On the optimum dose for primary CVD prevention, the task force says the benefit appears similar for a low dose (≤100 mg/d) and all doses that have been studied in CVD prevention trials (50 to 500 mg/d). “A pragmatic approach would be to use 81 mg/d, which is the most commonly prescribed dose in the United States,” it states.

The USPSTF recommends using the ACC/AHA Pooled Cohort Equations to estimate cardiovascular risk but it points out that these equations are imperfect for risk prediction at the individual level, and suggests using these risk estimates as a starting point to discuss with appropriate candidates their desire for daily aspirin use. The benefits of initiating aspirin use are greater for individuals at higher risk for CVD events (eg, those with >15% or >20% 10-year CVD risk), they note.

“Decisions about initiating aspirin use should be based on shared decision-making between clinicians and patients about the potential benefits and harms. Persons who place a higher value on the potential benefits than the potential harms may choose to initiate low-dose aspirin use. Persons who place a higher value on the potential harms or on the burden of taking a daily preventive medication than the potential benefits may choose not to initiate low-dose aspirin use,” the task force says.

It also points out that the risk for bleeding increases modestly with advancing age. “For persons who have initiated aspirin use, the net benefits continue to accrue over time in the absence of a bleeding event. The net benefits, however, become smaller with advancing age because of an increased risk for bleeding, so modeling data suggest that it may be reasonable to consider stopping aspirin use around age 75 years,” it states.
 

Systematic review

The updated draft recommendations are based on a new systematic review commissioned by the USPSTF on the effectiveness of aspirin to reduce the risk of CVD events (myocardial infarction and stroke), cardiovascular mortality, and all-cause mortality in persons without a history of CVD.

The systematic review also investigated the effect of aspirin use on CRC incidence and mortality in primary CVD prevention populations, as well as the harms, particularly bleeding harms, associated with aspirin use.

In addition to the systematic evidence review, the USPSTF commissioned a microsimulation modeling study to assess the net balance of benefits and harms from aspirin use for primary prevention of CVD and CRC, stratified by age, sex, and CVD risk level. Modeling study parameter inputs were informed by the results of the systematic review, and the primary outcomes were net benefits expressed as quality-adjusted life-years and life-years. 

The USPSTF found 13 randomized clinical trials (RCTs) that reported on the benefits of aspirin use for the primary prevention of cardiovascular morbidity and mortality. The total number of participants was 161,680, and most trials used low-dose aspirin of 100 mg/d or less or aspirin every other day. The 13 primary prevention trials included a balanced number of male and female participants and included a broad distribution of ages, with mean age ranging from 53 years in the Physicians’ Health Study to 74 years in the ASPREE trial.

This body of evidence shows that aspirin use for primary prevention of CVD is associated with a decreased risk of myocardial infarction and stroke but not cardiovascular mortality or all-cause mortality. Results are quite similar when including studies using all doses of aspirin compared with studies using low-dose aspirin.

The USPSTF reviewed 14 RCTs in CVD primary prevention populations that reported on the bleeding harms of aspirin.

When looking at studies reporting on the harms of low-dose aspirin use (≤100 mg/d), which is most relevant to current practice, a pooled analysis of 10 trials showed that aspirin use was associated with a 58% increase in major gastrointestinal bleeding, and a pooled analysis of 11 trials showed a 31% increase in intracranial bleeds in the aspirin group compared with the control group. Low-dose aspirin use was not associated with a statistically significant increase in risk of fatal hemorrhagic stroke.

Data suggested that the increased risk of bleeding associated with aspirin use occurs relatively quickly after initiating aspirin, and data do not suggest that aspirin has a differential relative bleeding risk based on age, sex, presence of diabetes, level of CVD risk, or race or ethnicity. Although the increase in relative risk does not appear to differ based on age, the absolute risk of bleeding, and thus the magnitude of bleeding harm, does increase with age, and more so in adults age 60 years or older, they note.

The microsimulation model to estimate the magnitude of net benefit of low-dose aspirin use incorporated findings from the systematic review.

Modeling data demonstrated that aspirin use in both men and women ages 40-59 years with 10% or greater 10-year CVD risk generally provides a modest net benefit in both quality-adjusted life-years and life-years gained. Initiation of aspirin use in persons aged 60-69 years results in quality-adjusted life-years gained that range from slightly negative to slightly positive depending on CVD risk level, and life-years gained are generally negative.

In persons aged 70-79 years, initiation of aspirin use results in a loss of both quality-adjusted life-years and life-years at essentially all CVD risk levels modeled (ie, up to 20% 10-year CVD risk).

The USPSTF thus determined that aspirin use has a small net benefit in persons aged 40-59 years with 10% or greater 10-year CVD risk, and initiation of aspirin use has no net benefit in persons age 60 years or older.

When looking at net lifetime benefit of continuous aspirin use until stopping at age 65, 70, 75, 80, or 85 years, modeling data suggest that there is generally little incremental lifetime net benefit in continuing aspirin use beyond the age of 75-80 years.

The task force points out that the net benefit of continuing aspirin use by a person in their 60s or 70s is not the same as the net benefit of initiating aspirin use by a person in their 60s or 70s. This is because, in part, of the fact that CVD risk is heavily influenced by age. Persons who meet the eligibility criteria for aspirin use at a younger age (ie, ≥10% 10-year CVD risk in their 40s or 50s) typically have even higher CVD risk by their 60s or 70s compared with persons who first reach a 10% or greater 10-year CVD risk in their 60s or 70s, and may gain more benefit by continuing aspirin use than a person at lower risk might gain by initiating aspirin use, the USPSTF explains.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

New draft recommendations from the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) on the use of aspirin for the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease (CVD) have been released and appear to limit the population in which it should be considered.  

David Sucsy/iStockphoto

“The USPSTF concludes with moderate certainty that aspirin use for the primary prevention of CVD events in adults ages 40 to 59 years who have a 10% or greater 10-year CVD risk has a small net benefit,” the recommendation notes. They conclude that for these patients, the decision to use aspirin “should be an individual one.”

“Persons who are not at increased risk for bleeding and are willing to take low-dose aspirin daily are more likely to benefit,” they note.

For older individuals, however, “The USPSTF concludes with moderate certainty that initiating aspirin use for the primary prevention of CVD events in adults age 60 years or older has no net benefit,” the task force concludes.

The new recommendations were posted online Oct. 12 and will be available for public comment until November 8. Once it is finalized, the recommendation will replace the 2016 USPSTF recommendation on aspirin use to prevent CVD and colorectal cancer (CRC), they note.

In that document, the task force recommended initiating low-dose aspirin for the primary prevention of both CVD and CRC in adults 50-59 years of age who had a 10% or greater 10-year CVD risk, were not at increased risk for bleeding, had a life expectancy of at least 10 years, and were willing to take daily low-dose aspirin for at least 10 years, with the decision to start being an individual one.

For older and younger patients, they found at that time that the evidence was “insufficient to assess the balance of benefits and harms of initiating aspirin use for the primary prevention of CVD and CRC in adults younger than age 50 years or adults aged 70 years or older.”

In the new draft document, “the USPSTF has changed the age ranges and grades of its recommendation on aspirin use.” Besides the recommendations for CVD prevention, they have also changed the previous recommendation of aspirin for the prevention of CRC given evidence generated from large primary CVD prevention trials.

“Based on new analyses of the evidence from primary CVD prevention populations, longer-term follow-up data from the Women’s Health Study (WHS) (JE Buring, personal communication, November 23, 2020), and new trial evidence, the USPSTF concluded that the evidence is inadequate that low-dose aspirin use reduces CRC incidence or mortality,” it states.  
 

Optimum dose

On the optimum dose for primary CVD prevention, the task force says the benefit appears similar for a low dose (≤100 mg/d) and all doses that have been studied in CVD prevention trials (50 to 500 mg/d). “A pragmatic approach would be to use 81 mg/d, which is the most commonly prescribed dose in the United States,” it states.

The USPSTF recommends using the ACC/AHA Pooled Cohort Equations to estimate cardiovascular risk but it points out that these equations are imperfect for risk prediction at the individual level, and suggests using these risk estimates as a starting point to discuss with appropriate candidates their desire for daily aspirin use. The benefits of initiating aspirin use are greater for individuals at higher risk for CVD events (eg, those with >15% or >20% 10-year CVD risk), they note.

“Decisions about initiating aspirin use should be based on shared decision-making between clinicians and patients about the potential benefits and harms. Persons who place a higher value on the potential benefits than the potential harms may choose to initiate low-dose aspirin use. Persons who place a higher value on the potential harms or on the burden of taking a daily preventive medication than the potential benefits may choose not to initiate low-dose aspirin use,” the task force says.

It also points out that the risk for bleeding increases modestly with advancing age. “For persons who have initiated aspirin use, the net benefits continue to accrue over time in the absence of a bleeding event. The net benefits, however, become smaller with advancing age because of an increased risk for bleeding, so modeling data suggest that it may be reasonable to consider stopping aspirin use around age 75 years,” it states.
 

Systematic review

The updated draft recommendations are based on a new systematic review commissioned by the USPSTF on the effectiveness of aspirin to reduce the risk of CVD events (myocardial infarction and stroke), cardiovascular mortality, and all-cause mortality in persons without a history of CVD.

The systematic review also investigated the effect of aspirin use on CRC incidence and mortality in primary CVD prevention populations, as well as the harms, particularly bleeding harms, associated with aspirin use.

In addition to the systematic evidence review, the USPSTF commissioned a microsimulation modeling study to assess the net balance of benefits and harms from aspirin use for primary prevention of CVD and CRC, stratified by age, sex, and CVD risk level. Modeling study parameter inputs were informed by the results of the systematic review, and the primary outcomes were net benefits expressed as quality-adjusted life-years and life-years. 

The USPSTF found 13 randomized clinical trials (RCTs) that reported on the benefits of aspirin use for the primary prevention of cardiovascular morbidity and mortality. The total number of participants was 161,680, and most trials used low-dose aspirin of 100 mg/d or less or aspirin every other day. The 13 primary prevention trials included a balanced number of male and female participants and included a broad distribution of ages, with mean age ranging from 53 years in the Physicians’ Health Study to 74 years in the ASPREE trial.

This body of evidence shows that aspirin use for primary prevention of CVD is associated with a decreased risk of myocardial infarction and stroke but not cardiovascular mortality or all-cause mortality. Results are quite similar when including studies using all doses of aspirin compared with studies using low-dose aspirin.

The USPSTF reviewed 14 RCTs in CVD primary prevention populations that reported on the bleeding harms of aspirin.

When looking at studies reporting on the harms of low-dose aspirin use (≤100 mg/d), which is most relevant to current practice, a pooled analysis of 10 trials showed that aspirin use was associated with a 58% increase in major gastrointestinal bleeding, and a pooled analysis of 11 trials showed a 31% increase in intracranial bleeds in the aspirin group compared with the control group. Low-dose aspirin use was not associated with a statistically significant increase in risk of fatal hemorrhagic stroke.

Data suggested that the increased risk of bleeding associated with aspirin use occurs relatively quickly after initiating aspirin, and data do not suggest that aspirin has a differential relative bleeding risk based on age, sex, presence of diabetes, level of CVD risk, or race or ethnicity. Although the increase in relative risk does not appear to differ based on age, the absolute risk of bleeding, and thus the magnitude of bleeding harm, does increase with age, and more so in adults age 60 years or older, they note.

The microsimulation model to estimate the magnitude of net benefit of low-dose aspirin use incorporated findings from the systematic review.

Modeling data demonstrated that aspirin use in both men and women ages 40-59 years with 10% or greater 10-year CVD risk generally provides a modest net benefit in both quality-adjusted life-years and life-years gained. Initiation of aspirin use in persons aged 60-69 years results in quality-adjusted life-years gained that range from slightly negative to slightly positive depending on CVD risk level, and life-years gained are generally negative.

In persons aged 70-79 years, initiation of aspirin use results in a loss of both quality-adjusted life-years and life-years at essentially all CVD risk levels modeled (ie, up to 20% 10-year CVD risk).

The USPSTF thus determined that aspirin use has a small net benefit in persons aged 40-59 years with 10% or greater 10-year CVD risk, and initiation of aspirin use has no net benefit in persons age 60 years or older.

When looking at net lifetime benefit of continuous aspirin use until stopping at age 65, 70, 75, 80, or 85 years, modeling data suggest that there is generally little incremental lifetime net benefit in continuing aspirin use beyond the age of 75-80 years.

The task force points out that the net benefit of continuing aspirin use by a person in their 60s or 70s is not the same as the net benefit of initiating aspirin use by a person in their 60s or 70s. This is because, in part, of the fact that CVD risk is heavily influenced by age. Persons who meet the eligibility criteria for aspirin use at a younger age (ie, ≥10% 10-year CVD risk in their 40s or 50s) typically have even higher CVD risk by their 60s or 70s compared with persons who first reach a 10% or greater 10-year CVD risk in their 60s or 70s, and may gain more benefit by continuing aspirin use than a person at lower risk might gain by initiating aspirin use, the USPSTF explains.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

New draft recommendations from the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) on the use of aspirin for the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease (CVD) have been released and appear to limit the population in which it should be considered.  

David Sucsy/iStockphoto

“The USPSTF concludes with moderate certainty that aspirin use for the primary prevention of CVD events in adults ages 40 to 59 years who have a 10% or greater 10-year CVD risk has a small net benefit,” the recommendation notes. They conclude that for these patients, the decision to use aspirin “should be an individual one.”

“Persons who are not at increased risk for bleeding and are willing to take low-dose aspirin daily are more likely to benefit,” they note.

For older individuals, however, “The USPSTF concludes with moderate certainty that initiating aspirin use for the primary prevention of CVD events in adults age 60 years or older has no net benefit,” the task force concludes.

The new recommendations were posted online Oct. 12 and will be available for public comment until November 8. Once it is finalized, the recommendation will replace the 2016 USPSTF recommendation on aspirin use to prevent CVD and colorectal cancer (CRC), they note.

In that document, the task force recommended initiating low-dose aspirin for the primary prevention of both CVD and CRC in adults 50-59 years of age who had a 10% or greater 10-year CVD risk, were not at increased risk for bleeding, had a life expectancy of at least 10 years, and were willing to take daily low-dose aspirin for at least 10 years, with the decision to start being an individual one.

For older and younger patients, they found at that time that the evidence was “insufficient to assess the balance of benefits and harms of initiating aspirin use for the primary prevention of CVD and CRC in adults younger than age 50 years or adults aged 70 years or older.”

In the new draft document, “the USPSTF has changed the age ranges and grades of its recommendation on aspirin use.” Besides the recommendations for CVD prevention, they have also changed the previous recommendation of aspirin for the prevention of CRC given evidence generated from large primary CVD prevention trials.

“Based on new analyses of the evidence from primary CVD prevention populations, longer-term follow-up data from the Women’s Health Study (WHS) (JE Buring, personal communication, November 23, 2020), and new trial evidence, the USPSTF concluded that the evidence is inadequate that low-dose aspirin use reduces CRC incidence or mortality,” it states.  
 

Optimum dose

On the optimum dose for primary CVD prevention, the task force says the benefit appears similar for a low dose (≤100 mg/d) and all doses that have been studied in CVD prevention trials (50 to 500 mg/d). “A pragmatic approach would be to use 81 mg/d, which is the most commonly prescribed dose in the United States,” it states.

The USPSTF recommends using the ACC/AHA Pooled Cohort Equations to estimate cardiovascular risk but it points out that these equations are imperfect for risk prediction at the individual level, and suggests using these risk estimates as a starting point to discuss with appropriate candidates their desire for daily aspirin use. The benefits of initiating aspirin use are greater for individuals at higher risk for CVD events (eg, those with >15% or >20% 10-year CVD risk), they note.

“Decisions about initiating aspirin use should be based on shared decision-making between clinicians and patients about the potential benefits and harms. Persons who place a higher value on the potential benefits than the potential harms may choose to initiate low-dose aspirin use. Persons who place a higher value on the potential harms or on the burden of taking a daily preventive medication than the potential benefits may choose not to initiate low-dose aspirin use,” the task force says.

It also points out that the risk for bleeding increases modestly with advancing age. “For persons who have initiated aspirin use, the net benefits continue to accrue over time in the absence of a bleeding event. The net benefits, however, become smaller with advancing age because of an increased risk for bleeding, so modeling data suggest that it may be reasonable to consider stopping aspirin use around age 75 years,” it states.
 

Systematic review

The updated draft recommendations are based on a new systematic review commissioned by the USPSTF on the effectiveness of aspirin to reduce the risk of CVD events (myocardial infarction and stroke), cardiovascular mortality, and all-cause mortality in persons without a history of CVD.

The systematic review also investigated the effect of aspirin use on CRC incidence and mortality in primary CVD prevention populations, as well as the harms, particularly bleeding harms, associated with aspirin use.

In addition to the systematic evidence review, the USPSTF commissioned a microsimulation modeling study to assess the net balance of benefits and harms from aspirin use for primary prevention of CVD and CRC, stratified by age, sex, and CVD risk level. Modeling study parameter inputs were informed by the results of the systematic review, and the primary outcomes were net benefits expressed as quality-adjusted life-years and life-years. 

The USPSTF found 13 randomized clinical trials (RCTs) that reported on the benefits of aspirin use for the primary prevention of cardiovascular morbidity and mortality. The total number of participants was 161,680, and most trials used low-dose aspirin of 100 mg/d or less or aspirin every other day. The 13 primary prevention trials included a balanced number of male and female participants and included a broad distribution of ages, with mean age ranging from 53 years in the Physicians’ Health Study to 74 years in the ASPREE trial.

This body of evidence shows that aspirin use for primary prevention of CVD is associated with a decreased risk of myocardial infarction and stroke but not cardiovascular mortality or all-cause mortality. Results are quite similar when including studies using all doses of aspirin compared with studies using low-dose aspirin.

The USPSTF reviewed 14 RCTs in CVD primary prevention populations that reported on the bleeding harms of aspirin.

When looking at studies reporting on the harms of low-dose aspirin use (≤100 mg/d), which is most relevant to current practice, a pooled analysis of 10 trials showed that aspirin use was associated with a 58% increase in major gastrointestinal bleeding, and a pooled analysis of 11 trials showed a 31% increase in intracranial bleeds in the aspirin group compared with the control group. Low-dose aspirin use was not associated with a statistically significant increase in risk of fatal hemorrhagic stroke.

Data suggested that the increased risk of bleeding associated with aspirin use occurs relatively quickly after initiating aspirin, and data do not suggest that aspirin has a differential relative bleeding risk based on age, sex, presence of diabetes, level of CVD risk, or race or ethnicity. Although the increase in relative risk does not appear to differ based on age, the absolute risk of bleeding, and thus the magnitude of bleeding harm, does increase with age, and more so in adults age 60 years or older, they note.

The microsimulation model to estimate the magnitude of net benefit of low-dose aspirin use incorporated findings from the systematic review.

Modeling data demonstrated that aspirin use in both men and women ages 40-59 years with 10% or greater 10-year CVD risk generally provides a modest net benefit in both quality-adjusted life-years and life-years gained. Initiation of aspirin use in persons aged 60-69 years results in quality-adjusted life-years gained that range from slightly negative to slightly positive depending on CVD risk level, and life-years gained are generally negative.

In persons aged 70-79 years, initiation of aspirin use results in a loss of both quality-adjusted life-years and life-years at essentially all CVD risk levels modeled (ie, up to 20% 10-year CVD risk).

The USPSTF thus determined that aspirin use has a small net benefit in persons aged 40-59 years with 10% or greater 10-year CVD risk, and initiation of aspirin use has no net benefit in persons age 60 years or older.

When looking at net lifetime benefit of continuous aspirin use until stopping at age 65, 70, 75, 80, or 85 years, modeling data suggest that there is generally little incremental lifetime net benefit in continuing aspirin use beyond the age of 75-80 years.

The task force points out that the net benefit of continuing aspirin use by a person in their 60s or 70s is not the same as the net benefit of initiating aspirin use by a person in their 60s or 70s. This is because, in part, of the fact that CVD risk is heavily influenced by age. Persons who meet the eligibility criteria for aspirin use at a younger age (ie, ≥10% 10-year CVD risk in their 40s or 50s) typically have even higher CVD risk by their 60s or 70s compared with persons who first reach a 10% or greater 10-year CVD risk in their 60s or 70s, and may gain more benefit by continuing aspirin use than a person at lower risk might gain by initiating aspirin use, the USPSTF explains.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

A new series of cases of cerebral venous sinus thrombosis (CVST) linked to the adenoviral vector COVID-19 vaccines has been reported, confirming the severity of the reaction and the associated high mortality rate.

The new series comes from an international registry of consecutive patients who experienced CVST within 28 days of COVID-19 vaccination between March 29 and June 18, 2021, from 81 hospitals in 19 countries.

The cases are described in an article published online on Sept. 28. in JAMA Neurology.

“This is a reliable description on the clinical condition of these patients with CVST associated with COVID-19 vaccination. It is striking that this a much worse condition than CVST not associated with COVID-19 vaccination, with a much higher rate of intracerebral hemorrhage and coma and a much higher mortality rate,” senior author Jonathan M. Coutinho, MD, Amsterdam University Medical Centers, told this news organization.

These data confirm the observations from an earlier U.K. cohort in which cases of cerebral venous thrombosis linked to COVID-19 vaccination occurred.

“This is the biggest series, and as an international series, it gives a broader perspective from a larger range of countries,” Dr. Coutinho said. “All the data together show that, although this side effect is rare, the consequences are very severe,” he added.

In the current study, the researchers regarded CVST as being linked to the vaccine if it was accompanied by thrombosis with thrombocytopenia syndrome (TTS), as evidenced by thrombosis and new-onset thrombocytopenia.

In the cohort of 116 patients with CVST after COVID-19 vaccination, 78 (67.2%) had thrombosis with TTS and were thus classified as having had a vaccine-related adverse event. These patients were frequently comatose at presentation (24%) and often had intracerebral hemorrhage (68%) and concomitant thromboembolism (36%); 47% died during hospitalization.

These patients were compared with the 38 patients in the same cohort who had CVST but in whom there was no indication of concomitant thrombosis and thrombocytopenia. The case patients were also compared with a control group of 207 patients with CVST who were included in a separate international registry before the COVID-19 pandemic.

Mortality rates were much higher among the patients deemed to have had a vaccine-related CVST. The in-hospital mortality rate was 47%, compared with 5% among the patients in the same cohort who did not have TTS and 3.9% among the prepandemic control group.

The mortality rate was even higher (61%) among patients in the TTS group for whom the diagnosis was made before the condition garnered attention in the scientific community. The mortality rate was 42% among patients diagnosed later.

Of the 78 patients in whom CVST and TTS occurred after COVID-19 vaccination in this cohort, 76 had received the AstraZeneca vaccine (in 75 patients, CVST and TTS occurred after the first vaccination; in one patient, they occurred after the second vaccination). One patient had received the Johnson & Johnson vaccine, and one had received the Pfizer vaccine.

“After more analysis, the case after the Pfizer vaccination is not believed to be caused by the vaccine,” Dr. Coutinho said. “In that case, the patient had a platelet count just below the lower limit and was taking an immunomodulator drug that is known to be associated with thrombocytopenia.”

For two patients who received the AstraZeneca vaccine, there was also an alternative explanation for the thrombocytopenia.

Dr. Coutinho also pointed out that the Johnson & Johnson vaccine has been used mainly in the United States, and these data were largely from other countries.

The median time from vaccination to CVST symptom onset was 9 days in the TTS group. The median platelet count at hospital admission among patients with postvaccination CVST-TTS was 45. Three patients presented with a normal platelet count and developed thrombocytopenia during admission; two patients presented with mild thrombocytopenia, 30 presented with moderate thrombocytopenia, and 43 presented with severe thrombocytopenia.

Antibodies against platelet factor 4 (PF4) were measured in 69 patients with TTS, of whom 63 (91%) tested positive (the one patient in whom TTS occurred after the patient received the Pfizer vaccine did not test positive). However, the researchers note that sensitivity varies among different PF4 ELISA tests. Findings of platelet activation assays were positive in all 36 tested patients.

In the TTS group, 52 patients (67%) received immunomodulation therapy, most often intravenous immunoglobulins (IVIG). Among patients treated with IVIG, the mortality rate was lower (28%).
 

Different from CVST linked to natural COVID-19 infection

Dr. Coutinho noted that CVST can occur in natural SARS-CoV-2 infection but that vaccine-associated CVST is very different.

“In natural COVID-19 infection, there is an increased risk of thrombosis, and some patients can get CVST as a part of this, but in these cases, this is not accompanied by thrombocytopenia. While the CVST in natural COVID-19 infection is also associated with a bad prognosis, this is more to do with the underlying disease. It is normally the very sick COVID patients who develop CVST, and these patients usually die from the underlying disease rather than the CVST itself,” he explained.

“Clinicians need to be aware of vaccine-related CVST, as it requires very specific and rapid treatment,” Dr. Coutinho stressed.

“Patients presenting with an extremely severe headache (unlike any headache they’ve had before) or with seizures or a focal deficit (weakness in arm or problems with speaking or vision) within 4 weeks of an adenovirus COVID-19 vaccination should ring alarm bells. It is important to do diagnostics quickly, with a platelet count the most important first step, and a rapid CT/MRI scan,” he said.

Other tests that should be conducted are D-dimer for thrombosis and the PF4 antibody test. But results for the PF4 antibody test can take days to come back, and clinicians shouldn’t wait for that, Dr. Coutinho notes.

“Specific treatment needs to be given immediately – with anticoagulation (preferably nonheparin) and immunomodulation with IVIG to stop the immune reaction. Platelets should not be given – that may seem counterintuitive in patients with a low platelet count, but giving platelets makes it worse,” he said.
 

Is there a geographic difference?

Dr. Coutinho pointed out that fewer cases of this vaccine-related CVST are being reported at the current time.

“We are not sure why this is the case. These adenovirus vaccines are not being used much now in Western countries, but our collaboration covers many less developed countries in South America and Asia, which are relying heavily on these vaccines. We are now shifting focus to these countries, but so far we have only seen a handful of cases from these areas,” he said.

He suggested that this may be because these countries started their vaccination programs later and are vaccinating their elderly (who are not so susceptible to this side effect) first, or it may be because of some environmental or genetic factor that has not yet been discovered.

“This is now an important research question – is the risk of vaccine-induced CVST the same in different countries or ethnicities? This could influence decisions on future vaccine strategies,” Dr. Coutinho said.

“So far, female sex is the strongest risk factor for vaccine-induced CVST. In our cohort, 81% of cases were in women. In addition, 95% were White, but that doesn’t allow us to conclude that this is a risk factor, as the majority of people who have been vaccinated are White. So, we have no clear insight into that yet,” he said.

In a comment for this news organization, the lead author of the previous U.K. report of a series of 70 cases of cerebral venous thrombosis linked to COVID-19 vaccination, Richard Perry, PhD, University College Hospital, London, described this new report as “an excellent study, with many of the same strengths and weaknesses as our study and has very similar results.”

Dr. Perry noted that the two studies used slightly different definitions of vaccine-induced thrombotic thrombocytopenia, but the cases reported appear to be very similar overall. “It is reassuring and gratifying to see that they have made such similar observations,” he said.

“And as they have drawn their cases from a broad range of countries whereas ours were all from the U.K., this provides evidence that the observations from both studies are reasonably generalizable,” he added.

Dr. Perry pointed out that this new report states that TTS occurred in one patient after the patient had received a second dose of the AstraZeneca vaccine. “I would like to know more about this case, because we didn’t see any cases after a second dose in our cohort,” he said.

Dr. Coutinho responded that he didn’t believe this was the first reported case after the second dose.

The study did not receive any specific funding. Dr. Coutinho has received grants paid to his institution from Boehringer Ingelheim and Bayer and payments paid to his institution for data safety monitoring board participation by Bayer.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

A new series of cases of cerebral venous sinus thrombosis (CVST) linked to the adenoviral vector COVID-19 vaccines has been reported, confirming the severity of the reaction and the associated high mortality rate.

The new series comes from an international registry of consecutive patients who experienced CVST within 28 days of COVID-19 vaccination between March 29 and June 18, 2021, from 81 hospitals in 19 countries.

The cases are described in an article published online on Sept. 28. in JAMA Neurology.

“This is a reliable description on the clinical condition of these patients with CVST associated with COVID-19 vaccination. It is striking that this a much worse condition than CVST not associated with COVID-19 vaccination, with a much higher rate of intracerebral hemorrhage and coma and a much higher mortality rate,” senior author Jonathan M. Coutinho, MD, Amsterdam University Medical Centers, told this news organization.

These data confirm the observations from an earlier U.K. cohort in which cases of cerebral venous thrombosis linked to COVID-19 vaccination occurred.

“This is the biggest series, and as an international series, it gives a broader perspective from a larger range of countries,” Dr. Coutinho said. “All the data together show that, although this side effect is rare, the consequences are very severe,” he added.

In the current study, the researchers regarded CVST as being linked to the vaccine if it was accompanied by thrombosis with thrombocytopenia syndrome (TTS), as evidenced by thrombosis and new-onset thrombocytopenia.

In the cohort of 116 patients with CVST after COVID-19 vaccination, 78 (67.2%) had thrombosis with TTS and were thus classified as having had a vaccine-related adverse event. These patients were frequently comatose at presentation (24%) and often had intracerebral hemorrhage (68%) and concomitant thromboembolism (36%); 47% died during hospitalization.

These patients were compared with the 38 patients in the same cohort who had CVST but in whom there was no indication of concomitant thrombosis and thrombocytopenia. The case patients were also compared with a control group of 207 patients with CVST who were included in a separate international registry before the COVID-19 pandemic.

Mortality rates were much higher among the patients deemed to have had a vaccine-related CVST. The in-hospital mortality rate was 47%, compared with 5% among the patients in the same cohort who did not have TTS and 3.9% among the prepandemic control group.

The mortality rate was even higher (61%) among patients in the TTS group for whom the diagnosis was made before the condition garnered attention in the scientific community. The mortality rate was 42% among patients diagnosed later.

Of the 78 patients in whom CVST and TTS occurred after COVID-19 vaccination in this cohort, 76 had received the AstraZeneca vaccine (in 75 patients, CVST and TTS occurred after the first vaccination; in one patient, they occurred after the second vaccination). One patient had received the Johnson & Johnson vaccine, and one had received the Pfizer vaccine.

“After more analysis, the case after the Pfizer vaccination is not believed to be caused by the vaccine,” Dr. Coutinho said. “In that case, the patient had a platelet count just below the lower limit and was taking an immunomodulator drug that is known to be associated with thrombocytopenia.”

For two patients who received the AstraZeneca vaccine, there was also an alternative explanation for the thrombocytopenia.

Dr. Coutinho also pointed out that the Johnson & Johnson vaccine has been used mainly in the United States, and these data were largely from other countries.

The median time from vaccination to CVST symptom onset was 9 days in the TTS group. The median platelet count at hospital admission among patients with postvaccination CVST-TTS was 45. Three patients presented with a normal platelet count and developed thrombocytopenia during admission; two patients presented with mild thrombocytopenia, 30 presented with moderate thrombocytopenia, and 43 presented with severe thrombocytopenia.

Antibodies against platelet factor 4 (PF4) were measured in 69 patients with TTS, of whom 63 (91%) tested positive (the one patient in whom TTS occurred after the patient received the Pfizer vaccine did not test positive). However, the researchers note that sensitivity varies among different PF4 ELISA tests. Findings of platelet activation assays were positive in all 36 tested patients.

In the TTS group, 52 patients (67%) received immunomodulation therapy, most often intravenous immunoglobulins (IVIG). Among patients treated with IVIG, the mortality rate was lower (28%).
 

Different from CVST linked to natural COVID-19 infection

Dr. Coutinho noted that CVST can occur in natural SARS-CoV-2 infection but that vaccine-associated CVST is very different.

“In natural COVID-19 infection, there is an increased risk of thrombosis, and some patients can get CVST as a part of this, but in these cases, this is not accompanied by thrombocytopenia. While the CVST in natural COVID-19 infection is also associated with a bad prognosis, this is more to do with the underlying disease. It is normally the very sick COVID patients who develop CVST, and these patients usually die from the underlying disease rather than the CVST itself,” he explained.

“Clinicians need to be aware of vaccine-related CVST, as it requires very specific and rapid treatment,” Dr. Coutinho stressed.

“Patients presenting with an extremely severe headache (unlike any headache they’ve had before) or with seizures or a focal deficit (weakness in arm or problems with speaking or vision) within 4 weeks of an adenovirus COVID-19 vaccination should ring alarm bells. It is important to do diagnostics quickly, with a platelet count the most important first step, and a rapid CT/MRI scan,” he said.

Other tests that should be conducted are D-dimer for thrombosis and the PF4 antibody test. But results for the PF4 antibody test can take days to come back, and clinicians shouldn’t wait for that, Dr. Coutinho notes.

“Specific treatment needs to be given immediately – with anticoagulation (preferably nonheparin) and immunomodulation with IVIG to stop the immune reaction. Platelets should not be given – that may seem counterintuitive in patients with a low platelet count, but giving platelets makes it worse,” he said.
 

Is there a geographic difference?

Dr. Coutinho pointed out that fewer cases of this vaccine-related CVST are being reported at the current time.

“We are not sure why this is the case. These adenovirus vaccines are not being used much now in Western countries, but our collaboration covers many less developed countries in South America and Asia, which are relying heavily on these vaccines. We are now shifting focus to these countries, but so far we have only seen a handful of cases from these areas,” he said.

He suggested that this may be because these countries started their vaccination programs later and are vaccinating their elderly (who are not so susceptible to this side effect) first, or it may be because of some environmental or genetic factor that has not yet been discovered.

“This is now an important research question – is the risk of vaccine-induced CVST the same in different countries or ethnicities? This could influence decisions on future vaccine strategies,” Dr. Coutinho said.

“So far, female sex is the strongest risk factor for vaccine-induced CVST. In our cohort, 81% of cases were in women. In addition, 95% were White, but that doesn’t allow us to conclude that this is a risk factor, as the majority of people who have been vaccinated are White. So, we have no clear insight into that yet,” he said.

In a comment for this news organization, the lead author of the previous U.K. report of a series of 70 cases of cerebral venous thrombosis linked to COVID-19 vaccination, Richard Perry, PhD, University College Hospital, London, described this new report as “an excellent study, with many of the same strengths and weaknesses as our study and has very similar results.”

Dr. Perry noted that the two studies used slightly different definitions of vaccine-induced thrombotic thrombocytopenia, but the cases reported appear to be very similar overall. “It is reassuring and gratifying to see that they have made such similar observations,” he said.

“And as they have drawn their cases from a broad range of countries whereas ours were all from the U.K., this provides evidence that the observations from both studies are reasonably generalizable,” he added.

Dr. Perry pointed out that this new report states that TTS occurred in one patient after the patient had received a second dose of the AstraZeneca vaccine. “I would like to know more about this case, because we didn’t see any cases after a second dose in our cohort,” he said.

Dr. Coutinho responded that he didn’t believe this was the first reported case after the second dose.

The study did not receive any specific funding. Dr. Coutinho has received grants paid to his institution from Boehringer Ingelheim and Bayer and payments paid to his institution for data safety monitoring board participation by Bayer.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

A new series of cases of cerebral venous sinus thrombosis (CVST) linked to the adenoviral vector COVID-19 vaccines has been reported, confirming the severity of the reaction and the associated high mortality rate.

The new series comes from an international registry of consecutive patients who experienced CVST within 28 days of COVID-19 vaccination between March 29 and June 18, 2021, from 81 hospitals in 19 countries.

The cases are described in an article published online on Sept. 28. in JAMA Neurology.

“This is a reliable description on the clinical condition of these patients with CVST associated with COVID-19 vaccination. It is striking that this a much worse condition than CVST not associated with COVID-19 vaccination, with a much higher rate of intracerebral hemorrhage and coma and a much higher mortality rate,” senior author Jonathan M. Coutinho, MD, Amsterdam University Medical Centers, told this news organization.

These data confirm the observations from an earlier U.K. cohort in which cases of cerebral venous thrombosis linked to COVID-19 vaccination occurred.

“This is the biggest series, and as an international series, it gives a broader perspective from a larger range of countries,” Dr. Coutinho said. “All the data together show that, although this side effect is rare, the consequences are very severe,” he added.

In the current study, the researchers regarded CVST as being linked to the vaccine if it was accompanied by thrombosis with thrombocytopenia syndrome (TTS), as evidenced by thrombosis and new-onset thrombocytopenia.

In the cohort of 116 patients with CVST after COVID-19 vaccination, 78 (67.2%) had thrombosis with TTS and were thus classified as having had a vaccine-related adverse event. These patients were frequently comatose at presentation (24%) and often had intracerebral hemorrhage (68%) and concomitant thromboembolism (36%); 47% died during hospitalization.

These patients were compared with the 38 patients in the same cohort who had CVST but in whom there was no indication of concomitant thrombosis and thrombocytopenia. The case patients were also compared with a control group of 207 patients with CVST who were included in a separate international registry before the COVID-19 pandemic.

Mortality rates were much higher among the patients deemed to have had a vaccine-related CVST. The in-hospital mortality rate was 47%, compared with 5% among the patients in the same cohort who did not have TTS and 3.9% among the prepandemic control group.

The mortality rate was even higher (61%) among patients in the TTS group for whom the diagnosis was made before the condition garnered attention in the scientific community. The mortality rate was 42% among patients diagnosed later.

Of the 78 patients in whom CVST and TTS occurred after COVID-19 vaccination in this cohort, 76 had received the AstraZeneca vaccine (in 75 patients, CVST and TTS occurred after the first vaccination; in one patient, they occurred after the second vaccination). One patient had received the Johnson & Johnson vaccine, and one had received the Pfizer vaccine.

“After more analysis, the case after the Pfizer vaccination is not believed to be caused by the vaccine,” Dr. Coutinho said. “In that case, the patient had a platelet count just below the lower limit and was taking an immunomodulator drug that is known to be associated with thrombocytopenia.”

For two patients who received the AstraZeneca vaccine, there was also an alternative explanation for the thrombocytopenia.

Dr. Coutinho also pointed out that the Johnson & Johnson vaccine has been used mainly in the United States, and these data were largely from other countries.

The median time from vaccination to CVST symptom onset was 9 days in the TTS group. The median platelet count at hospital admission among patients with postvaccination CVST-TTS was 45. Three patients presented with a normal platelet count and developed thrombocytopenia during admission; two patients presented with mild thrombocytopenia, 30 presented with moderate thrombocytopenia, and 43 presented with severe thrombocytopenia.

Antibodies against platelet factor 4 (PF4) were measured in 69 patients with TTS, of whom 63 (91%) tested positive (the one patient in whom TTS occurred after the patient received the Pfizer vaccine did not test positive). However, the researchers note that sensitivity varies among different PF4 ELISA tests. Findings of platelet activation assays were positive in all 36 tested patients.

In the TTS group, 52 patients (67%) received immunomodulation therapy, most often intravenous immunoglobulins (IVIG). Among patients treated with IVIG, the mortality rate was lower (28%).
 

Different from CVST linked to natural COVID-19 infection

Dr. Coutinho noted that CVST can occur in natural SARS-CoV-2 infection but that vaccine-associated CVST is very different.

“In natural COVID-19 infection, there is an increased risk of thrombosis, and some patients can get CVST as a part of this, but in these cases, this is not accompanied by thrombocytopenia. While the CVST in natural COVID-19 infection is also associated with a bad prognosis, this is more to do with the underlying disease. It is normally the very sick COVID patients who develop CVST, and these patients usually die from the underlying disease rather than the CVST itself,” he explained.

“Clinicians need to be aware of vaccine-related CVST, as it requires very specific and rapid treatment,” Dr. Coutinho stressed.

“Patients presenting with an extremely severe headache (unlike any headache they’ve had before) or with seizures or a focal deficit (weakness in arm or problems with speaking or vision) within 4 weeks of an adenovirus COVID-19 vaccination should ring alarm bells. It is important to do diagnostics quickly, with a platelet count the most important first step, and a rapid CT/MRI scan,” he said.

Other tests that should be conducted are D-dimer for thrombosis and the PF4 antibody test. But results for the PF4 antibody test can take days to come back, and clinicians shouldn’t wait for that, Dr. Coutinho notes.

“Specific treatment needs to be given immediately – with anticoagulation (preferably nonheparin) and immunomodulation with IVIG to stop the immune reaction. Platelets should not be given – that may seem counterintuitive in patients with a low platelet count, but giving platelets makes it worse,” he said.
 

Is there a geographic difference?

Dr. Coutinho pointed out that fewer cases of this vaccine-related CVST are being reported at the current time.

“We are not sure why this is the case. These adenovirus vaccines are not being used much now in Western countries, but our collaboration covers many less developed countries in South America and Asia, which are relying heavily on these vaccines. We are now shifting focus to these countries, but so far we have only seen a handful of cases from these areas,” he said.

He suggested that this may be because these countries started their vaccination programs later and are vaccinating their elderly (who are not so susceptible to this side effect) first, or it may be because of some environmental or genetic factor that has not yet been discovered.

“This is now an important research question – is the risk of vaccine-induced CVST the same in different countries or ethnicities? This could influence decisions on future vaccine strategies,” Dr. Coutinho said.

“So far, female sex is the strongest risk factor for vaccine-induced CVST. In our cohort, 81% of cases were in women. In addition, 95% were White, but that doesn’t allow us to conclude that this is a risk factor, as the majority of people who have been vaccinated are White. So, we have no clear insight into that yet,” he said.

In a comment for this news organization, the lead author of the previous U.K. report of a series of 70 cases of cerebral venous thrombosis linked to COVID-19 vaccination, Richard Perry, PhD, University College Hospital, London, described this new report as “an excellent study, with many of the same strengths and weaknesses as our study and has very similar results.”

Dr. Perry noted that the two studies used slightly different definitions of vaccine-induced thrombotic thrombocytopenia, but the cases reported appear to be very similar overall. “It is reassuring and gratifying to see that they have made such similar observations,” he said.

“And as they have drawn their cases from a broad range of countries whereas ours were all from the U.K., this provides evidence that the observations from both studies are reasonably generalizable,” he added.

Dr. Perry pointed out that this new report states that TTS occurred in one patient after the patient had received a second dose of the AstraZeneca vaccine. “I would like to know more about this case, because we didn’t see any cases after a second dose in our cohort,” he said.

Dr. Coutinho responded that he didn’t believe this was the first reported case after the second dose.

The study did not receive any specific funding. Dr. Coutinho has received grants paid to his institution from Boehringer Ingelheim and Bayer and payments paid to his institution for data safety monitoring board participation by Bayer.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Switching from regular salt to a low-sodium salt substitute has major public health benefits, including a reduction in stroke, cardiovascular events, and death, a new landmark study shows.

jirkaejc/Getty Images

The Salt Substitute and Stroke Study (SSaSS) was conducted in 21,000 people with a history of stroke or high blood pressure in rural China, with half of them using a lower-sodium salt substitute instead of regular salt.

Results showed that after 5 years, those using the salt substitute had a 14% reduction in stroke, a 13% reduction in major cardiovascular events, and a 12% reduction in death. These benefits were achieved without any apparent adverse effects.

The trial was presented by Bruce Neal, MB, George Institute for Global Health, Sydney, Australia, on Aug. 29 at the virtual European Society of Cardiology (ESC) Congress 2021. They were simultaneously published online in the New England Journal of Medicine.

“This is one of the largest dietary intervention trials ever conducted and has shown very clear evidence of protection against stroke, cardiovascular events, and premature death, with no adverse effects with a very simple and low-cost intervention,” Dr. Neal concluded. “This is a very easy thing to work into the diet. You just replace regular salt with a substitute that looks and tastes almost identical,” he added.

Addressing the issue of whether these results are generalizable to other populations, Dr. Neal said, “We believe the results are relevant to everyone who eats salt.

“The way the body manages sodium and potassium and their association with blood pressure is highly consistent across different populations,” he said. “Almost everyone, with the exception of a few people with serious kidney disease, should be avoiding salt or switching to a salt substitute and expect to see some benefit of this.”

Commentators at the ESC presentation lauded the study as “magnificent,” with “extraordinary” results and “very powerful implications.”

Designated discussant, hypertension expert Bryan Williams, MD, University College London, said the SSaSS was “probably the most important study with regards to public health that we will see.” He described the reductions in stroke, cardiovascular events, and death as “extraordinary for such a simple intervention.”

Dr. Williams added: “Those who have doubted the benefits of salt restriction must now admit they were wrong. The debate stops here. The data are in. Global health interventions to implement these findings must now begin.”

He also highlighted the large number of events in the trial. “This was a large, pragmatic, long-duration study in a high-risk population, and with 5,000 cardiovascular events it gives enormous power to show benefits.”

Chair of the ESC session, Barbara Casadei, MD, DPhil, John Radcliffe Hospital, Oxford (England), said the SSaSS “will change the way we think about salt and be remembered for years to come.”

Noting that the benefits were seen in all subgroups across the study, Bertram Pitt, MD, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, was particularly excited about the stroke reduction seen in patients with diabetes, noting that several recent trials of new diabetes drugs have not managed to show a reduction in stroke.

“For patients with diabetes, this is a really important intervention,” he stated.

However, an editorial accompanying the NEJM publication gave a somewhat less enthusiastic response to the study than the ESC commentators.

Julie R. Ingelfinger, MD, deputy editor of the journal, points out that serial monitoring of potassium levels was not performed in the trial, so it is possible that hyperkalemic episodes were not detected, and persons with a history of medical conditions that may be associated with hyperkalemia were not studied.

She also noted that because the salt substitute was distributed to families, it would have been instructive to have data on the household members without risk factors, but no such data were obtained.

“Overall, the SSaSS provides some intriguing hints, but wider effectiveness is hard to predict, given limited generalizability,” she concluded.

Cluster-randomized trial

The SSaSS was an open-label, cluster-randomized trial involving 20,995 people from 600 villages in rural China who had a history of stroke or were 60 years of age or older and had uncontrolled hypertension. Patients with a history of severe kidney disease and those taking potassium supplements or potassium-sparing diuretics were excluded.

They were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to the intervention group, in which the participants used a salt substitute (roughly 75% sodium chloride and 25% potassium chloride), or to the control group, in which the participants continued to use regular salt (100% sodium chloride).

Results showed that after a mean follow-up of 4.74 years, systolic blood pressure was reduced by 3.3 mm Hg in the salt substitute group.

The rate of stroke, the primary endpoint, was 29.14 events per 1,000 person-years in the salt substitute group vs. 33.65 events per 1,000 person-years with regular salt (rate ratio, 0.86; 95% confidence interval, 0.77-0.96; P = .006).

The rates of major cardiovascular events were 49.09 events per 1,000 person-years in the salt substitute group vs. 56.29 events per 1,000 person-years in those using regular salt (rate ratio, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.80-0.94; P < .001).

And the rate of death was 39.28 events per 1,000 person-years with the salt substitute vs. 44.61 events per 1,000 person-years with regular salt (rate ratio, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.82-0.95; P < .001).

The rate of serious adverse events attributed to hyperkalemia was not significantly higher with the salt substitute than with regular salt (3.35 events vs. 3.30 events per 1,000 person-years; rate ratio, 1.04; 95% CI, 0.80-1.37; P = .76).

Dr. Neal reported that 7%-8% of the control group started using salt substitute over the study period, so these results have likely underestimated the true effect of switching to a salt substitute product.

Noting that about 10 million cardiovascular events occur each year in China, he said the study results suggested that using salt substitute instead of regular salt could prevent about 10% of these events.
 

Food manufacturers must make changes

Dr. Neal acknowledged that a limitation of the study was the fact it was conducted in a single country, which would raise issues of generalizability. But he said he believes the results are generalizable to other populations.

Those who would get the most benefit from switching to a salt substitute are those who consume large amounts of discretionary salt – salt added at home at the time of cooking for preservation of food or seasoning. “This is salt that is easy to replace with salt substitute,” Dr. Neal noted.

“There are more than 5 billion people in the world that consume more than 50% of their salt intake as discretionary salt –  mainly in the developing world. These people would expect to get significant health benefits from a switch to salt substitute.”

He pointed out that salt substitute is low cost and is easy to manufacture. “Salt substitutes cost around 50% more than regular salt, but this translates into just a dollar or two per person per year to make the switch.”

Dr. Neal said the results also apply to higher-income countries but must be implemented by governments and food manufactures, as most salt in these countries comes from processed foods.

“This study provides strong evidence to take to the food industry,” he concluded. “We would like to see food manufacturers switch to using salt substitute and for salt substitute products to be widely available on supermarket shelves. We also urge governments to take action to promote use of salt substitutes over regular salt. This could take the form of taxing regular salt or subsidies for use of salt substitutes.”

The SSaSS was supported by grants from the National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia. Dr. Neal reports no disclosures. Dr. Ingelfinger is employed by the New England Journal of Medicine as deputy editor.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Switching from regular salt to a low-sodium salt substitute has major public health benefits, including a reduction in stroke, cardiovascular events, and death, a new landmark study shows.

jirkaejc/Getty Images

The Salt Substitute and Stroke Study (SSaSS) was conducted in 21,000 people with a history of stroke or high blood pressure in rural China, with half of them using a lower-sodium salt substitute instead of regular salt.

Results showed that after 5 years, those using the salt substitute had a 14% reduction in stroke, a 13% reduction in major cardiovascular events, and a 12% reduction in death. These benefits were achieved without any apparent adverse effects.

The trial was presented by Bruce Neal, MB, George Institute for Global Health, Sydney, Australia, on Aug. 29 at the virtual European Society of Cardiology (ESC) Congress 2021. They were simultaneously published online in the New England Journal of Medicine.

“This is one of the largest dietary intervention trials ever conducted and has shown very clear evidence of protection against stroke, cardiovascular events, and premature death, with no adverse effects with a very simple and low-cost intervention,” Dr. Neal concluded. “This is a very easy thing to work into the diet. You just replace regular salt with a substitute that looks and tastes almost identical,” he added.

Addressing the issue of whether these results are generalizable to other populations, Dr. Neal said, “We believe the results are relevant to everyone who eats salt.

“The way the body manages sodium and potassium and their association with blood pressure is highly consistent across different populations,” he said. “Almost everyone, with the exception of a few people with serious kidney disease, should be avoiding salt or switching to a salt substitute and expect to see some benefit of this.”

Commentators at the ESC presentation lauded the study as “magnificent,” with “extraordinary” results and “very powerful implications.”

Designated discussant, hypertension expert Bryan Williams, MD, University College London, said the SSaSS was “probably the most important study with regards to public health that we will see.” He described the reductions in stroke, cardiovascular events, and death as “extraordinary for such a simple intervention.”

Dr. Williams added: “Those who have doubted the benefits of salt restriction must now admit they were wrong. The debate stops here. The data are in. Global health interventions to implement these findings must now begin.”

He also highlighted the large number of events in the trial. “This was a large, pragmatic, long-duration study in a high-risk population, and with 5,000 cardiovascular events it gives enormous power to show benefits.”

Chair of the ESC session, Barbara Casadei, MD, DPhil, John Radcliffe Hospital, Oxford (England), said the SSaSS “will change the way we think about salt and be remembered for years to come.”

Noting that the benefits were seen in all subgroups across the study, Bertram Pitt, MD, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, was particularly excited about the stroke reduction seen in patients with diabetes, noting that several recent trials of new diabetes drugs have not managed to show a reduction in stroke.

“For patients with diabetes, this is a really important intervention,” he stated.

However, an editorial accompanying the NEJM publication gave a somewhat less enthusiastic response to the study than the ESC commentators.

Julie R. Ingelfinger, MD, deputy editor of the journal, points out that serial monitoring of potassium levels was not performed in the trial, so it is possible that hyperkalemic episodes were not detected, and persons with a history of medical conditions that may be associated with hyperkalemia were not studied.

She also noted that because the salt substitute was distributed to families, it would have been instructive to have data on the household members without risk factors, but no such data were obtained.

“Overall, the SSaSS provides some intriguing hints, but wider effectiveness is hard to predict, given limited generalizability,” she concluded.

Cluster-randomized trial

The SSaSS was an open-label, cluster-randomized trial involving 20,995 people from 600 villages in rural China who had a history of stroke or were 60 years of age or older and had uncontrolled hypertension. Patients with a history of severe kidney disease and those taking potassium supplements or potassium-sparing diuretics were excluded.

They were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to the intervention group, in which the participants used a salt substitute (roughly 75% sodium chloride and 25% potassium chloride), or to the control group, in which the participants continued to use regular salt (100% sodium chloride).

Results showed that after a mean follow-up of 4.74 years, systolic blood pressure was reduced by 3.3 mm Hg in the salt substitute group.

The rate of stroke, the primary endpoint, was 29.14 events per 1,000 person-years in the salt substitute group vs. 33.65 events per 1,000 person-years with regular salt (rate ratio, 0.86; 95% confidence interval, 0.77-0.96; P = .006).

The rates of major cardiovascular events were 49.09 events per 1,000 person-years in the salt substitute group vs. 56.29 events per 1,000 person-years in those using regular salt (rate ratio, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.80-0.94; P < .001).

And the rate of death was 39.28 events per 1,000 person-years with the salt substitute vs. 44.61 events per 1,000 person-years with regular salt (rate ratio, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.82-0.95; P < .001).

The rate of serious adverse events attributed to hyperkalemia was not significantly higher with the salt substitute than with regular salt (3.35 events vs. 3.30 events per 1,000 person-years; rate ratio, 1.04; 95% CI, 0.80-1.37; P = .76).

Dr. Neal reported that 7%-8% of the control group started using salt substitute over the study period, so these results have likely underestimated the true effect of switching to a salt substitute product.

Noting that about 10 million cardiovascular events occur each year in China, he said the study results suggested that using salt substitute instead of regular salt could prevent about 10% of these events.
 

Food manufacturers must make changes

Dr. Neal acknowledged that a limitation of the study was the fact it was conducted in a single country, which would raise issues of generalizability. But he said he believes the results are generalizable to other populations.

Those who would get the most benefit from switching to a salt substitute are those who consume large amounts of discretionary salt – salt added at home at the time of cooking for preservation of food or seasoning. “This is salt that is easy to replace with salt substitute,” Dr. Neal noted.

“There are more than 5 billion people in the world that consume more than 50% of their salt intake as discretionary salt –  mainly in the developing world. These people would expect to get significant health benefits from a switch to salt substitute.”

He pointed out that salt substitute is low cost and is easy to manufacture. “Salt substitutes cost around 50% more than regular salt, but this translates into just a dollar or two per person per year to make the switch.”

Dr. Neal said the results also apply to higher-income countries but must be implemented by governments and food manufactures, as most salt in these countries comes from processed foods.

“This study provides strong evidence to take to the food industry,” he concluded. “We would like to see food manufacturers switch to using salt substitute and for salt substitute products to be widely available on supermarket shelves. We also urge governments to take action to promote use of salt substitutes over regular salt. This could take the form of taxing regular salt or subsidies for use of salt substitutes.”

The SSaSS was supported by grants from the National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia. Dr. Neal reports no disclosures. Dr. Ingelfinger is employed by the New England Journal of Medicine as deputy editor.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Switching from regular salt to a low-sodium salt substitute has major public health benefits, including a reduction in stroke, cardiovascular events, and death, a new landmark study shows.

jirkaejc/Getty Images

The Salt Substitute and Stroke Study (SSaSS) was conducted in 21,000 people with a history of stroke or high blood pressure in rural China, with half of them using a lower-sodium salt substitute instead of regular salt.

Results showed that after 5 years, those using the salt substitute had a 14% reduction in stroke, a 13% reduction in major cardiovascular events, and a 12% reduction in death. These benefits were achieved without any apparent adverse effects.

The trial was presented by Bruce Neal, MB, George Institute for Global Health, Sydney, Australia, on Aug. 29 at the virtual European Society of Cardiology (ESC) Congress 2021. They were simultaneously published online in the New England Journal of Medicine.

“This is one of the largest dietary intervention trials ever conducted and has shown very clear evidence of protection against stroke, cardiovascular events, and premature death, with no adverse effects with a very simple and low-cost intervention,” Dr. Neal concluded. “This is a very easy thing to work into the diet. You just replace regular salt with a substitute that looks and tastes almost identical,” he added.

Addressing the issue of whether these results are generalizable to other populations, Dr. Neal said, “We believe the results are relevant to everyone who eats salt.

“The way the body manages sodium and potassium and their association with blood pressure is highly consistent across different populations,” he said. “Almost everyone, with the exception of a few people with serious kidney disease, should be avoiding salt or switching to a salt substitute and expect to see some benefit of this.”

Commentators at the ESC presentation lauded the study as “magnificent,” with “extraordinary” results and “very powerful implications.”

Designated discussant, hypertension expert Bryan Williams, MD, University College London, said the SSaSS was “probably the most important study with regards to public health that we will see.” He described the reductions in stroke, cardiovascular events, and death as “extraordinary for such a simple intervention.”

Dr. Williams added: “Those who have doubted the benefits of salt restriction must now admit they were wrong. The debate stops here. The data are in. Global health interventions to implement these findings must now begin.”

He also highlighted the large number of events in the trial. “This was a large, pragmatic, long-duration study in a high-risk population, and with 5,000 cardiovascular events it gives enormous power to show benefits.”

Chair of the ESC session, Barbara Casadei, MD, DPhil, John Radcliffe Hospital, Oxford (England), said the SSaSS “will change the way we think about salt and be remembered for years to come.”

Noting that the benefits were seen in all subgroups across the study, Bertram Pitt, MD, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, was particularly excited about the stroke reduction seen in patients with diabetes, noting that several recent trials of new diabetes drugs have not managed to show a reduction in stroke.

“For patients with diabetes, this is a really important intervention,” he stated.

However, an editorial accompanying the NEJM publication gave a somewhat less enthusiastic response to the study than the ESC commentators.

Julie R. Ingelfinger, MD, deputy editor of the journal, points out that serial monitoring of potassium levels was not performed in the trial, so it is possible that hyperkalemic episodes were not detected, and persons with a history of medical conditions that may be associated with hyperkalemia were not studied.

She also noted that because the salt substitute was distributed to families, it would have been instructive to have data on the household members without risk factors, but no such data were obtained.

“Overall, the SSaSS provides some intriguing hints, but wider effectiveness is hard to predict, given limited generalizability,” she concluded.

Cluster-randomized trial

The SSaSS was an open-label, cluster-randomized trial involving 20,995 people from 600 villages in rural China who had a history of stroke or were 60 years of age or older and had uncontrolled hypertension. Patients with a history of severe kidney disease and those taking potassium supplements or potassium-sparing diuretics were excluded.

They were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to the intervention group, in which the participants used a salt substitute (roughly 75% sodium chloride and 25% potassium chloride), or to the control group, in which the participants continued to use regular salt (100% sodium chloride).

Results showed that after a mean follow-up of 4.74 years, systolic blood pressure was reduced by 3.3 mm Hg in the salt substitute group.

The rate of stroke, the primary endpoint, was 29.14 events per 1,000 person-years in the salt substitute group vs. 33.65 events per 1,000 person-years with regular salt (rate ratio, 0.86; 95% confidence interval, 0.77-0.96; P = .006).

The rates of major cardiovascular events were 49.09 events per 1,000 person-years in the salt substitute group vs. 56.29 events per 1,000 person-years in those using regular salt (rate ratio, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.80-0.94; P < .001).

And the rate of death was 39.28 events per 1,000 person-years with the salt substitute vs. 44.61 events per 1,000 person-years with regular salt (rate ratio, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.82-0.95; P < .001).

The rate of serious adverse events attributed to hyperkalemia was not significantly higher with the salt substitute than with regular salt (3.35 events vs. 3.30 events per 1,000 person-years; rate ratio, 1.04; 95% CI, 0.80-1.37; P = .76).

Dr. Neal reported that 7%-8% of the control group started using salt substitute over the study period, so these results have likely underestimated the true effect of switching to a salt substitute product.

Noting that about 10 million cardiovascular events occur each year in China, he said the study results suggested that using salt substitute instead of regular salt could prevent about 10% of these events.
 

Food manufacturers must make changes

Dr. Neal acknowledged that a limitation of the study was the fact it was conducted in a single country, which would raise issues of generalizability. But he said he believes the results are generalizable to other populations.

Those who would get the most benefit from switching to a salt substitute are those who consume large amounts of discretionary salt – salt added at home at the time of cooking for preservation of food or seasoning. “This is salt that is easy to replace with salt substitute,” Dr. Neal noted.

“There are more than 5 billion people in the world that consume more than 50% of their salt intake as discretionary salt –  mainly in the developing world. These people would expect to get significant health benefits from a switch to salt substitute.”

He pointed out that salt substitute is low cost and is easy to manufacture. “Salt substitutes cost around 50% more than regular salt, but this translates into just a dollar or two per person per year to make the switch.”

Dr. Neal said the results also apply to higher-income countries but must be implemented by governments and food manufactures, as most salt in these countries comes from processed foods.

“This study provides strong evidence to take to the food industry,” he concluded. “We would like to see food manufacturers switch to using salt substitute and for salt substitute products to be widely available on supermarket shelves. We also urge governments to take action to promote use of salt substitutes over regular salt. This could take the form of taxing regular salt or subsidies for use of salt substitutes.”

The SSaSS was supported by grants from the National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia. Dr. Neal reports no disclosures. Dr. Ingelfinger is employed by the New England Journal of Medicine as deputy editor.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Another trial has added to the movement toward shortening the duration of dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI).

MDedge News

In the MASTER DAPT trial involving patients at high risk for bleeding who had undergone implantation of a biodegradable-polymer sirolimus-eluting stent, switching from DAPT to single antiplatelet therapy at a median of 34 days after PCI was noninferior to the continuation of DAPT treatment for a median duration of 193 days with regard to the incidence of major adverse cardiac or cerebral events, and was associated with a lower incidence of major or clinically relevant bleeding.

The results of the study were presented by Marco Valgimigli, MD, Cardiocentro Ticino Institute, Lugano, Switzerland, on Aug. 28 at the virtual European Society of Cardiology (ESC) Congress 2021. They were simultaneously published online in the New England Journal of Medicine.

“It has been suggested in previous studies that if patients are at high bleeding risk, then they do not seem to derive ischemic benefit from prolonging DAPT, they just get the increased bleeding risk,” Dr. Valgimigli said. “But this has never been prospectively tested until now.”

He pointed out that patients at high bleeding risk are a large group, representing up to 40% of patients undergoing PCI, and the MASTER DAPT trial included “all-comer” high-bleeding-risk patients with no selection based on ischemic risk.

M. Alexander Otto, MDedge News

The trial was very well received by commentators at the ESC Hot Line presentation.

Chair of the session, Roxana Mehran, MD, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, described the trial as “practice-changing.”

And Robert Byrne, MD, Mater Private Hospital, Dublin, added: “This is a standout trial. We have become more comfortable with abbreviated DAPT in high-bleeding-risk patients, but definite evidence for this has been lacking until now. This study tells us that just 1 month of DAPT appears to be safe in that there was no increase in ischemic complications and there was a clear reduction in bleeding.”

The MASTER DAPT study involved 4,579 patients at high bleeding risk who had undergone implantation of a biodegradable-polymer sirolimus-eluting coronary stent (Ultimaster, Terumo). Around half the patients had PCI for acute coronary syndrome (ACS) and half had it electively. One month after PCI they were randomly assigned to discontinue DAPT immediately (abbreviated therapy) or to continue it for at least 2 additional months (standard therapy).

The three co-primary outcomes were net adverse clinical events (a composite of death from any cause, myocardial infarction, stroke, or major bleeding), major adverse cardiac or cerebral events (a composite of death from any cause, myocardial infarction, or stroke), and major or clinically relevant nonmajor bleeding, all assessed cumulatively at 335 days. The first two outcomes were assessed for noninferiority in the per-protocol population, and the third outcome for superiority in the intention-to-treat population.

Dual antiplatelet therapy consisted of aspirin plus a P2Y12 inhibitor. The choices of the type of P2Y12 inhibitor for DAPT and the type of monotherapy after the discontinuation of DAPT were at the discretion of the investigator. Clopidogrel was the most popular choice, used as monotherapy in 54% of the patients in the abbreviated-therapy group and as part of DAPT in 79% of patients in the standard-therapy group.

Results showed that net adverse clinical events occurred in 7.5% of the abbreviated-therapy group and in 7.7% of the standard-therapy group (difference, –0.23 percentage points; 95% confidence interval, –1.80 to 1.33 percentage points; P < .001 for noninferiority).

Major adverse cardiac or cerebral events occurred in 6.1% of the abbreviated-therapy group and 5.9% of standard therapy group (difference, 0.11 percentage points; 95% CI, –1.29 to 1.51 percentage points; P = .001 for noninferiority).

Reduction in bleeding driven by BARC-2

Major bleeding or clinically relevant nonmajor bleeding occurred in 6.5% in the abbreviated-therapy group and in 9.4% in the standard-therapy group (difference, –2.82 percentage points; 95% CI, –4.40 to –1.24 percentage points; P < .001 for superiority).

“This is a highly statistically significant reduction in bleeding giving a number needed to treat of 35,” Dr. Valgimigli said.

The lower risk for bleeding in the abbreviated-therapy group was mainly due to the lower incidence of clinically relevant nonmajor bleeding events (BARC type 2) in this group than in the standard-therapy group (4.5% vs. 6.8%).

During the discussion, Dr. Byrne pointed out that the most serious type of bleeding (BARC type 3-5) was not reduced in the abbreviated DAPT group.

Dr. Valgimigli responded that the investigators were surprised about that because previous studies indicated that this most serious bleeding would be reduced, but he suggested that this may be explained by the standard group receiving 3-6 months of DAPT rather than a year or more in previous studies. “Having said that, BARC-2 bleeding is not a trivial event,” he added.
 

Can results be applied to other stents?

Dr. Byrne also questioned whether the results can be applied to patients receiving other types of stents – not just Ultimaster, which is not available everywhere. Dr. Valgimigli highlighted the low rate of stent thrombosis seen with the Ultimaster stent and said, “I would be scared to assume these results are reproducible with other stents.”

But Dr. Mehran challenged this view, saying, “I’m not so sure about that. I think we can probably extrapolate.”

In an interview, Dr. Mehran added: “I think this is one of the much-needed studies in our field. For the first time, we have a randomized trial on duration of DAPT in high-bleeding-risk patients. The study was inclusive, and enrolled truly high-bleeding-risk patients, including those on oral anticoagulants.  

“These results show that, although high-bleeding-risk patients are at high risk of ischemic events, just 1 month of DAPT works well for them regardless, by reducing bleeding, net adverse clinical events, and without increasing ischemic events,” she concluded.

In an editorial accompanying the publication, E. Magnus Ohman, MB, from Duke University, Durham, N.C., pointed out the wide CIs in the results, which he said introduced some uncertainly to the findings.

But he concluded that: “The findings of Dr. Valgimigli and colleagues are important and move us toward a shorter and simpler antithrombotic strategy after PCI.”

In an interview, Dr. Ohman pointed out that the Ultimaster stent is not available in the United States. “We have to think about whether this stent would perform differently to other third- or fourth-generation stents. I wouldn’t have thought so, but it is hard to say for sure.

“All in all, we are looking at shorter periods of DAPT now after PCI. Several trials have now suggested that is the way to go. The forthcoming U.S. PCI guidelines should put all the studies together and come up with recommendations on different patient groups,” he concluded.  

Several commentators said they would like to see the data on the patients receiving oral anticoagulants in the study before making firm conclusions on how to translate the results into clinical practice. “This is such an important group. It is difficult to interpret the results without this data,” Dr. Ohman noted.  Patients receiving oral anticoagulants, who made up 36% of the study population, will be the subject of a separate report to be presented at the ESC meeting.

The MASTER DAPT trial was supported by Terumo. Dr. Valgimigli reports research grants from Terumo, Abbott, and SMT and consulting or speaker fees from Terumo, Abbott, Daiichi Sankyo, Chiesi, Vesalio, Vifor, Avimedica, Medtronic, Boston Scientific, and AstraZeneca. Dr. Ohman reports grants from Abiomed, grants from Chiesi USA, personal fees from Cara Therapeutics, Genentech, Imbria, Impulse Dynamics, Milestone Pharmaceuticals, XyloCor, Cytokinetics, Dispersol, Otsuka, Pfizer, Cytosorbents, Neurocrine, and Paradigm, outside the submitted work.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Another trial has added to the movement toward shortening the duration of dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI).

MDedge News

In the MASTER DAPT trial involving patients at high risk for bleeding who had undergone implantation of a biodegradable-polymer sirolimus-eluting stent, switching from DAPT to single antiplatelet therapy at a median of 34 days after PCI was noninferior to the continuation of DAPT treatment for a median duration of 193 days with regard to the incidence of major adverse cardiac or cerebral events, and was associated with a lower incidence of major or clinically relevant bleeding.

The results of the study were presented by Marco Valgimigli, MD, Cardiocentro Ticino Institute, Lugano, Switzerland, on Aug. 28 at the virtual European Society of Cardiology (ESC) Congress 2021. They were simultaneously published online in the New England Journal of Medicine.

“It has been suggested in previous studies that if patients are at high bleeding risk, then they do not seem to derive ischemic benefit from prolonging DAPT, they just get the increased bleeding risk,” Dr. Valgimigli said. “But this has never been prospectively tested until now.”

He pointed out that patients at high bleeding risk are a large group, representing up to 40% of patients undergoing PCI, and the MASTER DAPT trial included “all-comer” high-bleeding-risk patients with no selection based on ischemic risk.

M. Alexander Otto, MDedge News

The trial was very well received by commentators at the ESC Hot Line presentation.

Chair of the session, Roxana Mehran, MD, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, described the trial as “practice-changing.”

And Robert Byrne, MD, Mater Private Hospital, Dublin, added: “This is a standout trial. We have become more comfortable with abbreviated DAPT in high-bleeding-risk patients, but definite evidence for this has been lacking until now. This study tells us that just 1 month of DAPT appears to be safe in that there was no increase in ischemic complications and there was a clear reduction in bleeding.”

The MASTER DAPT study involved 4,579 patients at high bleeding risk who had undergone implantation of a biodegradable-polymer sirolimus-eluting coronary stent (Ultimaster, Terumo). Around half the patients had PCI for acute coronary syndrome (ACS) and half had it electively. One month after PCI they were randomly assigned to discontinue DAPT immediately (abbreviated therapy) or to continue it for at least 2 additional months (standard therapy).

The three co-primary outcomes were net adverse clinical events (a composite of death from any cause, myocardial infarction, stroke, or major bleeding), major adverse cardiac or cerebral events (a composite of death from any cause, myocardial infarction, or stroke), and major or clinically relevant nonmajor bleeding, all assessed cumulatively at 335 days. The first two outcomes were assessed for noninferiority in the per-protocol population, and the third outcome for superiority in the intention-to-treat population.

Dual antiplatelet therapy consisted of aspirin plus a P2Y12 inhibitor. The choices of the type of P2Y12 inhibitor for DAPT and the type of monotherapy after the discontinuation of DAPT were at the discretion of the investigator. Clopidogrel was the most popular choice, used as monotherapy in 54% of the patients in the abbreviated-therapy group and as part of DAPT in 79% of patients in the standard-therapy group.

Results showed that net adverse clinical events occurred in 7.5% of the abbreviated-therapy group and in 7.7% of the standard-therapy group (difference, –0.23 percentage points; 95% confidence interval, –1.80 to 1.33 percentage points; P < .001 for noninferiority).

Major adverse cardiac or cerebral events occurred in 6.1% of the abbreviated-therapy group and 5.9% of standard therapy group (difference, 0.11 percentage points; 95% CI, –1.29 to 1.51 percentage points; P = .001 for noninferiority).

Reduction in bleeding driven by BARC-2

Major bleeding or clinically relevant nonmajor bleeding occurred in 6.5% in the abbreviated-therapy group and in 9.4% in the standard-therapy group (difference, –2.82 percentage points; 95% CI, –4.40 to –1.24 percentage points; P < .001 for superiority).

“This is a highly statistically significant reduction in bleeding giving a number needed to treat of 35,” Dr. Valgimigli said.

The lower risk for bleeding in the abbreviated-therapy group was mainly due to the lower incidence of clinically relevant nonmajor bleeding events (BARC type 2) in this group than in the standard-therapy group (4.5% vs. 6.8%).

During the discussion, Dr. Byrne pointed out that the most serious type of bleeding (BARC type 3-5) was not reduced in the abbreviated DAPT group.

Dr. Valgimigli responded that the investigators were surprised about that because previous studies indicated that this most serious bleeding would be reduced, but he suggested that this may be explained by the standard group receiving 3-6 months of DAPT rather than a year or more in previous studies. “Having said that, BARC-2 bleeding is not a trivial event,” he added.
 

Can results be applied to other stents?

Dr. Byrne also questioned whether the results can be applied to patients receiving other types of stents – not just Ultimaster, which is not available everywhere. Dr. Valgimigli highlighted the low rate of stent thrombosis seen with the Ultimaster stent and said, “I would be scared to assume these results are reproducible with other stents.”

But Dr. Mehran challenged this view, saying, “I’m not so sure about that. I think we can probably extrapolate.”

In an interview, Dr. Mehran added: “I think this is one of the much-needed studies in our field. For the first time, we have a randomized trial on duration of DAPT in high-bleeding-risk patients. The study was inclusive, and enrolled truly high-bleeding-risk patients, including those on oral anticoagulants.  

“These results show that, although high-bleeding-risk patients are at high risk of ischemic events, just 1 month of DAPT works well for them regardless, by reducing bleeding, net adverse clinical events, and without increasing ischemic events,” she concluded.

In an editorial accompanying the publication, E. Magnus Ohman, MB, from Duke University, Durham, N.C., pointed out the wide CIs in the results, which he said introduced some uncertainly to the findings.

But he concluded that: “The findings of Dr. Valgimigli and colleagues are important and move us toward a shorter and simpler antithrombotic strategy after PCI.”

In an interview, Dr. Ohman pointed out that the Ultimaster stent is not available in the United States. “We have to think about whether this stent would perform differently to other third- or fourth-generation stents. I wouldn’t have thought so, but it is hard to say for sure.

“All in all, we are looking at shorter periods of DAPT now after PCI. Several trials have now suggested that is the way to go. The forthcoming U.S. PCI guidelines should put all the studies together and come up with recommendations on different patient groups,” he concluded.  

Several commentators said they would like to see the data on the patients receiving oral anticoagulants in the study before making firm conclusions on how to translate the results into clinical practice. “This is such an important group. It is difficult to interpret the results without this data,” Dr. Ohman noted.  Patients receiving oral anticoagulants, who made up 36% of the study population, will be the subject of a separate report to be presented at the ESC meeting.

The MASTER DAPT trial was supported by Terumo. Dr. Valgimigli reports research grants from Terumo, Abbott, and SMT and consulting or speaker fees from Terumo, Abbott, Daiichi Sankyo, Chiesi, Vesalio, Vifor, Avimedica, Medtronic, Boston Scientific, and AstraZeneca. Dr. Ohman reports grants from Abiomed, grants from Chiesi USA, personal fees from Cara Therapeutics, Genentech, Imbria, Impulse Dynamics, Milestone Pharmaceuticals, XyloCor, Cytokinetics, Dispersol, Otsuka, Pfizer, Cytosorbents, Neurocrine, and Paradigm, outside the submitted work.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Another trial has added to the movement toward shortening the duration of dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI).

MDedge News

In the MASTER DAPT trial involving patients at high risk for bleeding who had undergone implantation of a biodegradable-polymer sirolimus-eluting stent, switching from DAPT to single antiplatelet therapy at a median of 34 days after PCI was noninferior to the continuation of DAPT treatment for a median duration of 193 days with regard to the incidence of major adverse cardiac or cerebral events, and was associated with a lower incidence of major or clinically relevant bleeding.

The results of the study were presented by Marco Valgimigli, MD, Cardiocentro Ticino Institute, Lugano, Switzerland, on Aug. 28 at the virtual European Society of Cardiology (ESC) Congress 2021. They were simultaneously published online in the New England Journal of Medicine.

“It has been suggested in previous studies that if patients are at high bleeding risk, then they do not seem to derive ischemic benefit from prolonging DAPT, they just get the increased bleeding risk,” Dr. Valgimigli said. “But this has never been prospectively tested until now.”

He pointed out that patients at high bleeding risk are a large group, representing up to 40% of patients undergoing PCI, and the MASTER DAPT trial included “all-comer” high-bleeding-risk patients with no selection based on ischemic risk.

M. Alexander Otto, MDedge News

The trial was very well received by commentators at the ESC Hot Line presentation.

Chair of the session, Roxana Mehran, MD, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, described the trial as “practice-changing.”

And Robert Byrne, MD, Mater Private Hospital, Dublin, added: “This is a standout trial. We have become more comfortable with abbreviated DAPT in high-bleeding-risk patients, but definite evidence for this has been lacking until now. This study tells us that just 1 month of DAPT appears to be safe in that there was no increase in ischemic complications and there was a clear reduction in bleeding.”

The MASTER DAPT study involved 4,579 patients at high bleeding risk who had undergone implantation of a biodegradable-polymer sirolimus-eluting coronary stent (Ultimaster, Terumo). Around half the patients had PCI for acute coronary syndrome (ACS) and half had it electively. One month after PCI they were randomly assigned to discontinue DAPT immediately (abbreviated therapy) or to continue it for at least 2 additional months (standard therapy).

The three co-primary outcomes were net adverse clinical events (a composite of death from any cause, myocardial infarction, stroke, or major bleeding), major adverse cardiac or cerebral events (a composite of death from any cause, myocardial infarction, or stroke), and major or clinically relevant nonmajor bleeding, all assessed cumulatively at 335 days. The first two outcomes were assessed for noninferiority in the per-protocol population, and the third outcome for superiority in the intention-to-treat population.

Dual antiplatelet therapy consisted of aspirin plus a P2Y12 inhibitor. The choices of the type of P2Y12 inhibitor for DAPT and the type of monotherapy after the discontinuation of DAPT were at the discretion of the investigator. Clopidogrel was the most popular choice, used as monotherapy in 54% of the patients in the abbreviated-therapy group and as part of DAPT in 79% of patients in the standard-therapy group.

Results showed that net adverse clinical events occurred in 7.5% of the abbreviated-therapy group and in 7.7% of the standard-therapy group (difference, –0.23 percentage points; 95% confidence interval, –1.80 to 1.33 percentage points; P < .001 for noninferiority).

Major adverse cardiac or cerebral events occurred in 6.1% of the abbreviated-therapy group and 5.9% of standard therapy group (difference, 0.11 percentage points; 95% CI, –1.29 to 1.51 percentage points; P = .001 for noninferiority).

Reduction in bleeding driven by BARC-2

Major bleeding or clinically relevant nonmajor bleeding occurred in 6.5% in the abbreviated-therapy group and in 9.4% in the standard-therapy group (difference, –2.82 percentage points; 95% CI, –4.40 to –1.24 percentage points; P < .001 for superiority).

“This is a highly statistically significant reduction in bleeding giving a number needed to treat of 35,” Dr. Valgimigli said.

The lower risk for bleeding in the abbreviated-therapy group was mainly due to the lower incidence of clinically relevant nonmajor bleeding events (BARC type 2) in this group than in the standard-therapy group (4.5% vs. 6.8%).

During the discussion, Dr. Byrne pointed out that the most serious type of bleeding (BARC type 3-5) was not reduced in the abbreviated DAPT group.

Dr. Valgimigli responded that the investigators were surprised about that because previous studies indicated that this most serious bleeding would be reduced, but he suggested that this may be explained by the standard group receiving 3-6 months of DAPT rather than a year or more in previous studies. “Having said that, BARC-2 bleeding is not a trivial event,” he added.
 

Can results be applied to other stents?

Dr. Byrne also questioned whether the results can be applied to patients receiving other types of stents – not just Ultimaster, which is not available everywhere. Dr. Valgimigli highlighted the low rate of stent thrombosis seen with the Ultimaster stent and said, “I would be scared to assume these results are reproducible with other stents.”

But Dr. Mehran challenged this view, saying, “I’m not so sure about that. I think we can probably extrapolate.”

In an interview, Dr. Mehran added: “I think this is one of the much-needed studies in our field. For the first time, we have a randomized trial on duration of DAPT in high-bleeding-risk patients. The study was inclusive, and enrolled truly high-bleeding-risk patients, including those on oral anticoagulants.  

“These results show that, although high-bleeding-risk patients are at high risk of ischemic events, just 1 month of DAPT works well for them regardless, by reducing bleeding, net adverse clinical events, and without increasing ischemic events,” she concluded.

In an editorial accompanying the publication, E. Magnus Ohman, MB, from Duke University, Durham, N.C., pointed out the wide CIs in the results, which he said introduced some uncertainly to the findings.

But he concluded that: “The findings of Dr. Valgimigli and colleagues are important and move us toward a shorter and simpler antithrombotic strategy after PCI.”

In an interview, Dr. Ohman pointed out that the Ultimaster stent is not available in the United States. “We have to think about whether this stent would perform differently to other third- or fourth-generation stents. I wouldn’t have thought so, but it is hard to say for sure.

“All in all, we are looking at shorter periods of DAPT now after PCI. Several trials have now suggested that is the way to go. The forthcoming U.S. PCI guidelines should put all the studies together and come up with recommendations on different patient groups,” he concluded.  

Several commentators said they would like to see the data on the patients receiving oral anticoagulants in the study before making firm conclusions on how to translate the results into clinical practice. “This is such an important group. It is difficult to interpret the results without this data,” Dr. Ohman noted.  Patients receiving oral anticoagulants, who made up 36% of the study population, will be the subject of a separate report to be presented at the ESC meeting.

The MASTER DAPT trial was supported by Terumo. Dr. Valgimigli reports research grants from Terumo, Abbott, and SMT and consulting or speaker fees from Terumo, Abbott, Daiichi Sankyo, Chiesi, Vesalio, Vifor, Avimedica, Medtronic, Boston Scientific, and AstraZeneca. Dr. Ohman reports grants from Abiomed, grants from Chiesi USA, personal fees from Cara Therapeutics, Genentech, Imbria, Impulse Dynamics, Milestone Pharmaceuticals, XyloCor, Cytokinetics, Dispersol, Otsuka, Pfizer, Cytosorbents, Neurocrine, and Paradigm, outside the submitted work.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Among patients hospitalized for COVID-19, those who had been taking statins had a substantially lower risk of death in a new large observational study.

Results showed that use of statins prior to admission was linked to a greater than 40% reduction in mortality and a greater than 25% reduction in risk of developing a severe outcome.

The findings come an analysis of data from the American Heart Association’s COVID-19 Cardiovascular Disease Registry on more than 10,000 patients hospitalized with COVID-19 at 104 hospitals across the United States published in PLoS One.

While several other studies have suggested benefits of statins in COVID-19, this is by far the largest study so far on this topic.

“I would say this is the most reliable study on statins in COVID-19 to date, with the results adjusted for many confounders, including socioeconomic factors and insurance type,” lead author Lori B. Daniels, MD, told this news organization. “However, it still an observational study and therefore falls short of a randomized study. But I would think a randomized study of statins in COVID-19 is probably not feasible, so this study provides excellent data at an observational level.”

After propensity matching for cardiovascular disease, results showed that most of the benefit of statins occurred in patients with known cardiovascular disease.

“While most patients taking statins will have cardiovascular disease, there are also many patients who take these drugs who don’t have heart disease but do have cardiovascular risk factors, such as those with raised cholesterol, or a family history of cardiovascular disease. For [such patients], the effect of statins was also in the same direction but it was not significant. This doesn’t exclude an effect,” noted Dr. Daniels, who is professor of medicine and director of cardiovascular intensive care at the University of California, San Diego.

“We are not saying that everyone should rush out and take a statin if they do not have risk factors for cardiovascular in order to lower their risk of dying from COVID. But if individuals do have an indication for a statin and are not taking one of these dugs this is another good reason to start taking them now,” she added.

The investigators embarked on the study because, although previous observational studies have found that statins may reduce the severity of COVID-19 infection, these studies have been limited in size with mostly single-center or regional studies, and some results have been conflicting. They therefore conducted the current, much larger analysis, in the AHA COVID-19 CVD Registry which systematically collected hospitalized patient–level data in a broad and diverse hospital and patient population across the United States.

For the analysis, the researchers analyzed data from 10,541 patients hospitalized with COVID-19 through September 2020 at 104 U.S. hospitals enrolled in the AHA registry to evaluate the associations between statin use and outcomes.

Most patients (71%) had either cardiovascular disease, hypertension, or both. Prior to admission, 42% of subjects used statins, with 7% being on statins alone and 35% on statins plus antihypertensives. Death (or discharge to hospice) occurred in 2,212 subjects (21%).

Results showed that outpatient use of statins, either alone or with antihypertensives, was associated with a 41% reduced risk of death (odds ratio, 0.59; 95% confidence interval, 0.50-0.69), after adjusting for demographic characteristics, underlying conditions, insurance status, hospital site, and concurrent medications. Statin use was also associated with a roughly 25% lower adjusted odds of developing severe disease.

Noting that patients on statins are also likely to be on antihypertensive medication, the researchers found that the statin benefit on mortality was seen in both patients taking a statin alone (OR, 0.54) and in those taking statins with an antihypertensive medication (OR, 0.60).

Use of antihypertensive drugs was associated with a smaller, albeit still substantial, 27% lower odds of death (OR, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.62-0.87).

In propensity-matched analyses, use of statins and/or antihypertensives was tied to a 32% reduced risk of death among those with a history of CVD and/or hypertension (OR, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.58-0.81). An observed 16% reduction in odds of death with statins and/or antihypertensive drugs among those without cardiovascular disease and/or hypertension was not statistically significant (OR, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.58-1.22).
 

Stabilizing the underlying disease

The researchers pointed out that the results of the propensity matching analysis are consistent with the hypothesis that the major benefit of these medications accrues from treating and/or stabilizing underlying disease.

“Although it is well known that statins improve long-term outcomes among patients with or at elevated risk for cardiovascular disease, the association with a large short-term benefit which accrues in the setting of hospitalization for COVID-19 is a new and intriguing finding,” they said.

They cited several “plausible mechanisms whereby statins could directly mitigate outcomes in COVID-19 beyond treating underlying disease conditions,” including anti-inflammatory effects and a direct inhibitory effect on the SARS-CoV-2 virus.

Dr. Daniels elaborated more on the potential mechanism at play in an interview: “I think what is happening is that the statin is stabilizing the coronary disease so patients are less likely to die from MI or stroke, and this gives them more time and strength to recover from COVID-19.”

She added: “Statins may also have some direct anti-COVID effects such as an anti-inflammatory actions, but I would guess that this is probably not the primary effect behind what we’re seeing here.”
 

‘Important clinical implications’

The authors say their findings have “important clinical implications.”

They noted that early in the pandemic there was speculation that certain medications, including statins, and the ACE inhibitor/angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB) classes of antihypertensives may confer an increased susceptibility to COVID-19 positivity and/or severity.

“Our study reinforces the AHA and others’ recommendations that not only is it safe to remain on these medications, but they may substantially reduce risk of severe COVID-19 and especially death from COVID-19, particularly statins, and particularly among those with associated underlying conditions,” the authors stressed.

Dr. Daniels added that, although statins are very safe drugs, there are always some patients who prefer not to take medication even if indicated, and others who may have borderline indications and decide not to take a statin at present.

“This study may persuade these patients that taking a statin is the right thing to do. It may give those patients on the cusp of thinking about taking one of these drugs a reason to go ahead,” she said.
 

‘Provocative but not definitive’

Commenting on the study, Robert Harrington, MD, professor of medicine and chair of the department of medicine at Stanford (Calif.) University, said: “These are interesting observational data but as such have all the limitations of nonrandomized comparisons despite the best attempts to adjust for a variety of potential confounders. For example, is this an effect of statins (perhaps through some anti-inflammatory mechanism) or is it more an effect that can be attributed to the patients who are prescribed and taking a statin, compared with those who are not?”

He added: “The primary clinical benefit of statins, based on many large randomized clinical trials, seems to be derived from their LDL lowering effect. Observational studies have suggested potential benefits from anti-inflammatory effects of statins, but the randomized trials have not confirmed these observations. So, the current data are interesting, even provocative, but ultimately hypothesis generating rather than definitive.”

Also commenting on the study, Steven Nissen, MD, professor of medicine at the Cleveland Clinic, said: “While statins have many established benefits, their role in preventing COVID-19 complications is very speculative. Like all observational studies, the current study must be viewed as hypothesis generating, not definitive evidence of benefit. There are many potential confounders. I’m skeptical.”

The authors of this study received no specific funding for this work and report no competing interests. Dr. Harrington was AHA president when the COVID registry was created and he is still a member of the AHA board, which has oversight over the project.

Among patients hospitalized for COVID-19, those who had been taking statins had a substantially lower risk of death in a new large observational study.

Results showed that use of statins prior to admission was linked to a greater than 40% reduction in mortality and a greater than 25% reduction in risk of developing a severe outcome.

The findings come an analysis of data from the American Heart Association’s COVID-19 Cardiovascular Disease Registry on more than 10,000 patients hospitalized with COVID-19 at 104 hospitals across the United States published in PLoS One.

While several other studies have suggested benefits of statins in COVID-19, this is by far the largest study so far on this topic.

“I would say this is the most reliable study on statins in COVID-19 to date, with the results adjusted for many confounders, including socioeconomic factors and insurance type,” lead author Lori B. Daniels, MD, told this news organization. “However, it still an observational study and therefore falls short of a randomized study. But I would think a randomized study of statins in COVID-19 is probably not feasible, so this study provides excellent data at an observational level.”

After propensity matching for cardiovascular disease, results showed that most of the benefit of statins occurred in patients with known cardiovascular disease.

“While most patients taking statins will have cardiovascular disease, there are also many patients who take these drugs who don’t have heart disease but do have cardiovascular risk factors, such as those with raised cholesterol, or a family history of cardiovascular disease. For [such patients], the effect of statins was also in the same direction but it was not significant. This doesn’t exclude an effect,” noted Dr. Daniels, who is professor of medicine and director of cardiovascular intensive care at the University of California, San Diego.

“We are not saying that everyone should rush out and take a statin if they do not have risk factors for cardiovascular in order to lower their risk of dying from COVID. But if individuals do have an indication for a statin and are not taking one of these dugs this is another good reason to start taking them now,” she added.

The investigators embarked on the study because, although previous observational studies have found that statins may reduce the severity of COVID-19 infection, these studies have been limited in size with mostly single-center or regional studies, and some results have been conflicting. They therefore conducted the current, much larger analysis, in the AHA COVID-19 CVD Registry which systematically collected hospitalized patient–level data in a broad and diverse hospital and patient population across the United States.

For the analysis, the researchers analyzed data from 10,541 patients hospitalized with COVID-19 through September 2020 at 104 U.S. hospitals enrolled in the AHA registry to evaluate the associations between statin use and outcomes.

Most patients (71%) had either cardiovascular disease, hypertension, or both. Prior to admission, 42% of subjects used statins, with 7% being on statins alone and 35% on statins plus antihypertensives. Death (or discharge to hospice) occurred in 2,212 subjects (21%).

Results showed that outpatient use of statins, either alone or with antihypertensives, was associated with a 41% reduced risk of death (odds ratio, 0.59; 95% confidence interval, 0.50-0.69), after adjusting for demographic characteristics, underlying conditions, insurance status, hospital site, and concurrent medications. Statin use was also associated with a roughly 25% lower adjusted odds of developing severe disease.

Noting that patients on statins are also likely to be on antihypertensive medication, the researchers found that the statin benefit on mortality was seen in both patients taking a statin alone (OR, 0.54) and in those taking statins with an antihypertensive medication (OR, 0.60).

Use of antihypertensive drugs was associated with a smaller, albeit still substantial, 27% lower odds of death (OR, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.62-0.87).

In propensity-matched analyses, use of statins and/or antihypertensives was tied to a 32% reduced risk of death among those with a history of CVD and/or hypertension (OR, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.58-0.81). An observed 16% reduction in odds of death with statins and/or antihypertensive drugs among those without cardiovascular disease and/or hypertension was not statistically significant (OR, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.58-1.22).
 

Stabilizing the underlying disease

The researchers pointed out that the results of the propensity matching analysis are consistent with the hypothesis that the major benefit of these medications accrues from treating and/or stabilizing underlying disease.

“Although it is well known that statins improve long-term outcomes among patients with or at elevated risk for cardiovascular disease, the association with a large short-term benefit which accrues in the setting of hospitalization for COVID-19 is a new and intriguing finding,” they said.

They cited several “plausible mechanisms whereby statins could directly mitigate outcomes in COVID-19 beyond treating underlying disease conditions,” including anti-inflammatory effects and a direct inhibitory effect on the SARS-CoV-2 virus.

Dr. Daniels elaborated more on the potential mechanism at play in an interview: “I think what is happening is that the statin is stabilizing the coronary disease so patients are less likely to die from MI or stroke, and this gives them more time and strength to recover from COVID-19.”

She added: “Statins may also have some direct anti-COVID effects such as an anti-inflammatory actions, but I would guess that this is probably not the primary effect behind what we’re seeing here.”
 

‘Important clinical implications’

The authors say their findings have “important clinical implications.”

They noted that early in the pandemic there was speculation that certain medications, including statins, and the ACE inhibitor/angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB) classes of antihypertensives may confer an increased susceptibility to COVID-19 positivity and/or severity.

“Our study reinforces the AHA and others’ recommendations that not only is it safe to remain on these medications, but they may substantially reduce risk of severe COVID-19 and especially death from COVID-19, particularly statins, and particularly among those with associated underlying conditions,” the authors stressed.

Dr. Daniels added that, although statins are very safe drugs, there are always some patients who prefer not to take medication even if indicated, and others who may have borderline indications and decide not to take a statin at present.

“This study may persuade these patients that taking a statin is the right thing to do. It may give those patients on the cusp of thinking about taking one of these drugs a reason to go ahead,” she said.
 

‘Provocative but not definitive’

Commenting on the study, Robert Harrington, MD, professor of medicine and chair of the department of medicine at Stanford (Calif.) University, said: “These are interesting observational data but as such have all the limitations of nonrandomized comparisons despite the best attempts to adjust for a variety of potential confounders. For example, is this an effect of statins (perhaps through some anti-inflammatory mechanism) or is it more an effect that can be attributed to the patients who are prescribed and taking a statin, compared with those who are not?”

He added: “The primary clinical benefit of statins, based on many large randomized clinical trials, seems to be derived from their LDL lowering effect. Observational studies have suggested potential benefits from anti-inflammatory effects of statins, but the randomized trials have not confirmed these observations. So, the current data are interesting, even provocative, but ultimately hypothesis generating rather than definitive.”

Also commenting on the study, Steven Nissen, MD, professor of medicine at the Cleveland Clinic, said: “While statins have many established benefits, their role in preventing COVID-19 complications is very speculative. Like all observational studies, the current study must be viewed as hypothesis generating, not definitive evidence of benefit. There are many potential confounders. I’m skeptical.”

The authors of this study received no specific funding for this work and report no competing interests. Dr. Harrington was AHA president when the COVID registry was created and he is still a member of the AHA board, which has oversight over the project.

Among patients hospitalized for COVID-19, those who had been taking statins had a substantially lower risk of death in a new large observational study.

Results showed that use of statins prior to admission was linked to a greater than 40% reduction in mortality and a greater than 25% reduction in risk of developing a severe outcome.

The findings come an analysis of data from the American Heart Association’s COVID-19 Cardiovascular Disease Registry on more than 10,000 patients hospitalized with COVID-19 at 104 hospitals across the United States published in PLoS One.

While several other studies have suggested benefits of statins in COVID-19, this is by far the largest study so far on this topic.

“I would say this is the most reliable study on statins in COVID-19 to date, with the results adjusted for many confounders, including socioeconomic factors and insurance type,” lead author Lori B. Daniels, MD, told this news organization. “However, it still an observational study and therefore falls short of a randomized study. But I would think a randomized study of statins in COVID-19 is probably not feasible, so this study provides excellent data at an observational level.”

After propensity matching for cardiovascular disease, results showed that most of the benefit of statins occurred in patients with known cardiovascular disease.

“While most patients taking statins will have cardiovascular disease, there are also many patients who take these drugs who don’t have heart disease but do have cardiovascular risk factors, such as those with raised cholesterol, or a family history of cardiovascular disease. For [such patients], the effect of statins was also in the same direction but it was not significant. This doesn’t exclude an effect,” noted Dr. Daniels, who is professor of medicine and director of cardiovascular intensive care at the University of California, San Diego.

“We are not saying that everyone should rush out and take a statin if they do not have risk factors for cardiovascular in order to lower their risk of dying from COVID. But if individuals do have an indication for a statin and are not taking one of these dugs this is another good reason to start taking them now,” she added.

The investigators embarked on the study because, although previous observational studies have found that statins may reduce the severity of COVID-19 infection, these studies have been limited in size with mostly single-center or regional studies, and some results have been conflicting. They therefore conducted the current, much larger analysis, in the AHA COVID-19 CVD Registry which systematically collected hospitalized patient–level data in a broad and diverse hospital and patient population across the United States.

For the analysis, the researchers analyzed data from 10,541 patients hospitalized with COVID-19 through September 2020 at 104 U.S. hospitals enrolled in the AHA registry to evaluate the associations between statin use and outcomes.

Most patients (71%) had either cardiovascular disease, hypertension, or both. Prior to admission, 42% of subjects used statins, with 7% being on statins alone and 35% on statins plus antihypertensives. Death (or discharge to hospice) occurred in 2,212 subjects (21%).

Results showed that outpatient use of statins, either alone or with antihypertensives, was associated with a 41% reduced risk of death (odds ratio, 0.59; 95% confidence interval, 0.50-0.69), after adjusting for demographic characteristics, underlying conditions, insurance status, hospital site, and concurrent medications. Statin use was also associated with a roughly 25% lower adjusted odds of developing severe disease.

Noting that patients on statins are also likely to be on antihypertensive medication, the researchers found that the statin benefit on mortality was seen in both patients taking a statin alone (OR, 0.54) and in those taking statins with an antihypertensive medication (OR, 0.60).

Use of antihypertensive drugs was associated with a smaller, albeit still substantial, 27% lower odds of death (OR, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.62-0.87).

In propensity-matched analyses, use of statins and/or antihypertensives was tied to a 32% reduced risk of death among those with a history of CVD and/or hypertension (OR, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.58-0.81). An observed 16% reduction in odds of death with statins and/or antihypertensive drugs among those without cardiovascular disease and/or hypertension was not statistically significant (OR, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.58-1.22).
 

Stabilizing the underlying disease

The researchers pointed out that the results of the propensity matching analysis are consistent with the hypothesis that the major benefit of these medications accrues from treating and/or stabilizing underlying disease.

“Although it is well known that statins improve long-term outcomes among patients with or at elevated risk for cardiovascular disease, the association with a large short-term benefit which accrues in the setting of hospitalization for COVID-19 is a new and intriguing finding,” they said.

They cited several “plausible mechanisms whereby statins could directly mitigate outcomes in COVID-19 beyond treating underlying disease conditions,” including anti-inflammatory effects and a direct inhibitory effect on the SARS-CoV-2 virus.

Dr. Daniels elaborated more on the potential mechanism at play in an interview: “I think what is happening is that the statin is stabilizing the coronary disease so patients are less likely to die from MI or stroke, and this gives them more time and strength to recover from COVID-19.”

She added: “Statins may also have some direct anti-COVID effects such as an anti-inflammatory actions, but I would guess that this is probably not the primary effect behind what we’re seeing here.”
 

‘Important clinical implications’

The authors say their findings have “important clinical implications.”

They noted that early in the pandemic there was speculation that certain medications, including statins, and the ACE inhibitor/angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB) classes of antihypertensives may confer an increased susceptibility to COVID-19 positivity and/or severity.

“Our study reinforces the AHA and others’ recommendations that not only is it safe to remain on these medications, but they may substantially reduce risk of severe COVID-19 and especially death from COVID-19, particularly statins, and particularly among those with associated underlying conditions,” the authors stressed.

Dr. Daniels added that, although statins are very safe drugs, there are always some patients who prefer not to take medication even if indicated, and others who may have borderline indications and decide not to take a statin at present.

“This study may persuade these patients that taking a statin is the right thing to do. It may give those patients on the cusp of thinking about taking one of these drugs a reason to go ahead,” she said.
 

‘Provocative but not definitive’

Commenting on the study, Robert Harrington, MD, professor of medicine and chair of the department of medicine at Stanford (Calif.) University, said: “These are interesting observational data but as such have all the limitations of nonrandomized comparisons despite the best attempts to adjust for a variety of potential confounders. For example, is this an effect of statins (perhaps through some anti-inflammatory mechanism) or is it more an effect that can be attributed to the patients who are prescribed and taking a statin, compared with those who are not?”

He added: “The primary clinical benefit of statins, based on many large randomized clinical trials, seems to be derived from their LDL lowering effect. Observational studies have suggested potential benefits from anti-inflammatory effects of statins, but the randomized trials have not confirmed these observations. So, the current data are interesting, even provocative, but ultimately hypothesis generating rather than definitive.”

Also commenting on the study, Steven Nissen, MD, professor of medicine at the Cleveland Clinic, said: “While statins have many established benefits, their role in preventing COVID-19 complications is very speculative. Like all observational studies, the current study must be viewed as hypothesis generating, not definitive evidence of benefit. There are many potential confounders. I’m skeptical.”

The authors of this study received no specific funding for this work and report no competing interests. Dr. Harrington was AHA president when the COVID registry was created and he is still a member of the AHA board, which has oversight over the project.

Support for a cardiovascular benefit of omega-3 fatty acids, particularly eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA), has come from a new systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials.

The meta-analysis of 38 randomized controlled trials found that omega-3 fatty acids improved cardiovascular outcomes, with a greater reduction in cardiovascular risk in studies of EPA alone rather than of combined eicosapentaenoic plus docosahexaenoic acid (DHA) supplements.

The paper was published online in EClinicalMedicine.

Senior author Deepak Bhatt, MD, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, was also lead investigator of the REDUCE-IT trial, which is included in the analysis and showed a 25% relative risk reduction in major cardiovascular events with a high-dose EPA product.

But the REDUCE-IT trial has been mired in controversy, with suggestions that the benefit seen might have been exaggerated because of the use of a harmful placebo. In addition, a second large trial of high-dose omega-3 fatty acids, STRENGTH (which tested a combination EPA/DHA product) showed no benefit on cardiovascular outcomes.

Dr. Bhatt said the new meta-analysis provides “a totality of evidence” that “supports a robust and consistent benefit of EPA.”

In the review, the authors concluded: “In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we noted moderate certainty of evidence favoring omega-3 fatty acids for reducing cardiovascular mortality and outcomes. ... The magnitude of relative reductions was robust in EPA trials versus those of EPA+DHA, suggesting differential effects of EPA and DHA in cardiovascular risk reduction.”
 

Controversy continues

But commenting on the publication for an interview, Steven Nissen, MD, Cleveland Clinic, who led the STRENGTH trial, pointed out that 85% of the EPA data in the new meta-analysis came from REDUCE-IT, so the results were a “foregone conclusion.”

“The purpose of a meta-analysis is to answer scientific questions when existing studies are too small to yield statistically robust results. That is not the case here,” Dr. Nissen stated.

He added: “There are only two major trials of EPA and both have important flaws. REDUCE-IT used a questionable placebo (mineral oil) and JELIS was an open-label trial that studied patients with baseline LDL [cholesterol] of 180 mg/dL that was not appropriately treated. A meta-analysis is only as good as the studies that it includes. The other EPA plus DHA studies were essentially neutral.”

Dr. Bhatt responded that, “to date, every randomized trial of EPA only has been positive. Some have been placebo controlled, some have been open label. This meta-analysis corroborates the results of each of those trials in a statistically robust way.”

He added: “Of course, REDUCE-IT is the most rigorous, contemporary trial of EPA. However, in our meta-analysis, even when excluding REDUCE-IT (or for that matter, JELIS), the EPA trials still significantly reduced cardiovascular events.”

Dr. Bhatt also pointed out that two randomized imaging studies, CHERRY and EVAPORATE, have shown benefits of EPA.

“Beyond the clinical trial data, there is a growing amount of evidence supporting the unique biological actions of different omega-3 fatty acids. EPA, in particular, appears to have the strongest basic science evidence supporting cardiovascular benefits. Overall, it is a remarkably consistent scientific story in support of EPA’s beneficial effects on cardiovascular health,” he stated.
 

38 trials included

For the current paper, Dr. Bhatt and coauthors performed a comprehensive literature search for randomized trials comparing omega-3 fatty acids with control (placebo, no supplementation, or lower dose of omega-3 fatty acids) in adults, with a follow-up of at least 12 months, and mortality and cardiovascular outcomes as endpoints.

Ultimately, 38 trials encompassing 149,051 patients were included. Of these, four trials compared EPA with control, 34 trials compared EPA+DHA with control, and 22 trials were in primary prevention. The dose of omega-3 fatty acids ranged from 0.4 g/day to 5.5 g/day.

A total of 25 trials with 143,514 individuals reported 5,550 events of cardiovascular mortality, and 24 trials with 140,983 individuals reported 10,795 events of all-cause mortality.

Omega-3 fatty acids were associated with reduced cardiovascular mortality (rate ratio, 0.93; P = .01), but not all-cause mortality (RR, 0.97; P = .27). The meta-analysis showed reduction in cardiovascular mortality with EPA monotherapy (RR, 0.82; P = .04) and EPA+DHA combination (RR, 0.94; P = .02).

A total of 20 trials with 125,611 individuals reported 2,989 nonfatal myocardial infarction events, and 29 trials with 144,384 individuals reported 9,153 coronary heart disease (CHD) events.

Omega-3 fatty acids were associated with reducing nonfatal MI (RR, 0.87; P = .0001) and CHD (RR, 0.91; P = .0002). The meta-analysis showed higher risk reductions in nonfatal MI with EPA monotherapy (RR, 0.72; P = .00002) than with EPA+DHA combination (RR, 0.92; P = .05), and also for CHD events with EPA monotherapy (RR, 0.73; P = .00004) than with EPA+DHA combination (RR, 0.94; P = .01).

A total of 17 trials (n = 135,019) reported 13,234 events of MACE, and 13 trials (n = 117,890) reported 7,416 events of revascularization.

Omega-3 fatty acids were associated with reducing MACE (RR, 0.95; P = .002) and revascularization (RR, 0.91; P = .0001). The meta-analysis showed higher risk reductions in MACE with EPA monotherapy (RR, 0.78; P = .00000001), whereas EPA+DHA combination did not reduce MACE (RR, 0.99; P = .48). This effect was consistent for revascularization.

A total of eight trials with 65,404 individuals reported 935 nonfatal strokes, and eight trials with 51,336 individuals reported 1,572 events of atrial fibrillation (AFib).

Omega-3 fatty acids did not significantly reduce nonfatal stroke (RR, 1.04; P = .55), but EPA monotherapy was associated with a reduction of nonfatal stroke, compared with control (RR: 0.71; P = .01).

Conversely, omega-3 fatty acids were associated with increased risk for AFib (RR, 1.26; P = .004), with a higher risk with EPA monotherapy than with control (RR, 1.35; P = .004).

Overall, omega-3 fatty acids did not prevent sudden cardiac death or increase gastrointestinal-related adverse events, total bleeding, or major or minor bleeding; however, the meta-analysis showed a higher risk of total bleeding with EPA monotherapy than with control (RR, 1.49; P = .006).

An influence analysis with stepwise exclusion of one trial at a time, including REDUCE-IT, did not alter the overall summary estimates. “Despite the exclusion of REDUCE-IT, EPA monotherapy reduced MACE by 23%, compared with the control,” the authors reported.

They said these new findings also have important implications for clinical practice and treatment guidelines.

“After REDUCE-IT, several national and international guidelines endorsed EPA in their therapeutic recommendations. However, the publication of two recent negative trials of EPA + DHA has created some confusion in the scientific community about the value of omega-3 FAs in preventing atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease [ASCVD],” they stated.

“This meta-analysis provides reassurance about the role of omega-3 fatty acids, specifically EPA, in the current treatment framework of ASCVD residual cardiovascular risk reduction and encourages investigators to explore further the cardiovascular effects of EPA across different clinical settings,” they added.

REDUCE-IT was sponsored by Amarin. Brigham and Women’s Hospital receives research funding from Amarin for the work Dr. Bhatt did as the trial chair and as the international principal investigator. The present analysis was unfunded.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Support for a cardiovascular benefit of omega-3 fatty acids, particularly eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA), has come from a new systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials.

The meta-analysis of 38 randomized controlled trials found that omega-3 fatty acids improved cardiovascular outcomes, with a greater reduction in cardiovascular risk in studies of EPA alone rather than of combined eicosapentaenoic plus docosahexaenoic acid (DHA) supplements.

The paper was published online in EClinicalMedicine.

Senior author Deepak Bhatt, MD, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, was also lead investigator of the REDUCE-IT trial, which is included in the analysis and showed a 25% relative risk reduction in major cardiovascular events with a high-dose EPA product.

But the REDUCE-IT trial has been mired in controversy, with suggestions that the benefit seen might have been exaggerated because of the use of a harmful placebo. In addition, a second large trial of high-dose omega-3 fatty acids, STRENGTH (which tested a combination EPA/DHA product) showed no benefit on cardiovascular outcomes.

Dr. Bhatt said the new meta-analysis provides “a totality of evidence” that “supports a robust and consistent benefit of EPA.”

In the review, the authors concluded: “In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we noted moderate certainty of evidence favoring omega-3 fatty acids for reducing cardiovascular mortality and outcomes. ... The magnitude of relative reductions was robust in EPA trials versus those of EPA+DHA, suggesting differential effects of EPA and DHA in cardiovascular risk reduction.”
 

Controversy continues

But commenting on the publication for an interview, Steven Nissen, MD, Cleveland Clinic, who led the STRENGTH trial, pointed out that 85% of the EPA data in the new meta-analysis came from REDUCE-IT, so the results were a “foregone conclusion.”

“The purpose of a meta-analysis is to answer scientific questions when existing studies are too small to yield statistically robust results. That is not the case here,” Dr. Nissen stated.

He added: “There are only two major trials of EPA and both have important flaws. REDUCE-IT used a questionable placebo (mineral oil) and JELIS was an open-label trial that studied patients with baseline LDL [cholesterol] of 180 mg/dL that was not appropriately treated. A meta-analysis is only as good as the studies that it includes. The other EPA plus DHA studies were essentially neutral.”

Dr. Bhatt responded that, “to date, every randomized trial of EPA only has been positive. Some have been placebo controlled, some have been open label. This meta-analysis corroborates the results of each of those trials in a statistically robust way.”

He added: “Of course, REDUCE-IT is the most rigorous, contemporary trial of EPA. However, in our meta-analysis, even when excluding REDUCE-IT (or for that matter, JELIS), the EPA trials still significantly reduced cardiovascular events.”

Dr. Bhatt also pointed out that two randomized imaging studies, CHERRY and EVAPORATE, have shown benefits of EPA.

“Beyond the clinical trial data, there is a growing amount of evidence supporting the unique biological actions of different omega-3 fatty acids. EPA, in particular, appears to have the strongest basic science evidence supporting cardiovascular benefits. Overall, it is a remarkably consistent scientific story in support of EPA’s beneficial effects on cardiovascular health,” he stated.
 

38 trials included

For the current paper, Dr. Bhatt and coauthors performed a comprehensive literature search for randomized trials comparing omega-3 fatty acids with control (placebo, no supplementation, or lower dose of omega-3 fatty acids) in adults, with a follow-up of at least 12 months, and mortality and cardiovascular outcomes as endpoints.

Ultimately, 38 trials encompassing 149,051 patients were included. Of these, four trials compared EPA with control, 34 trials compared EPA+DHA with control, and 22 trials were in primary prevention. The dose of omega-3 fatty acids ranged from 0.4 g/day to 5.5 g/day.

A total of 25 trials with 143,514 individuals reported 5,550 events of cardiovascular mortality, and 24 trials with 140,983 individuals reported 10,795 events of all-cause mortality.

Omega-3 fatty acids were associated with reduced cardiovascular mortality (rate ratio, 0.93; P = .01), but not all-cause mortality (RR, 0.97; P = .27). The meta-analysis showed reduction in cardiovascular mortality with EPA monotherapy (RR, 0.82; P = .04) and EPA+DHA combination (RR, 0.94; P = .02).

A total of 20 trials with 125,611 individuals reported 2,989 nonfatal myocardial infarction events, and 29 trials with 144,384 individuals reported 9,153 coronary heart disease (CHD) events.

Omega-3 fatty acids were associated with reducing nonfatal MI (RR, 0.87; P = .0001) and CHD (RR, 0.91; P = .0002). The meta-analysis showed higher risk reductions in nonfatal MI with EPA monotherapy (RR, 0.72; P = .00002) than with EPA+DHA combination (RR, 0.92; P = .05), and also for CHD events with EPA monotherapy (RR, 0.73; P = .00004) than with EPA+DHA combination (RR, 0.94; P = .01).

A total of 17 trials (n = 135,019) reported 13,234 events of MACE, and 13 trials (n = 117,890) reported 7,416 events of revascularization.

Omega-3 fatty acids were associated with reducing MACE (RR, 0.95; P = .002) and revascularization (RR, 0.91; P = .0001). The meta-analysis showed higher risk reductions in MACE with EPA monotherapy (RR, 0.78; P = .00000001), whereas EPA+DHA combination did not reduce MACE (RR, 0.99; P = .48). This effect was consistent for revascularization.

A total of eight trials with 65,404 individuals reported 935 nonfatal strokes, and eight trials with 51,336 individuals reported 1,572 events of atrial fibrillation (AFib).

Omega-3 fatty acids did not significantly reduce nonfatal stroke (RR, 1.04; P = .55), but EPA monotherapy was associated with a reduction of nonfatal stroke, compared with control (RR: 0.71; P = .01).

Conversely, omega-3 fatty acids were associated with increased risk for AFib (RR, 1.26; P = .004), with a higher risk with EPA monotherapy than with control (RR, 1.35; P = .004).

Overall, omega-3 fatty acids did not prevent sudden cardiac death or increase gastrointestinal-related adverse events, total bleeding, or major or minor bleeding; however, the meta-analysis showed a higher risk of total bleeding with EPA monotherapy than with control (RR, 1.49; P = .006).

An influence analysis with stepwise exclusion of one trial at a time, including REDUCE-IT, did not alter the overall summary estimates. “Despite the exclusion of REDUCE-IT, EPA monotherapy reduced MACE by 23%, compared with the control,” the authors reported.

They said these new findings also have important implications for clinical practice and treatment guidelines.

“After REDUCE-IT, several national and international guidelines endorsed EPA in their therapeutic recommendations. However, the publication of two recent negative trials of EPA + DHA has created some confusion in the scientific community about the value of omega-3 FAs in preventing atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease [ASCVD],” they stated.

“This meta-analysis provides reassurance about the role of omega-3 fatty acids, specifically EPA, in the current treatment framework of ASCVD residual cardiovascular risk reduction and encourages investigators to explore further the cardiovascular effects of EPA across different clinical settings,” they added.

REDUCE-IT was sponsored by Amarin. Brigham and Women’s Hospital receives research funding from Amarin for the work Dr. Bhatt did as the trial chair and as the international principal investigator. The present analysis was unfunded.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Support for a cardiovascular benefit of omega-3 fatty acids, particularly eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA), has come from a new systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials.

The meta-analysis of 38 randomized controlled trials found that omega-3 fatty acids improved cardiovascular outcomes, with a greater reduction in cardiovascular risk in studies of EPA alone rather than of combined eicosapentaenoic plus docosahexaenoic acid (DHA) supplements.

The paper was published online in EClinicalMedicine.

Senior author Deepak Bhatt, MD, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, was also lead investigator of the REDUCE-IT trial, which is included in the analysis and showed a 25% relative risk reduction in major cardiovascular events with a high-dose EPA product.

But the REDUCE-IT trial has been mired in controversy, with suggestions that the benefit seen might have been exaggerated because of the use of a harmful placebo. In addition, a second large trial of high-dose omega-3 fatty acids, STRENGTH (which tested a combination EPA/DHA product) showed no benefit on cardiovascular outcomes.

Dr. Bhatt said the new meta-analysis provides “a totality of evidence” that “supports a robust and consistent benefit of EPA.”

In the review, the authors concluded: “In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we noted moderate certainty of evidence favoring omega-3 fatty acids for reducing cardiovascular mortality and outcomes. ... The magnitude of relative reductions was robust in EPA trials versus those of EPA+DHA, suggesting differential effects of EPA and DHA in cardiovascular risk reduction.”
 

Controversy continues

But commenting on the publication for an interview, Steven Nissen, MD, Cleveland Clinic, who led the STRENGTH trial, pointed out that 85% of the EPA data in the new meta-analysis came from REDUCE-IT, so the results were a “foregone conclusion.”

“The purpose of a meta-analysis is to answer scientific questions when existing studies are too small to yield statistically robust results. That is not the case here,” Dr. Nissen stated.

He added: “There are only two major trials of EPA and both have important flaws. REDUCE-IT used a questionable placebo (mineral oil) and JELIS was an open-label trial that studied patients with baseline LDL [cholesterol] of 180 mg/dL that was not appropriately treated. A meta-analysis is only as good as the studies that it includes. The other EPA plus DHA studies were essentially neutral.”

Dr. Bhatt responded that, “to date, every randomized trial of EPA only has been positive. Some have been placebo controlled, some have been open label. This meta-analysis corroborates the results of each of those trials in a statistically robust way.”

He added: “Of course, REDUCE-IT is the most rigorous, contemporary trial of EPA. However, in our meta-analysis, even when excluding REDUCE-IT (or for that matter, JELIS), the EPA trials still significantly reduced cardiovascular events.”

Dr. Bhatt also pointed out that two randomized imaging studies, CHERRY and EVAPORATE, have shown benefits of EPA.

“Beyond the clinical trial data, there is a growing amount of evidence supporting the unique biological actions of different omega-3 fatty acids. EPA, in particular, appears to have the strongest basic science evidence supporting cardiovascular benefits. Overall, it is a remarkably consistent scientific story in support of EPA’s beneficial effects on cardiovascular health,” he stated.
 

38 trials included

For the current paper, Dr. Bhatt and coauthors performed a comprehensive literature search for randomized trials comparing omega-3 fatty acids with control (placebo, no supplementation, or lower dose of omega-3 fatty acids) in adults, with a follow-up of at least 12 months, and mortality and cardiovascular outcomes as endpoints.

Ultimately, 38 trials encompassing 149,051 patients were included. Of these, four trials compared EPA with control, 34 trials compared EPA+DHA with control, and 22 trials were in primary prevention. The dose of omega-3 fatty acids ranged from 0.4 g/day to 5.5 g/day.

A total of 25 trials with 143,514 individuals reported 5,550 events of cardiovascular mortality, and 24 trials with 140,983 individuals reported 10,795 events of all-cause mortality.

Omega-3 fatty acids were associated with reduced cardiovascular mortality (rate ratio, 0.93; P = .01), but not all-cause mortality (RR, 0.97; P = .27). The meta-analysis showed reduction in cardiovascular mortality with EPA monotherapy (RR, 0.82; P = .04) and EPA+DHA combination (RR, 0.94; P = .02).

A total of 20 trials with 125,611 individuals reported 2,989 nonfatal myocardial infarction events, and 29 trials with 144,384 individuals reported 9,153 coronary heart disease (CHD) events.

Omega-3 fatty acids were associated with reducing nonfatal MI (RR, 0.87; P = .0001) and CHD (RR, 0.91; P = .0002). The meta-analysis showed higher risk reductions in nonfatal MI with EPA monotherapy (RR, 0.72; P = .00002) than with EPA+DHA combination (RR, 0.92; P = .05), and also for CHD events with EPA monotherapy (RR, 0.73; P = .00004) than with EPA+DHA combination (RR, 0.94; P = .01).

A total of 17 trials (n = 135,019) reported 13,234 events of MACE, and 13 trials (n = 117,890) reported 7,416 events of revascularization.

Omega-3 fatty acids were associated with reducing MACE (RR, 0.95; P = .002) and revascularization (RR, 0.91; P = .0001). The meta-analysis showed higher risk reductions in MACE with EPA monotherapy (RR, 0.78; P = .00000001), whereas EPA+DHA combination did not reduce MACE (RR, 0.99; P = .48). This effect was consistent for revascularization.

A total of eight trials with 65,404 individuals reported 935 nonfatal strokes, and eight trials with 51,336 individuals reported 1,572 events of atrial fibrillation (AFib).

Omega-3 fatty acids did not significantly reduce nonfatal stroke (RR, 1.04; P = .55), but EPA monotherapy was associated with a reduction of nonfatal stroke, compared with control (RR: 0.71; P = .01).

Conversely, omega-3 fatty acids were associated with increased risk for AFib (RR, 1.26; P = .004), with a higher risk with EPA monotherapy than with control (RR, 1.35; P = .004).

Overall, omega-3 fatty acids did not prevent sudden cardiac death or increase gastrointestinal-related adverse events, total bleeding, or major or minor bleeding; however, the meta-analysis showed a higher risk of total bleeding with EPA monotherapy than with control (RR, 1.49; P = .006).

An influence analysis with stepwise exclusion of one trial at a time, including REDUCE-IT, did not alter the overall summary estimates. “Despite the exclusion of REDUCE-IT, EPA monotherapy reduced MACE by 23%, compared with the control,” the authors reported.

They said these new findings also have important implications for clinical practice and treatment guidelines.

“After REDUCE-IT, several national and international guidelines endorsed EPA in their therapeutic recommendations. However, the publication of two recent negative trials of EPA + DHA has created some confusion in the scientific community about the value of omega-3 FAs in preventing atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease [ASCVD],” they stated.

“This meta-analysis provides reassurance about the role of omega-3 fatty acids, specifically EPA, in the current treatment framework of ASCVD residual cardiovascular risk reduction and encourages investigators to explore further the cardiovascular effects of EPA across different clinical settings,” they added.

REDUCE-IT was sponsored by Amarin. Brigham and Women’s Hospital receives research funding from Amarin for the work Dr. Bhatt did as the trial chair and as the international principal investigator. The present analysis was unfunded.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.