Sue Hughes

Additional results from the THALES trial have shown that 1 month’s dual antiplatelet therapy with ticagrelor (Brilinta; Astra Zeneca) plus aspirin is associated with a reduction in disabling stroke, compared with aspirin alone in patients with minor stroke or high-risk transient ischemic attack (TIA).

Primary results of the THALES trial, published earlier this year in the New England Journal of Medicine, showed a reduction in the primary endpoint of stroke or death within 30 days with the combination of ticagrelor plus aspirin versus aspirin alone, although this was accompanied by an increase in bleeding. In terms of risk/benefit, the main results showed that for every 1,000 patients treatment with ticagrelor on top of aspirin would prevent 11 strokes or deaths at the cost of four severe hemorrhages.

The current exploratory analysis, which focuses on the severity of the strokes occurring in the trial, was published online Nov. 7 in JAMA Neurology to coincide with its presentation at the European Stroke Organisation-World Stroke Organization Conference 2020.

Results showed that, compared with aspirin alone, ticagrelor plus aspirin significantly reduced the 30-day risk for disabling stroke or death (4.0% versus 4.7%), and the total disability burden (the shift analysis of the distribution of modified Rankin scale) following subsequent ischemic stroke was reduced by a significant 23%.

“This new information on disabling stroke underlines the importance of getting patients on dual antiplatelet therapy quickly after a TIA or mild stroke,” said principal investigator of the THALES trial, S. Claiborne Johnston, MD, PhD.

Dr. Johnston, who is dean of Dell Medical School at the University of Texas at Austin, added: “It’s reassuring that ticagrelor has this effect, which was pretty robust. An accompanying editorial to the THALES publication in the NEJM incorrectly stated that ticagrelor did not reduce risk of disabling stroke, so it is good to be able to correct that misconception with this new data.”

Lead author of the exploratory analysis, Pierre Amarenco, MD, professor of neurology at Bichat University Hospital, Paris, added: “The main results showed that ticagrelor on top of aspirin reduced stroke but now we have new information showing reduction in disabling stroke. Obviously, these are the most important types of stroke to prevent. These are the strokes that will impact patients functionally.”

The THALES trial included 11,016 patients with a noncardioembolic, nonsevere ischemic stroke (National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale [NIHSS] score ≤ 5) or high-risk TIA, of whom 10,803 had modified Rankin Scale (mRS) functional score recorded at 30 days. 

They were randomized within 24 hours of symptom onset to ticagrelor (180-mg loading dose on day 1 followed by 90 mg twice daily for 1 month) or placebo. All patients received aspirin (300-325 mg on day 1 followed by 75-100 mg daily for 1 month).

In the new analysis, time to occurrence of disabling stroke (mRS greater than 1) or death within 30 days occurred in 221 of 5,511 patients (4.0%) randomized to ticagrelor and in 260 of 5,478 patients (4.7%) randomized to placebo (hazard ratio, 0.83; P = .04).

The ordinal analysis of mRS in patients with recurrent stroke showed a shift of the disability burden following a recurrent ischemic stroke in favor of ticagrelor (odds ratio, 0.77; P = .002).

Factors associated with disability were baseline NIHSS score of 4-5, ipsilateral stenosis of at least 30%, Asian race/ethnicity, older age, and higher systolic blood pressure.

Asked how the current results compared with observations reported in the main NEJM paper of similar incidences of disability (mRS > 1) in the two groups, Dr. Johnston explained that the result in the original paper looked at disability in the overall population, not just those who went on to have a stroke during follow-up. 

“The problem with looking at overall disability is that most of it is actually from the index stroke (the one that led to the patient being enrolled in the trial). That creates a lot of noise that overwhelms the benefit in reducing disability due to new stroke, the thing we really care about and the subject of the new paper,” he commented.
 

Ticagrelor or clopidogrel?

Ticagrelor now becomes the second antiplatelet agent to have shown benefits on top of aspirin in the minor stroke and high-risk TIA population. Clopidogrel also showed a reduction in major ischemic events in the POINT trial as well as in the Chinese CHANCE trial in similar populations.

Dr. Amarenco pointed out, however, that until now the only treatment that has been shown to reduce disabling stroke in the minor stroke/high risk TIA population in a single trial is aspirin. “The CHANCE and POINT trials of clopidogrel did not show a reduction in disabling stroke individually but this was observed when the trials were combined,” he noted. 

“Clinicians will now have to choose between ticagrelor and clopidogrel. We don’t have a head-to-head comparison yet but ticagrelor is effective in all patients whereas clopidogrel may not be as effective in the large subgroup of patients who carry the loss of function gene which make up about 20% of the western population and about 40% of the Asian population,” he said. 

“It is very important in the acute phase of stroke to know that the antiplatelet drug is immediately effective as the risk of a recurrent event is highest in the first few hours and days.”

Dr. Amarenco acknowledged that some hospitals may favor clopidogrel because of cost, as it is available generically so is much cheaper than ticagrelor. “But we are only talking about 30 days of treatment, so cost is not too much of an issue,” he pointed out.  

The Food and Drug Administration recently approved use of ticagrelor in this indication on the basis of the THALES study.

“It is great news that vascular neurologists now have a new player for reducing future stroke in these patients,” Dr. Amarenco said. Clopidogrel is not approved for this indication but is recommended in American Heart Association/American Stroke Association guidelines, he added.  

Dr. Johnston, who was also the lead investigator of the POINT trial with clopidogrel, suggested that it is more important to get patients on dual-antiplatelet therapy rather than worrying too much about which agent to use. “I think we can use aspirin plus either ticagrelor or clopidogrel. The effect on disabling stroke was not significant in POINT but it did reach significance in a meta-analysis combining POINT and CHANCE,” he noted.

He said that choosing between ticagrelor and clopidogrel is tricky without head-to-head data. “Differences in the studied populations makes direct comparison of the trials unwise,” he stressed.

Dr. Johnston pointed out that neither of the clopidogrel trials included moderate strokes (NIHSS scores of 4 and 5) in their study population. “We only have data on ticagrelor for this important group, which accounted for 30% of the THALES study population,” he noted.

“Some people are concerned about the limited efficacy of clopidogrel in large subgroups of patients who do not metabolize it to its active form, but on the flip side, clopidogrel is cheaper – though a 21- to 30-day course [of ticagrelor] probably isn’t that costly – and has more data in combination with aspirin,” he added.

Dr. Johnston said that the approval of ticagrelor for this new indication was “reassuring,” and “provides some air cover for practitioners given the risks of hemorrhage.” He added: “We didn’t bother with an FDA submission after POINT because it was an NIH-sponsored trial. The drug company normally prioritizes regulatory approvals for marketing purposes but their interests were limited because clopidogrel has exceeded its patent life.”

Cost-utility analyses are not yet available, but Dr. Johnston noted: “I suspect both drugs will have substantial benefits and be cost saving. Stroke is expensive, particularly disabling stroke.”

Dr. Johnston said that the more important message is: “Get these people on dual-antiplatelet therapy as soon as possible. Too many patients are not getting the right treatment immediately after symptom onset. We have lots of work to do here.”
 

Reassuring information

Commenting on the research, J. David Spence, MD, professor of neurology at the Robarts Research Institute, London, Ont., who was not involved in the THALES trial, said this new analysis provided useful and important information that should reassure and encourage clinicians to use dual-antiplatelet therapy in this patient population.

He pointed out that the shift analysis gives the most clinically relevant results. “While the number of patients with a disabling stroke defined as an mRS greater than 1 is lower in the ticagrelor group, I am much more interested in the effect on more severe disability levels – those with an mRS score of 3 or more. Those are the disabilities that we really want to prevent. And from examining the shift analysis distribution, we can see that these more severe disabilities are being reduced with ticagrelor.”

Dr. Spence believes the benefit/risk ratio of dual-antiplatelet therapy could be further improved by better control of blood pressure. “The absolute risk of severe hemorrhage was low in this study, but in my view, most of this could have been prevented by better control of hypertension, as 20 of the 28 severe hemorrhages in the ticagrelor group were intracranial bleeds which can be significantly reduced by good blood pressure control.

“In my view, the increased risk of hemorrhage with dual-antiplatelet therapy should not be regarded as inevitable; it can be virtually eliminated with better medical care,” he stated.

Another outside commentator, Peter Rothwell, MD, PhD, professor of neurology, University of Oxford (England), also believes this is an important paper. “The main NEJM report presented the data on overall disability, but did not present a clear analysis of the effect of ticagrelor plus aspirin on disabling recurrent stroke, but disability in all patients is mainly determined by nonvascular premorbid disability and by the effects of the initial prerandomization stroke. It was highly unlikely that ticagrelor plus aspirin would change these pretrial factors. The only thing that treatment could change was the severity of any posttreatment recurrent stroke, which it did,” he said.

“There is evidence that aspirin plus clopidogrel has the same effect on disabling recurrent stroke. So we now know that ticagrelor plus aspirin also has this effect, which informs consideration of the relative merits of the two treatment strategies,” Dr. Rothwell added.

The THALES trial was sponsored by Astra Zeneca. Dr. Johnston reports support from Sanofi and AstraZeneca outside the submitted work. Dr. Amarenco reports grants and personal fees from AstraZeneca and Bristol-Myers Squibb during the conduct of the study. 

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

Additional results from the THALES trial have shown that 1 month’s dual antiplatelet therapy with ticagrelor (Brilinta; Astra Zeneca) plus aspirin is associated with a reduction in disabling stroke, compared with aspirin alone in patients with minor stroke or high-risk transient ischemic attack (TIA).

Primary results of the THALES trial, published earlier this year in the New England Journal of Medicine, showed a reduction in the primary endpoint of stroke or death within 30 days with the combination of ticagrelor plus aspirin versus aspirin alone, although this was accompanied by an increase in bleeding. In terms of risk/benefit, the main results showed that for every 1,000 patients treatment with ticagrelor on top of aspirin would prevent 11 strokes or deaths at the cost of four severe hemorrhages.

The current exploratory analysis, which focuses on the severity of the strokes occurring in the trial, was published online Nov. 7 in JAMA Neurology to coincide with its presentation at the European Stroke Organisation-World Stroke Organization Conference 2020.

Results showed that, compared with aspirin alone, ticagrelor plus aspirin significantly reduced the 30-day risk for disabling stroke or death (4.0% versus 4.7%), and the total disability burden (the shift analysis of the distribution of modified Rankin scale) following subsequent ischemic stroke was reduced by a significant 23%.

“This new information on disabling stroke underlines the importance of getting patients on dual antiplatelet therapy quickly after a TIA or mild stroke,” said principal investigator of the THALES trial, S. Claiborne Johnston, MD, PhD.

Dr. Johnston, who is dean of Dell Medical School at the University of Texas at Austin, added: “It’s reassuring that ticagrelor has this effect, which was pretty robust. An accompanying editorial to the THALES publication in the NEJM incorrectly stated that ticagrelor did not reduce risk of disabling stroke, so it is good to be able to correct that misconception with this new data.”

Lead author of the exploratory analysis, Pierre Amarenco, MD, professor of neurology at Bichat University Hospital, Paris, added: “The main results showed that ticagrelor on top of aspirin reduced stroke but now we have new information showing reduction in disabling stroke. Obviously, these are the most important types of stroke to prevent. These are the strokes that will impact patients functionally.”

The THALES trial included 11,016 patients with a noncardioembolic, nonsevere ischemic stroke (National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale [NIHSS] score ≤ 5) or high-risk TIA, of whom 10,803 had modified Rankin Scale (mRS) functional score recorded at 30 days. 

They were randomized within 24 hours of symptom onset to ticagrelor (180-mg loading dose on day 1 followed by 90 mg twice daily for 1 month) or placebo. All patients received aspirin (300-325 mg on day 1 followed by 75-100 mg daily for 1 month).

In the new analysis, time to occurrence of disabling stroke (mRS greater than 1) or death within 30 days occurred in 221 of 5,511 patients (4.0%) randomized to ticagrelor and in 260 of 5,478 patients (4.7%) randomized to placebo (hazard ratio, 0.83; P = .04).

The ordinal analysis of mRS in patients with recurrent stroke showed a shift of the disability burden following a recurrent ischemic stroke in favor of ticagrelor (odds ratio, 0.77; P = .002).

Factors associated with disability were baseline NIHSS score of 4-5, ipsilateral stenosis of at least 30%, Asian race/ethnicity, older age, and higher systolic blood pressure.

Asked how the current results compared with observations reported in the main NEJM paper of similar incidences of disability (mRS > 1) in the two groups, Dr. Johnston explained that the result in the original paper looked at disability in the overall population, not just those who went on to have a stroke during follow-up. 

“The problem with looking at overall disability is that most of it is actually from the index stroke (the one that led to the patient being enrolled in the trial). That creates a lot of noise that overwhelms the benefit in reducing disability due to new stroke, the thing we really care about and the subject of the new paper,” he commented.
 

Ticagrelor or clopidogrel?

Ticagrelor now becomes the second antiplatelet agent to have shown benefits on top of aspirin in the minor stroke and high-risk TIA population. Clopidogrel also showed a reduction in major ischemic events in the POINT trial as well as in the Chinese CHANCE trial in similar populations.

Dr. Amarenco pointed out, however, that until now the only treatment that has been shown to reduce disabling stroke in the minor stroke/high risk TIA population in a single trial is aspirin. “The CHANCE and POINT trials of clopidogrel did not show a reduction in disabling stroke individually but this was observed when the trials were combined,” he noted. 

“Clinicians will now have to choose between ticagrelor and clopidogrel. We don’t have a head-to-head comparison yet but ticagrelor is effective in all patients whereas clopidogrel may not be as effective in the large subgroup of patients who carry the loss of function gene which make up about 20% of the western population and about 40% of the Asian population,” he said. 

“It is very important in the acute phase of stroke to know that the antiplatelet drug is immediately effective as the risk of a recurrent event is highest in the first few hours and days.”

Dr. Amarenco acknowledged that some hospitals may favor clopidogrel because of cost, as it is available generically so is much cheaper than ticagrelor. “But we are only talking about 30 days of treatment, so cost is not too much of an issue,” he pointed out.  

The Food and Drug Administration recently approved use of ticagrelor in this indication on the basis of the THALES study.

“It is great news that vascular neurologists now have a new player for reducing future stroke in these patients,” Dr. Amarenco said. Clopidogrel is not approved for this indication but is recommended in American Heart Association/American Stroke Association guidelines, he added.  

Dr. Johnston, who was also the lead investigator of the POINT trial with clopidogrel, suggested that it is more important to get patients on dual-antiplatelet therapy rather than worrying too much about which agent to use. “I think we can use aspirin plus either ticagrelor or clopidogrel. The effect on disabling stroke was not significant in POINT but it did reach significance in a meta-analysis combining POINT and CHANCE,” he noted.

He said that choosing between ticagrelor and clopidogrel is tricky without head-to-head data. “Differences in the studied populations makes direct comparison of the trials unwise,” he stressed.

Dr. Johnston pointed out that neither of the clopidogrel trials included moderate strokes (NIHSS scores of 4 and 5) in their study population. “We only have data on ticagrelor for this important group, which accounted for 30% of the THALES study population,” he noted.

“Some people are concerned about the limited efficacy of clopidogrel in large subgroups of patients who do not metabolize it to its active form, but on the flip side, clopidogrel is cheaper – though a 21- to 30-day course [of ticagrelor] probably isn’t that costly – and has more data in combination with aspirin,” he added.

Dr. Johnston said that the approval of ticagrelor for this new indication was “reassuring,” and “provides some air cover for practitioners given the risks of hemorrhage.” He added: “We didn’t bother with an FDA submission after POINT because it was an NIH-sponsored trial. The drug company normally prioritizes regulatory approvals for marketing purposes but their interests were limited because clopidogrel has exceeded its patent life.”

Cost-utility analyses are not yet available, but Dr. Johnston noted: “I suspect both drugs will have substantial benefits and be cost saving. Stroke is expensive, particularly disabling stroke.”

Dr. Johnston said that the more important message is: “Get these people on dual-antiplatelet therapy as soon as possible. Too many patients are not getting the right treatment immediately after symptom onset. We have lots of work to do here.”
 

Reassuring information

Commenting on the research, J. David Spence, MD, professor of neurology at the Robarts Research Institute, London, Ont., who was not involved in the THALES trial, said this new analysis provided useful and important information that should reassure and encourage clinicians to use dual-antiplatelet therapy in this patient population.

He pointed out that the shift analysis gives the most clinically relevant results. “While the number of patients with a disabling stroke defined as an mRS greater than 1 is lower in the ticagrelor group, I am much more interested in the effect on more severe disability levels – those with an mRS score of 3 or more. Those are the disabilities that we really want to prevent. And from examining the shift analysis distribution, we can see that these more severe disabilities are being reduced with ticagrelor.”

Dr. Spence believes the benefit/risk ratio of dual-antiplatelet therapy could be further improved by better control of blood pressure. “The absolute risk of severe hemorrhage was low in this study, but in my view, most of this could have been prevented by better control of hypertension, as 20 of the 28 severe hemorrhages in the ticagrelor group were intracranial bleeds which can be significantly reduced by good blood pressure control.

“In my view, the increased risk of hemorrhage with dual-antiplatelet therapy should not be regarded as inevitable; it can be virtually eliminated with better medical care,” he stated.

Another outside commentator, Peter Rothwell, MD, PhD, professor of neurology, University of Oxford (England), also believes this is an important paper. “The main NEJM report presented the data on overall disability, but did not present a clear analysis of the effect of ticagrelor plus aspirin on disabling recurrent stroke, but disability in all patients is mainly determined by nonvascular premorbid disability and by the effects of the initial prerandomization stroke. It was highly unlikely that ticagrelor plus aspirin would change these pretrial factors. The only thing that treatment could change was the severity of any posttreatment recurrent stroke, which it did,” he said.

“There is evidence that aspirin plus clopidogrel has the same effect on disabling recurrent stroke. So we now know that ticagrelor plus aspirin also has this effect, which informs consideration of the relative merits of the two treatment strategies,” Dr. Rothwell added.

The THALES trial was sponsored by Astra Zeneca. Dr. Johnston reports support from Sanofi and AstraZeneca outside the submitted work. Dr. Amarenco reports grants and personal fees from AstraZeneca and Bristol-Myers Squibb during the conduct of the study. 

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

Additional results from the THALES trial have shown that 1 month’s dual antiplatelet therapy with ticagrelor (Brilinta; Astra Zeneca) plus aspirin is associated with a reduction in disabling stroke, compared with aspirin alone in patients with minor stroke or high-risk transient ischemic attack (TIA).

Primary results of the THALES trial, published earlier this year in the New England Journal of Medicine, showed a reduction in the primary endpoint of stroke or death within 30 days with the combination of ticagrelor plus aspirin versus aspirin alone, although this was accompanied by an increase in bleeding. In terms of risk/benefit, the main results showed that for every 1,000 patients treatment with ticagrelor on top of aspirin would prevent 11 strokes or deaths at the cost of four severe hemorrhages.

The current exploratory analysis, which focuses on the severity of the strokes occurring in the trial, was published online Nov. 7 in JAMA Neurology to coincide with its presentation at the European Stroke Organisation-World Stroke Organization Conference 2020.

Results showed that, compared with aspirin alone, ticagrelor plus aspirin significantly reduced the 30-day risk for disabling stroke or death (4.0% versus 4.7%), and the total disability burden (the shift analysis of the distribution of modified Rankin scale) following subsequent ischemic stroke was reduced by a significant 23%.

“This new information on disabling stroke underlines the importance of getting patients on dual antiplatelet therapy quickly after a TIA or mild stroke,” said principal investigator of the THALES trial, S. Claiborne Johnston, MD, PhD.

Dr. Johnston, who is dean of Dell Medical School at the University of Texas at Austin, added: “It’s reassuring that ticagrelor has this effect, which was pretty robust. An accompanying editorial to the THALES publication in the NEJM incorrectly stated that ticagrelor did not reduce risk of disabling stroke, so it is good to be able to correct that misconception with this new data.”

Lead author of the exploratory analysis, Pierre Amarenco, MD, professor of neurology at Bichat University Hospital, Paris, added: “The main results showed that ticagrelor on top of aspirin reduced stroke but now we have new information showing reduction in disabling stroke. Obviously, these are the most important types of stroke to prevent. These are the strokes that will impact patients functionally.”

The THALES trial included 11,016 patients with a noncardioembolic, nonsevere ischemic stroke (National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale [NIHSS] score ≤ 5) or high-risk TIA, of whom 10,803 had modified Rankin Scale (mRS) functional score recorded at 30 days. 

They were randomized within 24 hours of symptom onset to ticagrelor (180-mg loading dose on day 1 followed by 90 mg twice daily for 1 month) or placebo. All patients received aspirin (300-325 mg on day 1 followed by 75-100 mg daily for 1 month).

In the new analysis, time to occurrence of disabling stroke (mRS greater than 1) or death within 30 days occurred in 221 of 5,511 patients (4.0%) randomized to ticagrelor and in 260 of 5,478 patients (4.7%) randomized to placebo (hazard ratio, 0.83; P = .04).

The ordinal analysis of mRS in patients with recurrent stroke showed a shift of the disability burden following a recurrent ischemic stroke in favor of ticagrelor (odds ratio, 0.77; P = .002).

Factors associated with disability were baseline NIHSS score of 4-5, ipsilateral stenosis of at least 30%, Asian race/ethnicity, older age, and higher systolic blood pressure.

Asked how the current results compared with observations reported in the main NEJM paper of similar incidences of disability (mRS > 1) in the two groups, Dr. Johnston explained that the result in the original paper looked at disability in the overall population, not just those who went on to have a stroke during follow-up. 

“The problem with looking at overall disability is that most of it is actually from the index stroke (the one that led to the patient being enrolled in the trial). That creates a lot of noise that overwhelms the benefit in reducing disability due to new stroke, the thing we really care about and the subject of the new paper,” he commented.
 

Ticagrelor or clopidogrel?

Ticagrelor now becomes the second antiplatelet agent to have shown benefits on top of aspirin in the minor stroke and high-risk TIA population. Clopidogrel also showed a reduction in major ischemic events in the POINT trial as well as in the Chinese CHANCE trial in similar populations.

Dr. Amarenco pointed out, however, that until now the only treatment that has been shown to reduce disabling stroke in the minor stroke/high risk TIA population in a single trial is aspirin. “The CHANCE and POINT trials of clopidogrel did not show a reduction in disabling stroke individually but this was observed when the trials were combined,” he noted. 

“Clinicians will now have to choose between ticagrelor and clopidogrel. We don’t have a head-to-head comparison yet but ticagrelor is effective in all patients whereas clopidogrel may not be as effective in the large subgroup of patients who carry the loss of function gene which make up about 20% of the western population and about 40% of the Asian population,” he said. 

“It is very important in the acute phase of stroke to know that the antiplatelet drug is immediately effective as the risk of a recurrent event is highest in the first few hours and days.”

Dr. Amarenco acknowledged that some hospitals may favor clopidogrel because of cost, as it is available generically so is much cheaper than ticagrelor. “But we are only talking about 30 days of treatment, so cost is not too much of an issue,” he pointed out.  

The Food and Drug Administration recently approved use of ticagrelor in this indication on the basis of the THALES study.

“It is great news that vascular neurologists now have a new player for reducing future stroke in these patients,” Dr. Amarenco said. Clopidogrel is not approved for this indication but is recommended in American Heart Association/American Stroke Association guidelines, he added.  

Dr. Johnston, who was also the lead investigator of the POINT trial with clopidogrel, suggested that it is more important to get patients on dual-antiplatelet therapy rather than worrying too much about which agent to use. “I think we can use aspirin plus either ticagrelor or clopidogrel. The effect on disabling stroke was not significant in POINT but it did reach significance in a meta-analysis combining POINT and CHANCE,” he noted.

He said that choosing between ticagrelor and clopidogrel is tricky without head-to-head data. “Differences in the studied populations makes direct comparison of the trials unwise,” he stressed.

Dr. Johnston pointed out that neither of the clopidogrel trials included moderate strokes (NIHSS scores of 4 and 5) in their study population. “We only have data on ticagrelor for this important group, which accounted for 30% of the THALES study population,” he noted.

“Some people are concerned about the limited efficacy of clopidogrel in large subgroups of patients who do not metabolize it to its active form, but on the flip side, clopidogrel is cheaper – though a 21- to 30-day course [of ticagrelor] probably isn’t that costly – and has more data in combination with aspirin,” he added.

Dr. Johnston said that the approval of ticagrelor for this new indication was “reassuring,” and “provides some air cover for practitioners given the risks of hemorrhage.” He added: “We didn’t bother with an FDA submission after POINT because it was an NIH-sponsored trial. The drug company normally prioritizes regulatory approvals for marketing purposes but their interests were limited because clopidogrel has exceeded its patent life.”

Cost-utility analyses are not yet available, but Dr. Johnston noted: “I suspect both drugs will have substantial benefits and be cost saving. Stroke is expensive, particularly disabling stroke.”

Dr. Johnston said that the more important message is: “Get these people on dual-antiplatelet therapy as soon as possible. Too many patients are not getting the right treatment immediately after symptom onset. We have lots of work to do here.”
 

Reassuring information

Commenting on the research, J. David Spence, MD, professor of neurology at the Robarts Research Institute, London, Ont., who was not involved in the THALES trial, said this new analysis provided useful and important information that should reassure and encourage clinicians to use dual-antiplatelet therapy in this patient population.

He pointed out that the shift analysis gives the most clinically relevant results. “While the number of patients with a disabling stroke defined as an mRS greater than 1 is lower in the ticagrelor group, I am much more interested in the effect on more severe disability levels – those with an mRS score of 3 or more. Those are the disabilities that we really want to prevent. And from examining the shift analysis distribution, we can see that these more severe disabilities are being reduced with ticagrelor.”

Dr. Spence believes the benefit/risk ratio of dual-antiplatelet therapy could be further improved by better control of blood pressure. “The absolute risk of severe hemorrhage was low in this study, but in my view, most of this could have been prevented by better control of hypertension, as 20 of the 28 severe hemorrhages in the ticagrelor group were intracranial bleeds which can be significantly reduced by good blood pressure control.

“In my view, the increased risk of hemorrhage with dual-antiplatelet therapy should not be regarded as inevitable; it can be virtually eliminated with better medical care,” he stated.

Another outside commentator, Peter Rothwell, MD, PhD, professor of neurology, University of Oxford (England), also believes this is an important paper. “The main NEJM report presented the data on overall disability, but did not present a clear analysis of the effect of ticagrelor plus aspirin on disabling recurrent stroke, but disability in all patients is mainly determined by nonvascular premorbid disability and by the effects of the initial prerandomization stroke. It was highly unlikely that ticagrelor plus aspirin would change these pretrial factors. The only thing that treatment could change was the severity of any posttreatment recurrent stroke, which it did,” he said.

“There is evidence that aspirin plus clopidogrel has the same effect on disabling recurrent stroke. So we now know that ticagrelor plus aspirin also has this effect, which informs consideration of the relative merits of the two treatment strategies,” Dr. Rothwell added.

The THALES trial was sponsored by Astra Zeneca. Dr. Johnston reports support from Sanofi and AstraZeneca outside the submitted work. Dr. Amarenco reports grants and personal fees from AstraZeneca and Bristol-Myers Squibb during the conduct of the study. 

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

Higher levels of air pollution were associated with an increased risk for amyloid-beta pathology in a new study of older adults with cognitive impairment. “Many studies have now found a link between air pollution and clinical outcomes of dementia or cognitive decline,” said lead author Leonardo Iaccarino, PhD, Weill Institute for Neurosciences, University of California, San Francisco. “But this study is now showing a clear link between air pollution and a biomarker of Alzheimer’s disease: It shows a relationship between bad air quality and pathology in the brain.

“We believe that exposure to air pollution should be considered as one factor in the lifetime risk of developing Alzheimer’s disease,” he added. “We believe it is a significant determinant. Our results suggest that, if we can reduce occupational and residential exposure to air pollution, then this could help reduce the risk of Alzheimer’s disease.”

The study was published online Nov. 30 in JAMA Neurology.
 

A modifiable risk factor

Dr. Iaccarino explained that it is well known that air pollution is linked to poor health outcomes. “As well as cardiovascular and respiratory disease, there is also growing interest in the relationship between air pollution and brain health,” he said. “The link is becoming more and more convincing, with evidence from laboratory, animal, and human studies suggesting that individuals exposed to poor air quality have an increased risk of cognitive decline and dementia.”

In addition, this year, the Lancet Commission included air pollution in its updated list of modifiable risk factors for dementia.

For the current study, the researchers analyzed data from the Imaging Dementia–Evidence for Amyloid Scanning (IDEAS) Study, which included more than 18,000 U.S. participants with cognitive impairment who received an amyloid positron-emission tomography scan between 2016 and 2018.

The investigators used data from the IDEAS study to assess the relationship between the air quality at the place of residence of each patient and the likelihood of a positive amyloid PET result. Public records from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency were used to estimate air quality in individual ZIP-code areas during two periods – 2002-2003 (approximately 14 years before the amyloid PET scan) and 2015-2016 (approximately 1 year before the amyloid PET scan).

Results showed that those living in an area with increased air pollution, as determined using concentrations of predicted fine particulate matter (PM2.5), had a higher probability of a positive amyloid PET scan. This association was dose dependent and statistically significant after adjusting for demographic, lifestyle, and socioeconomic factors as well as medical comorbidities. The association was seen in both periods; the adjusted odds ratio was 1.10 in 2002-2003 and 1.15 in 2015-2016.

“This shows about a 10% increased probability of a positive amyloid test for individuals living in the worst polluted areas, compared with those in the least polluted areas,” Dr. Iaccarino explained.

Every unit increase in PM2.5 in 2002-2003 was associated with an increased probability of positive amyloid findings on PET of 0.5%. Every unit increase in PM2.5 in for the 2015-2016 period was associated with an increased probability of positive amyloid findings on PET of 0.8%.

“This was a very large cohort study, and we adjusted for multiple other factors, so these are pretty robust findings,” Dr. Iaccarino said.

Exposure to higher ozone concentrations was not associated with amyloid positivity on PET scans in either time window.

“These findings suggest that brain amyloid-beta accumulation could be one of the biological pathways in the increased incidence of dementia and cognitive decline associated with exposure to air pollution,” the researchers stated.
 

A public health concern

“Adverse effects of airborne toxic pollutants associated with amyloid-beta pathology should be considered in public health policy decisions and should inform individual lifetime risk of developing Alzheimer’s disease and dementia,” they concluded.

Dr. Iaccarino noted that, although governments need to take primary action in reducing air pollution, individuals can make some changes to reduce their exposure to poor-quality air.

“Such changes could include not going out or using masks when pollution levels are very high (as happened recently in California with the wildfires) and avoiding areas where the air quality is known to be bad. In addition, there are activities which increase indoor air pollution which can be changed, such as certain types of cooking, cigarette smoking, use of coal fires,” he commented.

“Based on our findings, it would be reasonable to take action on these things, especially for individuals at higher risk of cardiovascular and respiratory disease or Alzheimer’s,” he added.

On a more optimistic note, Dr. Iaccarino pointed out that air quality in the United States has improved significantly in recent years. Meaningful improvements were found between the two periods in this analysis study (2002-2016), “so we are going in the right direction.”

The IDEAS Study was funded by the Alzheimer’s Association, the American College of Radiology, Avid Radiopharmaceuticals, GE Healthcare, and Life Molecular Imaging. Dr. Iaccarino has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Higher levels of air pollution were associated with an increased risk for amyloid-beta pathology in a new study of older adults with cognitive impairment. “Many studies have now found a link between air pollution and clinical outcomes of dementia or cognitive decline,” said lead author Leonardo Iaccarino, PhD, Weill Institute for Neurosciences, University of California, San Francisco. “But this study is now showing a clear link between air pollution and a biomarker of Alzheimer’s disease: It shows a relationship between bad air quality and pathology in the brain.

“We believe that exposure to air pollution should be considered as one factor in the lifetime risk of developing Alzheimer’s disease,” he added. “We believe it is a significant determinant. Our results suggest that, if we can reduce occupational and residential exposure to air pollution, then this could help reduce the risk of Alzheimer’s disease.”

The study was published online Nov. 30 in JAMA Neurology.
 

A modifiable risk factor

Dr. Iaccarino explained that it is well known that air pollution is linked to poor health outcomes. “As well as cardiovascular and respiratory disease, there is also growing interest in the relationship between air pollution and brain health,” he said. “The link is becoming more and more convincing, with evidence from laboratory, animal, and human studies suggesting that individuals exposed to poor air quality have an increased risk of cognitive decline and dementia.”

In addition, this year, the Lancet Commission included air pollution in its updated list of modifiable risk factors for dementia.

For the current study, the researchers analyzed data from the Imaging Dementia–Evidence for Amyloid Scanning (IDEAS) Study, which included more than 18,000 U.S. participants with cognitive impairment who received an amyloid positron-emission tomography scan between 2016 and 2018.

The investigators used data from the IDEAS study to assess the relationship between the air quality at the place of residence of each patient and the likelihood of a positive amyloid PET result. Public records from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency were used to estimate air quality in individual ZIP-code areas during two periods – 2002-2003 (approximately 14 years before the amyloid PET scan) and 2015-2016 (approximately 1 year before the amyloid PET scan).

Results showed that those living in an area with increased air pollution, as determined using concentrations of predicted fine particulate matter (PM2.5), had a higher probability of a positive amyloid PET scan. This association was dose dependent and statistically significant after adjusting for demographic, lifestyle, and socioeconomic factors as well as medical comorbidities. The association was seen in both periods; the adjusted odds ratio was 1.10 in 2002-2003 and 1.15 in 2015-2016.

“This shows about a 10% increased probability of a positive amyloid test for individuals living in the worst polluted areas, compared with those in the least polluted areas,” Dr. Iaccarino explained.

Every unit increase in PM2.5 in 2002-2003 was associated with an increased probability of positive amyloid findings on PET of 0.5%. Every unit increase in PM2.5 in for the 2015-2016 period was associated with an increased probability of positive amyloid findings on PET of 0.8%.

“This was a very large cohort study, and we adjusted for multiple other factors, so these are pretty robust findings,” Dr. Iaccarino said.

Exposure to higher ozone concentrations was not associated with amyloid positivity on PET scans in either time window.

“These findings suggest that brain amyloid-beta accumulation could be one of the biological pathways in the increased incidence of dementia and cognitive decline associated with exposure to air pollution,” the researchers stated.
 

A public health concern

“Adverse effects of airborne toxic pollutants associated with amyloid-beta pathology should be considered in public health policy decisions and should inform individual lifetime risk of developing Alzheimer’s disease and dementia,” they concluded.

Dr. Iaccarino noted that, although governments need to take primary action in reducing air pollution, individuals can make some changes to reduce their exposure to poor-quality air.

“Such changes could include not going out or using masks when pollution levels are very high (as happened recently in California with the wildfires) and avoiding areas where the air quality is known to be bad. In addition, there are activities which increase indoor air pollution which can be changed, such as certain types of cooking, cigarette smoking, use of coal fires,” he commented.

“Based on our findings, it would be reasonable to take action on these things, especially for individuals at higher risk of cardiovascular and respiratory disease or Alzheimer’s,” he added.

On a more optimistic note, Dr. Iaccarino pointed out that air quality in the United States has improved significantly in recent years. Meaningful improvements were found between the two periods in this analysis study (2002-2016), “so we are going in the right direction.”

The IDEAS Study was funded by the Alzheimer’s Association, the American College of Radiology, Avid Radiopharmaceuticals, GE Healthcare, and Life Molecular Imaging. Dr. Iaccarino has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Higher levels of air pollution were associated with an increased risk for amyloid-beta pathology in a new study of older adults with cognitive impairment. “Many studies have now found a link between air pollution and clinical outcomes of dementia or cognitive decline,” said lead author Leonardo Iaccarino, PhD, Weill Institute for Neurosciences, University of California, San Francisco. “But this study is now showing a clear link between air pollution and a biomarker of Alzheimer’s disease: It shows a relationship between bad air quality and pathology in the brain.

“We believe that exposure to air pollution should be considered as one factor in the lifetime risk of developing Alzheimer’s disease,” he added. “We believe it is a significant determinant. Our results suggest that, if we can reduce occupational and residential exposure to air pollution, then this could help reduce the risk of Alzheimer’s disease.”

The study was published online Nov. 30 in JAMA Neurology.
 

A modifiable risk factor

Dr. Iaccarino explained that it is well known that air pollution is linked to poor health outcomes. “As well as cardiovascular and respiratory disease, there is also growing interest in the relationship between air pollution and brain health,” he said. “The link is becoming more and more convincing, with evidence from laboratory, animal, and human studies suggesting that individuals exposed to poor air quality have an increased risk of cognitive decline and dementia.”

In addition, this year, the Lancet Commission included air pollution in its updated list of modifiable risk factors for dementia.

For the current study, the researchers analyzed data from the Imaging Dementia–Evidence for Amyloid Scanning (IDEAS) Study, which included more than 18,000 U.S. participants with cognitive impairment who received an amyloid positron-emission tomography scan between 2016 and 2018.

The investigators used data from the IDEAS study to assess the relationship between the air quality at the place of residence of each patient and the likelihood of a positive amyloid PET result. Public records from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency were used to estimate air quality in individual ZIP-code areas during two periods – 2002-2003 (approximately 14 years before the amyloid PET scan) and 2015-2016 (approximately 1 year before the amyloid PET scan).

Results showed that those living in an area with increased air pollution, as determined using concentrations of predicted fine particulate matter (PM2.5), had a higher probability of a positive amyloid PET scan. This association was dose dependent and statistically significant after adjusting for demographic, lifestyle, and socioeconomic factors as well as medical comorbidities. The association was seen in both periods; the adjusted odds ratio was 1.10 in 2002-2003 and 1.15 in 2015-2016.

“This shows about a 10% increased probability of a positive amyloid test for individuals living in the worst polluted areas, compared with those in the least polluted areas,” Dr. Iaccarino explained.

Every unit increase in PM2.5 in 2002-2003 was associated with an increased probability of positive amyloid findings on PET of 0.5%. Every unit increase in PM2.5 in for the 2015-2016 period was associated with an increased probability of positive amyloid findings on PET of 0.8%.

“This was a very large cohort study, and we adjusted for multiple other factors, so these are pretty robust findings,” Dr. Iaccarino said.

Exposure to higher ozone concentrations was not associated with amyloid positivity on PET scans in either time window.

“These findings suggest that brain amyloid-beta accumulation could be one of the biological pathways in the increased incidence of dementia and cognitive decline associated with exposure to air pollution,” the researchers stated.
 

A public health concern

“Adverse effects of airborne toxic pollutants associated with amyloid-beta pathology should be considered in public health policy decisions and should inform individual lifetime risk of developing Alzheimer’s disease and dementia,” they concluded.

Dr. Iaccarino noted that, although governments need to take primary action in reducing air pollution, individuals can make some changes to reduce their exposure to poor-quality air.

“Such changes could include not going out or using masks when pollution levels are very high (as happened recently in California with the wildfires) and avoiding areas where the air quality is known to be bad. In addition, there are activities which increase indoor air pollution which can be changed, such as certain types of cooking, cigarette smoking, use of coal fires,” he commented.

“Based on our findings, it would be reasonable to take action on these things, especially for individuals at higher risk of cardiovascular and respiratory disease or Alzheimer’s,” he added.

On a more optimistic note, Dr. Iaccarino pointed out that air quality in the United States has improved significantly in recent years. Meaningful improvements were found between the two periods in this analysis study (2002-2016), “so we are going in the right direction.”

The IDEAS Study was funded by the Alzheimer’s Association, the American College of Radiology, Avid Radiopharmaceuticals, GE Healthcare, and Life Molecular Imaging. Dr. Iaccarino has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

The risk of arterial and venous thrombosis in patients with COVID-19 has been a major issue throughout the pandemic, and how best to manage this risk is the subject of a new review article.

The article, by Gregory Dr. Piazza, MD, and David A. Morrow, MD, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, was published online in JAMA on Nov. 23.

“Basically we’re saying: ‘Be proactive about prevention,’” Dr. Piazza told this news organization.

There is growing recognition among those on the frontline that there is an increased risk of thrombosis in COVID-19 patients, Dr. Piazza said. The risk is highest in patients in the intensive care unit, but the risk is also increased in patients hospitalized with COVID-19, even those not in ICU.

“We don’t really know what the risk is in nonhospitalized COVID-19 patients, but we think it’s much lower than in those who are hospitalized,” he said. “We are waiting for data on the optimal way of managing this increased risk of thrombosis in COVID patients, but for the time being, we believe a systematic way of addressing this risk is best, with every patient hospitalized with COVID-19 receiving some type of thromboprophylaxis. This would mainly be with anticoagulation, but in patients in whom anticoagulation is contraindicated, then mechanical methods could be used, such as pneumatic compression boots or compression stockings.”

The authors report thrombotic complication rates of 2.6% in noncritically ill hospitalized patients with COVID-19 and 35.3% in critically ill patients from a recent U.S. registry study.

Autopsy findings of microthrombi in multiple organ systems, including the lungs, heart, and kidneys, suggest that thrombosis may contribute to multisystem organ dysfunction in severe COVID-19, they note. Although the pathophysiology is not fully defined, prothrombotic abnormalities have been identified in patients with COVID-19, including elevated levels of D-dimer, fibrinogen, and factor VIII, they add.

“There are several major questions about which COVID-19 patients to treat with thromboprophylaxis, how to treat them in term of levels of anticoagulation, and there are many ongoing clinical trials to try and answer these questions,” Dr. Piazza commented. “We need results from these randomized trials to provide a better compass for COVID-19 patients at risk of clotting.”

At present, clinicians can follow two different sets of guidelines on the issue, one from the American College of Chest Physicians and the other from the International Society on Thrombosis and Hemostasis, the authors note.

“The ACCP guidelines are very conservative and basically follow the evidence base for medical patients, while the ISTH guidelines are more aggressive and recommend increased levels of anticoagulation in both ICU and hospitalized non-ICU patients and also extend prophylaxis after discharge,” Dr. Piazza said.

“There is quite a difference between the two sets of guidelines, which can be a point of confusion,” he added.

Dr. Piazza notes that at his center every hospitalized COVID patient who does not have a contraindication to anticoagulation receives a standard prophylactic dose of a once-daily low-molecular-weight heparin (for example, enoxaparin 40 mg). A once-daily product is used to minimize infection risk to staff.

While all COVID patients in the ICU should automatically receive some anticoagulation, the optimal dose is an area of active investigation, he explained. “There were several early reports of ICU patients developing blood clots despite receiving standard thromboprophylaxis so perhaps we need to use higher doses. There are trials underway looking at this, and we would advise enrolling patients into these trials.”

If patients can’t be enrolled into trials, and clinicians feel higher anticoagulation levels are needed, Dr. Piazza advises following the ISTH guidance, which allows an intermediate dose of low-molecular-weight heparin (up to 1 mg/kg enoxaparin).

“Some experts are suggesting even higher doses may be needed in some ICU patients, such as the full therapeutic dose, but I worry about the risk of bleeding with such a strategy,” he said.

Dr. Piazza says they do not routinely give anticoagulation after discharge, but if this is desired then patients could be switched to an oral agent, and some of the direct-acting oral anticoagulants are approved for prophylactic use in medically ill patients.

Dr. Piazza points out that whether thromboprophylaxis should be used for nonhospitalized COVID patients who have risk factors for clotting such as a prior history of thrombosis or obesity is a pressing question, and he encourages clinicians to enroll these patients in clinical trials evaluating this issue, such as the PREVENT-HD trial.

“If they can’t enroll patents in a trial, then they have to make a decision whether the patient is high-enough risk to justify off-label use of anticoagulant. There is a case to be made for this, but there is no evidence for or against such action at present,” he noted.

At this time, neither the ISTH nor ACCP recommend measuring D-dimer to screen for venous thromboembolism or to determine intensity of prophylaxis or treatment, the authors note.

“Ongoing investigation will determine optimal preventive regimens in COVID-19 in the intensive care unit, at hospital discharge, and in nonhospitalized patients at high risk for thrombosis,” they conclude.

Dr. Piazza reported grants from Bayer, Bristol Myers Squibb, Boston Scientific, Janssen, and Portola, and personal fees from Agile, Amgen, Pfizer, and the Prairie Education and Research Cooperative outside the submitted work. Dr. Morrow reported grants from Abbott Laboratories, Amgen, Anthos Therapeutics, Esai, GlaxoSmithKline, Takeda, and The Medicines Company; grants and personal fees from AstraZeneca, Merck, Novartis, and Roche Diagnostics; and personal fees from Bayer Pharma and InCarda outside the submitted work.

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

The risk of arterial and venous thrombosis in patients with COVID-19 has been a major issue throughout the pandemic, and how best to manage this risk is the subject of a new review article.

The article, by Gregory Dr. Piazza, MD, and David A. Morrow, MD, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, was published online in JAMA on Nov. 23.

“Basically we’re saying: ‘Be proactive about prevention,’” Dr. Piazza told this news organization.

There is growing recognition among those on the frontline that there is an increased risk of thrombosis in COVID-19 patients, Dr. Piazza said. The risk is highest in patients in the intensive care unit, but the risk is also increased in patients hospitalized with COVID-19, even those not in ICU.

“We don’t really know what the risk is in nonhospitalized COVID-19 patients, but we think it’s much lower than in those who are hospitalized,” he said. “We are waiting for data on the optimal way of managing this increased risk of thrombosis in COVID patients, but for the time being, we believe a systematic way of addressing this risk is best, with every patient hospitalized with COVID-19 receiving some type of thromboprophylaxis. This would mainly be with anticoagulation, but in patients in whom anticoagulation is contraindicated, then mechanical methods could be used, such as pneumatic compression boots or compression stockings.”

The authors report thrombotic complication rates of 2.6% in noncritically ill hospitalized patients with COVID-19 and 35.3% in critically ill patients from a recent U.S. registry study.

Autopsy findings of microthrombi in multiple organ systems, including the lungs, heart, and kidneys, suggest that thrombosis may contribute to multisystem organ dysfunction in severe COVID-19, they note. Although the pathophysiology is not fully defined, prothrombotic abnormalities have been identified in patients with COVID-19, including elevated levels of D-dimer, fibrinogen, and factor VIII, they add.

“There are several major questions about which COVID-19 patients to treat with thromboprophylaxis, how to treat them in term of levels of anticoagulation, and there are many ongoing clinical trials to try and answer these questions,” Dr. Piazza commented. “We need results from these randomized trials to provide a better compass for COVID-19 patients at risk of clotting.”

At present, clinicians can follow two different sets of guidelines on the issue, one from the American College of Chest Physicians and the other from the International Society on Thrombosis and Hemostasis, the authors note.

“The ACCP guidelines are very conservative and basically follow the evidence base for medical patients, while the ISTH guidelines are more aggressive and recommend increased levels of anticoagulation in both ICU and hospitalized non-ICU patients and also extend prophylaxis after discharge,” Dr. Piazza said.

“There is quite a difference between the two sets of guidelines, which can be a point of confusion,” he added.

Dr. Piazza notes that at his center every hospitalized COVID patient who does not have a contraindication to anticoagulation receives a standard prophylactic dose of a once-daily low-molecular-weight heparin (for example, enoxaparin 40 mg). A once-daily product is used to minimize infection risk to staff.

While all COVID patients in the ICU should automatically receive some anticoagulation, the optimal dose is an area of active investigation, he explained. “There were several early reports of ICU patients developing blood clots despite receiving standard thromboprophylaxis so perhaps we need to use higher doses. There are trials underway looking at this, and we would advise enrolling patients into these trials.”

If patients can’t be enrolled into trials, and clinicians feel higher anticoagulation levels are needed, Dr. Piazza advises following the ISTH guidance, which allows an intermediate dose of low-molecular-weight heparin (up to 1 mg/kg enoxaparin).

“Some experts are suggesting even higher doses may be needed in some ICU patients, such as the full therapeutic dose, but I worry about the risk of bleeding with such a strategy,” he said.

Dr. Piazza says they do not routinely give anticoagulation after discharge, but if this is desired then patients could be switched to an oral agent, and some of the direct-acting oral anticoagulants are approved for prophylactic use in medically ill patients.

Dr. Piazza points out that whether thromboprophylaxis should be used for nonhospitalized COVID patients who have risk factors for clotting such as a prior history of thrombosis or obesity is a pressing question, and he encourages clinicians to enroll these patients in clinical trials evaluating this issue, such as the PREVENT-HD trial.

“If they can’t enroll patents in a trial, then they have to make a decision whether the patient is high-enough risk to justify off-label use of anticoagulant. There is a case to be made for this, but there is no evidence for or against such action at present,” he noted.

At this time, neither the ISTH nor ACCP recommend measuring D-dimer to screen for venous thromboembolism or to determine intensity of prophylaxis or treatment, the authors note.

“Ongoing investigation will determine optimal preventive regimens in COVID-19 in the intensive care unit, at hospital discharge, and in nonhospitalized patients at high risk for thrombosis,” they conclude.

Dr. Piazza reported grants from Bayer, Bristol Myers Squibb, Boston Scientific, Janssen, and Portola, and personal fees from Agile, Amgen, Pfizer, and the Prairie Education and Research Cooperative outside the submitted work. Dr. Morrow reported grants from Abbott Laboratories, Amgen, Anthos Therapeutics, Esai, GlaxoSmithKline, Takeda, and The Medicines Company; grants and personal fees from AstraZeneca, Merck, Novartis, and Roche Diagnostics; and personal fees from Bayer Pharma and InCarda outside the submitted work.

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

The risk of arterial and venous thrombosis in patients with COVID-19 has been a major issue throughout the pandemic, and how best to manage this risk is the subject of a new review article.

The article, by Gregory Dr. Piazza, MD, and David A. Morrow, MD, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, was published online in JAMA on Nov. 23.

“Basically we’re saying: ‘Be proactive about prevention,’” Dr. Piazza told this news organization.

There is growing recognition among those on the frontline that there is an increased risk of thrombosis in COVID-19 patients, Dr. Piazza said. The risk is highest in patients in the intensive care unit, but the risk is also increased in patients hospitalized with COVID-19, even those not in ICU.

“We don’t really know what the risk is in nonhospitalized COVID-19 patients, but we think it’s much lower than in those who are hospitalized,” he said. “We are waiting for data on the optimal way of managing this increased risk of thrombosis in COVID patients, but for the time being, we believe a systematic way of addressing this risk is best, with every patient hospitalized with COVID-19 receiving some type of thromboprophylaxis. This would mainly be with anticoagulation, but in patients in whom anticoagulation is contraindicated, then mechanical methods could be used, such as pneumatic compression boots or compression stockings.”

The authors report thrombotic complication rates of 2.6% in noncritically ill hospitalized patients with COVID-19 and 35.3% in critically ill patients from a recent U.S. registry study.

Autopsy findings of microthrombi in multiple organ systems, including the lungs, heart, and kidneys, suggest that thrombosis may contribute to multisystem organ dysfunction in severe COVID-19, they note. Although the pathophysiology is not fully defined, prothrombotic abnormalities have been identified in patients with COVID-19, including elevated levels of D-dimer, fibrinogen, and factor VIII, they add.

“There are several major questions about which COVID-19 patients to treat with thromboprophylaxis, how to treat them in term of levels of anticoagulation, and there are many ongoing clinical trials to try and answer these questions,” Dr. Piazza commented. “We need results from these randomized trials to provide a better compass for COVID-19 patients at risk of clotting.”

At present, clinicians can follow two different sets of guidelines on the issue, one from the American College of Chest Physicians and the other from the International Society on Thrombosis and Hemostasis, the authors note.

“The ACCP guidelines are very conservative and basically follow the evidence base for medical patients, while the ISTH guidelines are more aggressive and recommend increased levels of anticoagulation in both ICU and hospitalized non-ICU patients and also extend prophylaxis after discharge,” Dr. Piazza said.

“There is quite a difference between the two sets of guidelines, which can be a point of confusion,” he added.

Dr. Piazza notes that at his center every hospitalized COVID patient who does not have a contraindication to anticoagulation receives a standard prophylactic dose of a once-daily low-molecular-weight heparin (for example, enoxaparin 40 mg). A once-daily product is used to minimize infection risk to staff.

While all COVID patients in the ICU should automatically receive some anticoagulation, the optimal dose is an area of active investigation, he explained. “There were several early reports of ICU patients developing blood clots despite receiving standard thromboprophylaxis so perhaps we need to use higher doses. There are trials underway looking at this, and we would advise enrolling patients into these trials.”

If patients can’t be enrolled into trials, and clinicians feel higher anticoagulation levels are needed, Dr. Piazza advises following the ISTH guidance, which allows an intermediate dose of low-molecular-weight heparin (up to 1 mg/kg enoxaparin).

“Some experts are suggesting even higher doses may be needed in some ICU patients, such as the full therapeutic dose, but I worry about the risk of bleeding with such a strategy,” he said.

Dr. Piazza says they do not routinely give anticoagulation after discharge, but if this is desired then patients could be switched to an oral agent, and some of the direct-acting oral anticoagulants are approved for prophylactic use in medically ill patients.

Dr. Piazza points out that whether thromboprophylaxis should be used for nonhospitalized COVID patients who have risk factors for clotting such as a prior history of thrombosis or obesity is a pressing question, and he encourages clinicians to enroll these patients in clinical trials evaluating this issue, such as the PREVENT-HD trial.

“If they can’t enroll patents in a trial, then they have to make a decision whether the patient is high-enough risk to justify off-label use of anticoagulant. There is a case to be made for this, but there is no evidence for or against such action at present,” he noted.

At this time, neither the ISTH nor ACCP recommend measuring D-dimer to screen for venous thromboembolism or to determine intensity of prophylaxis or treatment, the authors note.

“Ongoing investigation will determine optimal preventive regimens in COVID-19 in the intensive care unit, at hospital discharge, and in nonhospitalized patients at high risk for thrombosis,” they conclude.

Dr. Piazza reported grants from Bayer, Bristol Myers Squibb, Boston Scientific, Janssen, and Portola, and personal fees from Agile, Amgen, Pfizer, and the Prairie Education and Research Cooperative outside the submitted work. Dr. Morrow reported grants from Abbott Laboratories, Amgen, Anthos Therapeutics, Esai, GlaxoSmithKline, Takeda, and The Medicines Company; grants and personal fees from AstraZeneca, Merck, Novartis, and Roche Diagnostics; and personal fees from Bayer Pharma and InCarda outside the submitted work.

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

Questions about the cardiovascular benefit of omega-3 fatty acids and the high-dose eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA) product, icosapent ethyl (Vascepa, Amarin), have resurfaced with the presentation and publication of the STRENGTH trial using a combined high-dose omega-3 fatty acid product.

The STRENGTH trial showed no benefit on cardiovascular event rates of a high-dose combination of EPA and docosahexaenoic acid (DHA) in a new branded product (Epanova, AstraZeneca).

It was announced in January that the trial was being stopped because of a low likelihood of showing any benefit.

Full results were presented Nov. 15 at the virtual American Heart Association scientific sessions and simultaneously published online in JAMA.

These results showed similar cardiovascular event rates with the high-dose EPA/DHA product and placebo, with a hazard ratio for the primary endpoint of 0.99. In addition to no benefit, more adverse effects occurred in the active treatment arm, with a higher rate of gastrointestinal adverse events and atrial fibrillation.

“We found no benefit of a high-dose combination of EPA and DHA. Despite a 270% to 300% increase in EPA, the hazard curves for the active and placebo groups were superimposable,” STRENGTH investigator A. Michael Lincoff, MD, of the Cleveland Clinic, said at the AHA meeting.

The big question is how the negative results of the STRENGTH trial can be reconciled with the very positive results of the REDUCE-IT trial, which showed an impressive 25% relative risk reduction in major adverse cardiovascular events with the high-dose purified EPA product, icosapent ethyl.  

Dr. Lincoff proposed several possible explanations for the different results between these two trials, although he cautioned that all explanations were speculative.

The one explanation that Dr. Lincoff highlighted in particular was the different placebos used in the two trials. REDUCE-IT used a placebo of mineral oil, which Dr. Lincoff noted increases LDL, apolipoprotein B, and high-sensitivity C-reactive protein, whereas the corn oil placebo used in STRENGTH “is truly neutral on a broad range lipid and cardiovascular biomarkers,” he said.

“It must therefore be considered that at least part of the benefit in REDUCE-IT is due to an increase in adverse cardiovascular event rate in the control arm, and our results from STRENGTH cast uncertainly on the net benefit or harm of any omega-3 fatty acid preparation,” Dr. Lincoff said.

Asked whether he used omega-3 fatty acids in his practice, Dr. Lincoff replied, “Aside from patients with triglycerides greater than 500 – for which there is other evidence of benefit – I do not routinely prescribe omega-3 fatty acids. For the reasons discussed, I think there are questions about whether the risks and benefits have a favorable ratio.”

Asked at an AHA press conference what advice he would give to other physicians on the use of Vascepa, Dr. Lincoff said, “On the one hand, we could take the REDUCE-IT study results at face value, but there are potential concerns on the construct of that trial and whether the effects were exaggerated. That having been said, the [Food and Drug Administration] has approved that initial indication, so this is not a straightforward issue of whether or not that trial result is valid.

“What I would like to see is a trial in future with a clearly neutral comparator. It’s hard to recommend taking your patients off Vascepa now, but I have a high threshold at this point to start patients on it because of these concerns,” he added.

A “manufactured controversy”

The lead investigator of the REDUCE-IT trial, Deepak L. Bhatt, MD, professor of medicine, Harvard Medical School, Boston, described Dr. Lincoff’s comments as “absurd.”

In an interview, he said the Japanese JELIS trial, while having some limitations, also showed a benefit of icosapent ethyl, which “in the context of this manufactured controversy about the mineral oil placebo in REDUCE-IT, completely rebuts concerns about the placebo in REDUCE-IT being toxic.”

Dr. Bhatt also suggested that DHA may counter some of the benefits of EPA. “It appears that the STRENGTH trial leadership is trying to stir up controversy, rather than just reporting objectively that they have a negative trial,” he added.

Dr. Lincoff outlined other possible explanations for the difference between the two trials. 

He noted that icosapent ethyl increased levels of EPA by 45% in REDUCE-IT more than did the combined product used in STRENGTH. “But this moderate difference seems insufficient to account for the markedly different results of the two trials,” Dr. Lincoff added, “and both trials showed a 19% reduction in triglycerides, suggesting they have similar biochemical effects.”   

There is also the possibility of an adverse effect of DHA, he noted, “but this has never been seen in previous studies.”  

Another explanation could be differences in trial populations, with REDUCE-IT including more patients with established cardiovascular disease. “But the results were no different in this group compared to the patients without established cardiovascular disease, so this explanation is unlikely,” Dr. Lincoff suggested.  

STRENGTH trial

The STRENGTH trial included 13,078 statin-treated participants with high cardiovascular risk, hypertriglyceridemia, and low levels of HDL cholesterol from 22 countries.

They were randomly assigned to a 4 g per day of carboxylic acid formulation of EPA and DHA or to corn oil as an inert comparator.

The trial was halted when 1,384 patients had experienced a primary endpoint event (of a planned 1,600 events), based on an interim analysis that indicated a low probability of clinical benefit of the active treatment. 

At this point, the primary efficacy endpoint – a composite of cardiovascular death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, nonfatal stroke, coronary revascularization, or unstable angina requiring hospitalization – occurred in 12.0% of patients treated with the omega-3 product vs. 12.2% of those who received corn oil (hazard ratio [HR], 0.99; P = .84).

A greater rate of gastrointestinal adverse events was observed in the omega-3 group (24.7%) than in corn oil–treated patients (14.7%). An increased rate of new-onset atrial fibrillation was also observed in the omega-3 group (2.2% vs 1.3%; HR, 1.69). 
 

Uncertainty prevails

The moderator of an AHA press conference at which the STRENGTH trial was discussed, Amit Khera, MD, professor of medicine and director of preventive cardiology at UT Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, said in an interview that questions about how Vascepa brought about the benefits shown in REDUCE-IT have been ongoing since that trial was published.

“I think for now, we have to accept the REDUCE-IT results as a positive finding. However, the STRENGTH trial did amplify these questions a bit since there was no signal at all for benefit, and this heightens the call for additional trials of high-dose EPA formulations, including icosapent ethyl, versus corn oil or another neutral comparator,” he said.    

Discussant of the STRENGTH trial at the AHA late-breaker session, Alberico Catapano, MD, PhD, University of Milan, noted that DHA may have less biological activity than EPA.

“We don’t know for certain, but there are studies suggesting that EPA may have more effect on stabilizing plaque membranes,” Dr. Catapano said. “Certainly, the dose of EPA was different in the two studies, and in my view this could be part of the explanation. But we are still in place where we need more evidence.”  

In an editorial accompanying the JAMA publication of STRENGTH, Garima Sharma, MD, Seth S. Martin, MD, and Roger S. Blumenthal, MD, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, said the trial’s findings “may invigorate further investigation regarding IPE [icosapent ethyl], generate additional constructive debate around the optimal placebo control, and should prompt reconsideration of over-the-counter mixed omega-3 fatty acid products for ASCVD [atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease] prevention.

“This latter point is especially important given the lack of evidence for benefit, and the potential for harm due to increased AF [atrial fibrillation],” they noted.

“The reasons the findings from the REDUCE-IT trial were positive and the STRENGTH trial were not, and that EPA levels correlated with outcomes in REDUCE-IT but did not in STRENGTH, remain uncertain,” they concluded. “The importance of the specific omega-3 formulation in achieving ASCVD risk reduction and the degree to which the placebo (i.e., mineral oil vs corn oil) may have affected outcomes remain unresolved.”

The STRENGTH trial was sponsored by AstraZeneca. Dr. Lincoff reported receiving grants from AstraZeneca during the conduct of the study. Dr. Catapano has received honoraria, lecture fees, or research grants from Sigma-Tau, Manarini, Kowa Pharmaceuticals, Recordati, Eli Lilly, AstraZeneca, Mediolanum, Pfizer, Merck, Sanofi, Aegerion, Amgen, Genzyme, Bayer, Sanofi, Regeneron Daiichi Sankyo, and Amarin. Dr. Martin reports receiving consulting fees from AstraZeneca, Amgen, Esperion, and REGENXBIO, and has a patent pending for a system of LDL-C estimation filed by Johns Hopkins University. Dr. Bhatt reports serving as principal investigator for REDUCE-IT and that Brigham and Women’s Hospital has received research funding from Amarin.

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

Questions about the cardiovascular benefit of omega-3 fatty acids and the high-dose eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA) product, icosapent ethyl (Vascepa, Amarin), have resurfaced with the presentation and publication of the STRENGTH trial using a combined high-dose omega-3 fatty acid product.

The STRENGTH trial showed no benefit on cardiovascular event rates of a high-dose combination of EPA and docosahexaenoic acid (DHA) in a new branded product (Epanova, AstraZeneca).

It was announced in January that the trial was being stopped because of a low likelihood of showing any benefit.

Full results were presented Nov. 15 at the virtual American Heart Association scientific sessions and simultaneously published online in JAMA.

These results showed similar cardiovascular event rates with the high-dose EPA/DHA product and placebo, with a hazard ratio for the primary endpoint of 0.99. In addition to no benefit, more adverse effects occurred in the active treatment arm, with a higher rate of gastrointestinal adverse events and atrial fibrillation.

“We found no benefit of a high-dose combination of EPA and DHA. Despite a 270% to 300% increase in EPA, the hazard curves for the active and placebo groups were superimposable,” STRENGTH investigator A. Michael Lincoff, MD, of the Cleveland Clinic, said at the AHA meeting.

The big question is how the negative results of the STRENGTH trial can be reconciled with the very positive results of the REDUCE-IT trial, which showed an impressive 25% relative risk reduction in major adverse cardiovascular events with the high-dose purified EPA product, icosapent ethyl.  

Dr. Lincoff proposed several possible explanations for the different results between these two trials, although he cautioned that all explanations were speculative.

The one explanation that Dr. Lincoff highlighted in particular was the different placebos used in the two trials. REDUCE-IT used a placebo of mineral oil, which Dr. Lincoff noted increases LDL, apolipoprotein B, and high-sensitivity C-reactive protein, whereas the corn oil placebo used in STRENGTH “is truly neutral on a broad range lipid and cardiovascular biomarkers,” he said.

“It must therefore be considered that at least part of the benefit in REDUCE-IT is due to an increase in adverse cardiovascular event rate in the control arm, and our results from STRENGTH cast uncertainly on the net benefit or harm of any omega-3 fatty acid preparation,” Dr. Lincoff said.

Asked whether he used omega-3 fatty acids in his practice, Dr. Lincoff replied, “Aside from patients with triglycerides greater than 500 – for which there is other evidence of benefit – I do not routinely prescribe omega-3 fatty acids. For the reasons discussed, I think there are questions about whether the risks and benefits have a favorable ratio.”

Asked at an AHA press conference what advice he would give to other physicians on the use of Vascepa, Dr. Lincoff said, “On the one hand, we could take the REDUCE-IT study results at face value, but there are potential concerns on the construct of that trial and whether the effects were exaggerated. That having been said, the [Food and Drug Administration] has approved that initial indication, so this is not a straightforward issue of whether or not that trial result is valid.

“What I would like to see is a trial in future with a clearly neutral comparator. It’s hard to recommend taking your patients off Vascepa now, but I have a high threshold at this point to start patients on it because of these concerns,” he added.

A “manufactured controversy”

The lead investigator of the REDUCE-IT trial, Deepak L. Bhatt, MD, professor of medicine, Harvard Medical School, Boston, described Dr. Lincoff’s comments as “absurd.”

In an interview, he said the Japanese JELIS trial, while having some limitations, also showed a benefit of icosapent ethyl, which “in the context of this manufactured controversy about the mineral oil placebo in REDUCE-IT, completely rebuts concerns about the placebo in REDUCE-IT being toxic.”

Dr. Bhatt also suggested that DHA may counter some of the benefits of EPA. “It appears that the STRENGTH trial leadership is trying to stir up controversy, rather than just reporting objectively that they have a negative trial,” he added.

Dr. Lincoff outlined other possible explanations for the difference between the two trials. 

He noted that icosapent ethyl increased levels of EPA by 45% in REDUCE-IT more than did the combined product used in STRENGTH. “But this moderate difference seems insufficient to account for the markedly different results of the two trials,” Dr. Lincoff added, “and both trials showed a 19% reduction in triglycerides, suggesting they have similar biochemical effects.”   

There is also the possibility of an adverse effect of DHA, he noted, “but this has never been seen in previous studies.”  

Another explanation could be differences in trial populations, with REDUCE-IT including more patients with established cardiovascular disease. “But the results were no different in this group compared to the patients without established cardiovascular disease, so this explanation is unlikely,” Dr. Lincoff suggested.  

STRENGTH trial

The STRENGTH trial included 13,078 statin-treated participants with high cardiovascular risk, hypertriglyceridemia, and low levels of HDL cholesterol from 22 countries.

They were randomly assigned to a 4 g per day of carboxylic acid formulation of EPA and DHA or to corn oil as an inert comparator.

The trial was halted when 1,384 patients had experienced a primary endpoint event (of a planned 1,600 events), based on an interim analysis that indicated a low probability of clinical benefit of the active treatment. 

At this point, the primary efficacy endpoint – a composite of cardiovascular death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, nonfatal stroke, coronary revascularization, or unstable angina requiring hospitalization – occurred in 12.0% of patients treated with the omega-3 product vs. 12.2% of those who received corn oil (hazard ratio [HR], 0.99; P = .84).

A greater rate of gastrointestinal adverse events was observed in the omega-3 group (24.7%) than in corn oil–treated patients (14.7%). An increased rate of new-onset atrial fibrillation was also observed in the omega-3 group (2.2% vs 1.3%; HR, 1.69). 
 

Uncertainty prevails

The moderator of an AHA press conference at which the STRENGTH trial was discussed, Amit Khera, MD, professor of medicine and director of preventive cardiology at UT Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, said in an interview that questions about how Vascepa brought about the benefits shown in REDUCE-IT have been ongoing since that trial was published.

“I think for now, we have to accept the REDUCE-IT results as a positive finding. However, the STRENGTH trial did amplify these questions a bit since there was no signal at all for benefit, and this heightens the call for additional trials of high-dose EPA formulations, including icosapent ethyl, versus corn oil or another neutral comparator,” he said.    

Discussant of the STRENGTH trial at the AHA late-breaker session, Alberico Catapano, MD, PhD, University of Milan, noted that DHA may have less biological activity than EPA.

“We don’t know for certain, but there are studies suggesting that EPA may have more effect on stabilizing plaque membranes,” Dr. Catapano said. “Certainly, the dose of EPA was different in the two studies, and in my view this could be part of the explanation. But we are still in place where we need more evidence.”  

In an editorial accompanying the JAMA publication of STRENGTH, Garima Sharma, MD, Seth S. Martin, MD, and Roger S. Blumenthal, MD, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, said the trial’s findings “may invigorate further investigation regarding IPE [icosapent ethyl], generate additional constructive debate around the optimal placebo control, and should prompt reconsideration of over-the-counter mixed omega-3 fatty acid products for ASCVD [atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease] prevention.

“This latter point is especially important given the lack of evidence for benefit, and the potential for harm due to increased AF [atrial fibrillation],” they noted.

“The reasons the findings from the REDUCE-IT trial were positive and the STRENGTH trial were not, and that EPA levels correlated with outcomes in REDUCE-IT but did not in STRENGTH, remain uncertain,” they concluded. “The importance of the specific omega-3 formulation in achieving ASCVD risk reduction and the degree to which the placebo (i.e., mineral oil vs corn oil) may have affected outcomes remain unresolved.”

The STRENGTH trial was sponsored by AstraZeneca. Dr. Lincoff reported receiving grants from AstraZeneca during the conduct of the study. Dr. Catapano has received honoraria, lecture fees, or research grants from Sigma-Tau, Manarini, Kowa Pharmaceuticals, Recordati, Eli Lilly, AstraZeneca, Mediolanum, Pfizer, Merck, Sanofi, Aegerion, Amgen, Genzyme, Bayer, Sanofi, Regeneron Daiichi Sankyo, and Amarin. Dr. Martin reports receiving consulting fees from AstraZeneca, Amgen, Esperion, and REGENXBIO, and has a patent pending for a system of LDL-C estimation filed by Johns Hopkins University. Dr. Bhatt reports serving as principal investigator for REDUCE-IT and that Brigham and Women’s Hospital has received research funding from Amarin.

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

Questions about the cardiovascular benefit of omega-3 fatty acids and the high-dose eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA) product, icosapent ethyl (Vascepa, Amarin), have resurfaced with the presentation and publication of the STRENGTH trial using a combined high-dose omega-3 fatty acid product.

The STRENGTH trial showed no benefit on cardiovascular event rates of a high-dose combination of EPA and docosahexaenoic acid (DHA) in a new branded product (Epanova, AstraZeneca).

It was announced in January that the trial was being stopped because of a low likelihood of showing any benefit.

Full results were presented Nov. 15 at the virtual American Heart Association scientific sessions and simultaneously published online in JAMA.

These results showed similar cardiovascular event rates with the high-dose EPA/DHA product and placebo, with a hazard ratio for the primary endpoint of 0.99. In addition to no benefit, more adverse effects occurred in the active treatment arm, with a higher rate of gastrointestinal adverse events and atrial fibrillation.

“We found no benefit of a high-dose combination of EPA and DHA. Despite a 270% to 300% increase in EPA, the hazard curves for the active and placebo groups were superimposable,” STRENGTH investigator A. Michael Lincoff, MD, of the Cleveland Clinic, said at the AHA meeting.

The big question is how the negative results of the STRENGTH trial can be reconciled with the very positive results of the REDUCE-IT trial, which showed an impressive 25% relative risk reduction in major adverse cardiovascular events with the high-dose purified EPA product, icosapent ethyl.  

Dr. Lincoff proposed several possible explanations for the different results between these two trials, although he cautioned that all explanations were speculative.

The one explanation that Dr. Lincoff highlighted in particular was the different placebos used in the two trials. REDUCE-IT used a placebo of mineral oil, which Dr. Lincoff noted increases LDL, apolipoprotein B, and high-sensitivity C-reactive protein, whereas the corn oil placebo used in STRENGTH “is truly neutral on a broad range lipid and cardiovascular biomarkers,” he said.

“It must therefore be considered that at least part of the benefit in REDUCE-IT is due to an increase in adverse cardiovascular event rate in the control arm, and our results from STRENGTH cast uncertainly on the net benefit or harm of any omega-3 fatty acid preparation,” Dr. Lincoff said.

Asked whether he used omega-3 fatty acids in his practice, Dr. Lincoff replied, “Aside from patients with triglycerides greater than 500 – for which there is other evidence of benefit – I do not routinely prescribe omega-3 fatty acids. For the reasons discussed, I think there are questions about whether the risks and benefits have a favorable ratio.”

Asked at an AHA press conference what advice he would give to other physicians on the use of Vascepa, Dr. Lincoff said, “On the one hand, we could take the REDUCE-IT study results at face value, but there are potential concerns on the construct of that trial and whether the effects were exaggerated. That having been said, the [Food and Drug Administration] has approved that initial indication, so this is not a straightforward issue of whether or not that trial result is valid.

“What I would like to see is a trial in future with a clearly neutral comparator. It’s hard to recommend taking your patients off Vascepa now, but I have a high threshold at this point to start patients on it because of these concerns,” he added.

A “manufactured controversy”

The lead investigator of the REDUCE-IT trial, Deepak L. Bhatt, MD, professor of medicine, Harvard Medical School, Boston, described Dr. Lincoff’s comments as “absurd.”

In an interview, he said the Japanese JELIS trial, while having some limitations, also showed a benefit of icosapent ethyl, which “in the context of this manufactured controversy about the mineral oil placebo in REDUCE-IT, completely rebuts concerns about the placebo in REDUCE-IT being toxic.”

Dr. Bhatt also suggested that DHA may counter some of the benefits of EPA. “It appears that the STRENGTH trial leadership is trying to stir up controversy, rather than just reporting objectively that they have a negative trial,” he added.

Dr. Lincoff outlined other possible explanations for the difference between the two trials. 

He noted that icosapent ethyl increased levels of EPA by 45% in REDUCE-IT more than did the combined product used in STRENGTH. “But this moderate difference seems insufficient to account for the markedly different results of the two trials,” Dr. Lincoff added, “and both trials showed a 19% reduction in triglycerides, suggesting they have similar biochemical effects.”   

There is also the possibility of an adverse effect of DHA, he noted, “but this has never been seen in previous studies.”  

Another explanation could be differences in trial populations, with REDUCE-IT including more patients with established cardiovascular disease. “But the results were no different in this group compared to the patients without established cardiovascular disease, so this explanation is unlikely,” Dr. Lincoff suggested.  

STRENGTH trial

The STRENGTH trial included 13,078 statin-treated participants with high cardiovascular risk, hypertriglyceridemia, and low levels of HDL cholesterol from 22 countries.

They were randomly assigned to a 4 g per day of carboxylic acid formulation of EPA and DHA or to corn oil as an inert comparator.

The trial was halted when 1,384 patients had experienced a primary endpoint event (of a planned 1,600 events), based on an interim analysis that indicated a low probability of clinical benefit of the active treatment. 

At this point, the primary efficacy endpoint – a composite of cardiovascular death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, nonfatal stroke, coronary revascularization, or unstable angina requiring hospitalization – occurred in 12.0% of patients treated with the omega-3 product vs. 12.2% of those who received corn oil (hazard ratio [HR], 0.99; P = .84).

A greater rate of gastrointestinal adverse events was observed in the omega-3 group (24.7%) than in corn oil–treated patients (14.7%). An increased rate of new-onset atrial fibrillation was also observed in the omega-3 group (2.2% vs 1.3%; HR, 1.69). 
 

Uncertainty prevails

The moderator of an AHA press conference at which the STRENGTH trial was discussed, Amit Khera, MD, professor of medicine and director of preventive cardiology at UT Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, said in an interview that questions about how Vascepa brought about the benefits shown in REDUCE-IT have been ongoing since that trial was published.

“I think for now, we have to accept the REDUCE-IT results as a positive finding. However, the STRENGTH trial did amplify these questions a bit since there was no signal at all for benefit, and this heightens the call for additional trials of high-dose EPA formulations, including icosapent ethyl, versus corn oil or another neutral comparator,” he said.    

Discussant of the STRENGTH trial at the AHA late-breaker session, Alberico Catapano, MD, PhD, University of Milan, noted that DHA may have less biological activity than EPA.

“We don’t know for certain, but there are studies suggesting that EPA may have more effect on stabilizing plaque membranes,” Dr. Catapano said. “Certainly, the dose of EPA was different in the two studies, and in my view this could be part of the explanation. But we are still in place where we need more evidence.”  

In an editorial accompanying the JAMA publication of STRENGTH, Garima Sharma, MD, Seth S. Martin, MD, and Roger S. Blumenthal, MD, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, said the trial’s findings “may invigorate further investigation regarding IPE [icosapent ethyl], generate additional constructive debate around the optimal placebo control, and should prompt reconsideration of over-the-counter mixed omega-3 fatty acid products for ASCVD [atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease] prevention.

“This latter point is especially important given the lack of evidence for benefit, and the potential for harm due to increased AF [atrial fibrillation],” they noted.

“The reasons the findings from the REDUCE-IT trial were positive and the STRENGTH trial were not, and that EPA levels correlated with outcomes in REDUCE-IT but did not in STRENGTH, remain uncertain,” they concluded. “The importance of the specific omega-3 formulation in achieving ASCVD risk reduction and the degree to which the placebo (i.e., mineral oil vs corn oil) may have affected outcomes remain unresolved.”

The STRENGTH trial was sponsored by AstraZeneca. Dr. Lincoff reported receiving grants from AstraZeneca during the conduct of the study. Dr. Catapano has received honoraria, lecture fees, or research grants from Sigma-Tau, Manarini, Kowa Pharmaceuticals, Recordati, Eli Lilly, AstraZeneca, Mediolanum, Pfizer, Merck, Sanofi, Aegerion, Amgen, Genzyme, Bayer, Sanofi, Regeneron Daiichi Sankyo, and Amarin. Dr. Martin reports receiving consulting fees from AstraZeneca, Amgen, Esperion, and REGENXBIO, and has a patent pending for a system of LDL-C estimation filed by Johns Hopkins University. Dr. Bhatt reports serving as principal investigator for REDUCE-IT and that Brigham and Women’s Hospital has received research funding from Amarin.

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

Individuals in the general population with high levels of silent coronary atherosclerosis can be successfully identified with a simple questionnaire that they can complete themselves at home, a new study suggests.  

The Swedish CardioPulmonary BioImage Study (SCAPIS) found that 40% of middle-aged adults without known heart disease had evidence of coronary atherosclerosis on coronary CT angiography (CCTA), and 13% had extensive atherosclerotic disease.

The authors found that the screening questionnaire could identify individuals who had extensive coronary atherosclerosis with a reasonably high predictive value.

Initial results from the study were presented today at the virtual American Heart Association (AHA) Scientific Sessions 2020.

“Our study is looking to see if we can estimate how many people in the general population have significant coronary atherosclerosis and therefore could benefit from preventative treatment,” lead author, Göran Bergström, MD, explained to Medscape Medical News. 

Bergström, who is professor and lead physician at Sahlgrenska Academy, Gothenburg University, Gothenburg, Sweden, said there are no good data on this as yet. “There are studies of atherosclerosis burden in patients who have had a cardiovascular event, but our study was conducted in a random selection of the middle-aged general population who did not have symptoms of heart disease.”

“Our study also suggests that in future we may be able to identify these people with an online questionnaire, and those that reached a certain score could be referred for an imaging test,” he added.
SCAPIS included more than 30,000 men and women, age 50 to 64 years, who had no history of cardiovascular events or cardiac intervention. They were asked questions about sex, age, lifestyle, smoking, body measurements, cholesterol medication, and blood pressure to predict their risk for coronary artery disease.

Researchers then used CCTA images to examine patients’ arteries for the presence of plaque. More than 25,000 individuals from the original sample were successfully imaged.

Results showed that 40% of the middle-aged population had some coronary atherosclerosis and 5% had severe atherosclerosis, defined as the presence of a stenosis blocking 50% or more of blood flow in one of the coronary arteries.   

A second aim of the study was to use data from the questionnaire to develop a prediction model to identify people with widespread atherosclerosis — those with any type of stenosis in four different segments of their coronary arteries, who made up 13% of the population. 

The questionnaire included data on 120 different variables. Of these variables, around 100 could be assessed by the patients themselves and another 20 measurements could be performed in the clinic, such as blood pressure and cholesterol levels.

The researchers then used artificial intelligence to assess which variables were associated with widespread atherosclerosis. This had an area under the curve (AUC, a measure of the predictive value) of 0.8.  

“An AUC of 1.0 would show a perfect prediction, and a value of 0.5 shows no value. A result of 0.8 shows reasonable predictive potential. This is an encouraging result and suggests this strategy could work,” Bergström said. 

“We know silent atherosclerosis is a big problem and causes sudden cardiac events in people who have not shown symptoms,” he said.

The goal is to identify these patients before they have an event and offer them preventive treatments. “At present we try and identify patients at high risk of cardiovascular events by using cholesterol and blood pressure measurements and cardiovascular risk scores such as Framingham. But this is not so effective,” Bergström explained.

“Using imaging such as CCTA, where you can actually see atherosclerotic plaque, could be better for prediction, but we can’t image everyone. So, we wanted to see whether we could narrow down the population who should receive imaging with a detailed questionnaire, and it looks like we can.”

The study found that including clinical measurements such as blood pressure and cholesterol did not add much to the predictive value for identifying people with extensive coronary atherosclerosis, a result that Bergström said was surprising.   

Which population to target?

Discussant of the study, Pamela Douglas, MD, professor of research in cardiovascular diseases at Duke University, Durham, North Carolina, congratulated the SCAPIS investigators on creating “a very rich data set for current and future study.”

“The SCAPIS study has already yielded novel data on the prevalence of coronary artery disease in the general population, and will address many critical questions over the long term,” she said.
But Douglas suggested that individuals with extensive coronary atherosclerosis were not the most appropriate target population to identify.

“The rationale for choosing this cutpoint is unclear as clinical risk/mortality is higher in all nonobstructive coronary artery disease, starting at one-vessel involvement,” she noted. “Therefore, effective preventive strategies likely need to start with detection and treatment of patients with even minimal plaque.”

Responding to Medscape Medical News, Bergström said this was a valid argument. “We plan to reanalyze our results with different populations as the target — that is something that we can do in the future.

But targeting everyone with just one coronary plaque is going to identify a large group — it was 40% of the population in our study. This will be too many people in whom to perform confirmatory CCTA imaging. It would be impractical to try and conduct cardiac imaging on that many people.”

Bergström noted that more data are needed on the danger of various levels of coronary atherosclerosis in this population who have not had any symptoms. 

“We don’t have this information at present, but we are continuing to follow our population and we will have data on cardiac events in a few years’ time. Then we will know which level of atherosclerosis we need to target. It will probably be somewhere in between the extensive levels we used in this first analysis (which occurred in 13% of people) and the 40% of people who showed just one area of plaque.”

This study is the first report from SCAPIS, a collaborative project between six Swedish universities with the following vision statement: to “reduce the risk of cardiovascular and respiratory diseases for generations to come.”

The SCAPIS project is funded by the Swedish Heart and Lung Foundation. Bergström reports no disclosures. 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Individuals in the general population with high levels of silent coronary atherosclerosis can be successfully identified with a simple questionnaire that they can complete themselves at home, a new study suggests.  

The Swedish CardioPulmonary BioImage Study (SCAPIS) found that 40% of middle-aged adults without known heart disease had evidence of coronary atherosclerosis on coronary CT angiography (CCTA), and 13% had extensive atherosclerotic disease.

The authors found that the screening questionnaire could identify individuals who had extensive coronary atherosclerosis with a reasonably high predictive value.

Initial results from the study were presented today at the virtual American Heart Association (AHA) Scientific Sessions 2020.

“Our study is looking to see if we can estimate how many people in the general population have significant coronary atherosclerosis and therefore could benefit from preventative treatment,” lead author, Göran Bergström, MD, explained to Medscape Medical News. 

Bergström, who is professor and lead physician at Sahlgrenska Academy, Gothenburg University, Gothenburg, Sweden, said there are no good data on this as yet. “There are studies of atherosclerosis burden in patients who have had a cardiovascular event, but our study was conducted in a random selection of the middle-aged general population who did not have symptoms of heart disease.”

“Our study also suggests that in future we may be able to identify these people with an online questionnaire, and those that reached a certain score could be referred for an imaging test,” he added.
SCAPIS included more than 30,000 men and women, age 50 to 64 years, who had no history of cardiovascular events or cardiac intervention. They were asked questions about sex, age, lifestyle, smoking, body measurements, cholesterol medication, and blood pressure to predict their risk for coronary artery disease.

Researchers then used CCTA images to examine patients’ arteries for the presence of plaque. More than 25,000 individuals from the original sample were successfully imaged.

Results showed that 40% of the middle-aged population had some coronary atherosclerosis and 5% had severe atherosclerosis, defined as the presence of a stenosis blocking 50% or more of blood flow in one of the coronary arteries.   

A second aim of the study was to use data from the questionnaire to develop a prediction model to identify people with widespread atherosclerosis — those with any type of stenosis in four different segments of their coronary arteries, who made up 13% of the population. 

The questionnaire included data on 120 different variables. Of these variables, around 100 could be assessed by the patients themselves and another 20 measurements could be performed in the clinic, such as blood pressure and cholesterol levels.

The researchers then used artificial intelligence to assess which variables were associated with widespread atherosclerosis. This had an area under the curve (AUC, a measure of the predictive value) of 0.8.  

“An AUC of 1.0 would show a perfect prediction, and a value of 0.5 shows no value. A result of 0.8 shows reasonable predictive potential. This is an encouraging result and suggests this strategy could work,” Bergström said. 

“We know silent atherosclerosis is a big problem and causes sudden cardiac events in people who have not shown symptoms,” he said.

The goal is to identify these patients before they have an event and offer them preventive treatments. “At present we try and identify patients at high risk of cardiovascular events by using cholesterol and blood pressure measurements and cardiovascular risk scores such as Framingham. But this is not so effective,” Bergström explained.

“Using imaging such as CCTA, where you can actually see atherosclerotic plaque, could be better for prediction, but we can’t image everyone. So, we wanted to see whether we could narrow down the population who should receive imaging with a detailed questionnaire, and it looks like we can.”

The study found that including clinical measurements such as blood pressure and cholesterol did not add much to the predictive value for identifying people with extensive coronary atherosclerosis, a result that Bergström said was surprising.   

Which population to target?

Discussant of the study, Pamela Douglas, MD, professor of research in cardiovascular diseases at Duke University, Durham, North Carolina, congratulated the SCAPIS investigators on creating “a very rich data set for current and future study.”

“The SCAPIS study has already yielded novel data on the prevalence of coronary artery disease in the general population, and will address many critical questions over the long term,” she said.
But Douglas suggested that individuals with extensive coronary atherosclerosis were not the most appropriate target population to identify.

“The rationale for choosing this cutpoint is unclear as clinical risk/mortality is higher in all nonobstructive coronary artery disease, starting at one-vessel involvement,” she noted. “Therefore, effective preventive strategies likely need to start with detection and treatment of patients with even minimal plaque.”

Responding to Medscape Medical News, Bergström said this was a valid argument. “We plan to reanalyze our results with different populations as the target — that is something that we can do in the future.

But targeting everyone with just one coronary plaque is going to identify a large group — it was 40% of the population in our study. This will be too many people in whom to perform confirmatory CCTA imaging. It would be impractical to try and conduct cardiac imaging on that many people.”

Bergström noted that more data are needed on the danger of various levels of coronary atherosclerosis in this population who have not had any symptoms. 

“We don’t have this information at present, but we are continuing to follow our population and we will have data on cardiac events in a few years’ time. Then we will know which level of atherosclerosis we need to target. It will probably be somewhere in between the extensive levels we used in this first analysis (which occurred in 13% of people) and the 40% of people who showed just one area of plaque.”

This study is the first report from SCAPIS, a collaborative project between six Swedish universities with the following vision statement: to “reduce the risk of cardiovascular and respiratory diseases for generations to come.”

The SCAPIS project is funded by the Swedish Heart and Lung Foundation. Bergström reports no disclosures. 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Individuals in the general population with high levels of silent coronary atherosclerosis can be successfully identified with a simple questionnaire that they can complete themselves at home, a new study suggests.  

The Swedish CardioPulmonary BioImage Study (SCAPIS) found that 40% of middle-aged adults without known heart disease had evidence of coronary atherosclerosis on coronary CT angiography (CCTA), and 13% had extensive atherosclerotic disease.

The authors found that the screening questionnaire could identify individuals who had extensive coronary atherosclerosis with a reasonably high predictive value.

Initial results from the study were presented today at the virtual American Heart Association (AHA) Scientific Sessions 2020.

“Our study is looking to see if we can estimate how many people in the general population have significant coronary atherosclerosis and therefore could benefit from preventative treatment,” lead author, Göran Bergström, MD, explained to Medscape Medical News. 

Bergström, who is professor and lead physician at Sahlgrenska Academy, Gothenburg University, Gothenburg, Sweden, said there are no good data on this as yet. “There are studies of atherosclerosis burden in patients who have had a cardiovascular event, but our study was conducted in a random selection of the middle-aged general population who did not have symptoms of heart disease.”

“Our study also suggests that in future we may be able to identify these people with an online questionnaire, and those that reached a certain score could be referred for an imaging test,” he added.
SCAPIS included more than 30,000 men and women, age 50 to 64 years, who had no history of cardiovascular events or cardiac intervention. They were asked questions about sex, age, lifestyle, smoking, body measurements, cholesterol medication, and blood pressure to predict their risk for coronary artery disease.

Researchers then used CCTA images to examine patients’ arteries for the presence of plaque. More than 25,000 individuals from the original sample were successfully imaged.

Results showed that 40% of the middle-aged population had some coronary atherosclerosis and 5% had severe atherosclerosis, defined as the presence of a stenosis blocking 50% or more of blood flow in one of the coronary arteries.   

A second aim of the study was to use data from the questionnaire to develop a prediction model to identify people with widespread atherosclerosis — those with any type of stenosis in four different segments of their coronary arteries, who made up 13% of the population. 

The questionnaire included data on 120 different variables. Of these variables, around 100 could be assessed by the patients themselves and another 20 measurements could be performed in the clinic, such as blood pressure and cholesterol levels.

The researchers then used artificial intelligence to assess which variables were associated with widespread atherosclerosis. This had an area under the curve (AUC, a measure of the predictive value) of 0.8.  

“An AUC of 1.0 would show a perfect prediction, and a value of 0.5 shows no value. A result of 0.8 shows reasonable predictive potential. This is an encouraging result and suggests this strategy could work,” Bergström said. 

“We know silent atherosclerosis is a big problem and causes sudden cardiac events in people who have not shown symptoms,” he said.

The goal is to identify these patients before they have an event and offer them preventive treatments. “At present we try and identify patients at high risk of cardiovascular events by using cholesterol and blood pressure measurements and cardiovascular risk scores such as Framingham. But this is not so effective,” Bergström explained.

“Using imaging such as CCTA, where you can actually see atherosclerotic plaque, could be better for prediction, but we can’t image everyone. So, we wanted to see whether we could narrow down the population who should receive imaging with a detailed questionnaire, and it looks like we can.”

The study found that including clinical measurements such as blood pressure and cholesterol did not add much to the predictive value for identifying people with extensive coronary atherosclerosis, a result that Bergström said was surprising.   

Which population to target?

Discussant of the study, Pamela Douglas, MD, professor of research in cardiovascular diseases at Duke University, Durham, North Carolina, congratulated the SCAPIS investigators on creating “a very rich data set for current and future study.”

“The SCAPIS study has already yielded novel data on the prevalence of coronary artery disease in the general population, and will address many critical questions over the long term,” she said.
But Douglas suggested that individuals with extensive coronary atherosclerosis were not the most appropriate target population to identify.

“The rationale for choosing this cutpoint is unclear as clinical risk/mortality is higher in all nonobstructive coronary artery disease, starting at one-vessel involvement,” she noted. “Therefore, effective preventive strategies likely need to start with detection and treatment of patients with even minimal plaque.”

Responding to Medscape Medical News, Bergström said this was a valid argument. “We plan to reanalyze our results with different populations as the target — that is something that we can do in the future.

But targeting everyone with just one coronary plaque is going to identify a large group — it was 40% of the population in our study. This will be too many people in whom to perform confirmatory CCTA imaging. It would be impractical to try and conduct cardiac imaging on that many people.”

Bergström noted that more data are needed on the danger of various levels of coronary atherosclerosis in this population who have not had any symptoms. 

“We don’t have this information at present, but we are continuing to follow our population and we will have data on cardiac events in a few years’ time. Then we will know which level of atherosclerosis we need to target. It will probably be somewhere in between the extensive levels we used in this first analysis (which occurred in 13% of people) and the 40% of people who showed just one area of plaque.”

This study is the first report from SCAPIS, a collaborative project between six Swedish universities with the following vision statement: to “reduce the risk of cardiovascular and respiratory diseases for generations to come.”

The SCAPIS project is funded by the Swedish Heart and Lung Foundation. Bergström reports no disclosures. 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

For patients suspected of having a large-vessel occlusion stroke, direct transfer to a comprehensive stroke center capable of endovascular therapy that is farther away than a local primary stroke center does not necessarily produce better functional stroke outcomes, a new study has shown.

In the RACECAT trial, functional outcomes were similar for patients suspected of having a large-vessel occlusion stroke who were located in areas not currently served by a comprehensive stroke center, whether they were first taken to a local primary stroke center or whether they were transported over a longer distance to a comprehensive center.

“Under the particular conditions in our study where we had a very well-organized system, a ‘mothership’ transfer protocol for patients with suspected large-vessel occlusion has not proven superior over the ‘drip-and-ship’ protocol, but the opposite is also true,” lead investigator Marc Ribo, MD, concluded.

Dr. Ribo, assistant professor of neurology at Hospital Vall d’Hebron, Barcelona, presented the RACECAT results at the European Stroke Organisation–World Stroke Organisation (ESO-WSO) Conference 2020.

Dr. Ribo said in an interview that there is a feeling among the stroke community that patients with a suspected large-vessel occlusion should be transferred directly to a comprehensive stroke center capable of performing endovascular thrombectomy, even if there is a nearer, smaller primary stroke center where patients are usually taken first for thrombolysis.

“Many stroke neurologists believe we are losing time by sending patients with severe stroke to a local hospital and that we should skip this step, but this is controversial area,” he commented. “Our findings suggest that we should not automatically bypass local stroke centers.”

Dr. Ribo pointed out that the local centers performed very well in the study, with very fast “in/out” times for patients who were subsequently transferred for thrombectomy.

“On the basis of our results, we recommend that if a local stroke center can perform well like ours did – if they are within the time indicators for treating and transferring patients – then they should keep receiving these patients. But if they are not performing well in this regard, then they should probably be bypassed,” he commented.

The RACECAT trial was well received by stroke experts at an ESO-WSO 2020 press conference at which it was discussed.

Stefan Kiechl, MD, Medical University Innsbruck (Austria), described the trial as “outstanding,” adding: “It has addressed a very important question. It is a big achievement in stroke medicine.”

Patrik Michel, MD, Lausanne (Switzerland) University Hospital, said that “this is a very important and highly sophisticated trial in terms of design and execution. The message is that it doesn’t matter which pathway is used, but it is important to have a well-organized network with highly trained paramedics.”
 

RACECAT

The RACECAT trial was conducted in the Catalonia region of Spain. Twenty-seven hospitals participated, including 7 comprehensive stroke centers and 20 local stroke centers.

The trial included stroke patients with suspected large-vessel occlusion stroke, as determined on the basis of evaluation by paramedics using the criteria of a Rapid Arterial Occlusion Evaluation (RACE) scale score above 4 and on the basis of a call to a vascular neurologist. For inclusion in the study, patients had to be in a geographical area not served by a comprehensive stroke center and to have an estimated arrival time to a comprehensive center of less than 7 hours from symptom onset in order that thrombectomy would be possible.

Of 7,475 stroke code patients evaluated, 1,401 met the inclusion criteria and were randomly assigned to be transferred to a local hospital or to a comprehensive stroke center farther away.

Baseline characteristics were similar between the two groups. The patients had severe strokes with an average National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale score of 17. It was later confirmed that 46% of the patients enrolled in the study had a large-vessel occlusion stroke.

Results showed that time from symptom onset to hospital arrival was 142 minutes for those taken to a local center and 216 minutes for those taken to a comprehensive stroke center. Of those taken to a local hospital, 86% arrived within 4 hours of symptom onset and so were potential candidates for thrombolysis, compared with 76% of those taken to a comprehensive center.

Of the patients taken to a local hospital, 60% were given thrombolysis versus 43% of those taken immediately to a comprehensive center. On the other hand, 50% of patients who were taken directly to a comprehensive center underwent thrombectomy, compared with 40% who were first taken to a local center.

For patients who received thrombolysis, time to tissue plasminogen activator administration was 120 minutes for those treated at a local hospital versus 155 minutes for those taken directly to a comprehensive center.

For patients who received thrombectomy, time from symptom onset to groin puncture was 270 minutes if they were first taken to a local hospital and were then transferred, versus 214 minutes for those taken directly to the comprehensive center.

The primary efficacy endpoint was functional outcome using Modified Rankin Scale (mRS) shift analysis at 90 days for ischemic stroke patients. This showed a “completely flat” result, Dr. Ribo reported, with an adjusted hazard ratio of 1.029 for patients taken to a comprehensive center in comparison with those taken to a local center.

“There was absolutely no trend towards benefit in one group over the other,” he said.
 

What about hemorrhagic stroke?

The study also evaluated functional outcomes for the whole population enrolled. “If we make the decision just based on thrombectomy-eligible patients, we may harm the rest of the patients, so we did this study to look at the whole population of severe stroke patients,” Dr. Ribo said.

Of the study population, 25% of patients were found to have had a hemorrhagic stroke.

“The problem is, at the prehospital level, it is impossible to know if a patient is having a large-vessel occlusion ischemic stroke or a hemorrhagic stroke,” Dr. Ribo explained. “We have to make a decision for the whole population, and while a longer transport time to get to a comprehensive stroke center might help a patient with a large-vessel occlusion ischemic stroke, it might not be so appropriate for patients with a hemorrhagic stroke who need to have their blood pressure stabilized as soon as possible.”

For the whole population, the mRS shift analysis at 90 days was also neutral, with an aHR of 0.965.

When considering only patients with hemorrhagic stroke, the adjusted hazard ratio for the mRS shift analysis at 90 days was 1.216, which was still nonsignificant (95% confidence interval, 0.864-1.709). This included a nonsignificant increase in mortality among those taken directly to a comprehensive center.

“If we had better tools for a certain diagnosis in the field, then we could consider taking large-vessel occlusion ischemic stroke patients to a comprehensive center and hemorrhagic stroke patients to the local stroke center, but so far, we don’t have this option apart from a few places using mobile stroke units with CT scanners,” Dr. Ribo noted.

Transfer times to comprehensive centers in the study ranged from 30 minutes to 2.5 hours. “There might well be a difference in outcomes for short and long transfers, and we may be able to offer different transfer protocols in these different situations, and we are looking at that, but the study was only stopped in June, and we haven’t had a chance to analyze those results yet,” Dr. Ribo added.

Complications during transport occurred in 0.5% of those taken to a local hospital and in 1% of those taken directly to a comprehensive center. “We were concerned about complications with longer transfers, but these numbers are quite low. Intubations were very low – just one patient taken to a local center, versus three or four in the longer transfer group,” he added.

For both local and comprehensive centers, treatment times were impressive in the study. For local hospitals, the average in/out time was just 60 minutes for patients who went to a comprehensive center; for patients receiving thrombolysis, the average door to needle time was around 30 minutes.

Time to thrombectomy in the comprehensive center for patients transferred from a local hospital was also very fast, with an average door to groin puncture time of less than 40 minutes. “This shows we have a very well-oiled system,” Dr. Ribo said.

“There is always going to be a balance between a quicker time to thrombolysis by taking a patient to the closest hospital but a quicker time to thrombectomy if patients are taken straight to the comprehensive center,” he concluded. “But in our system, where we are achieving fast treatment and transfer times, our results show that patients had timely access to reperfusion therapies regardless of transfer protocol, and under these circumstances, it is fine for the emergency services to take stroke patients to the closest stroke center.”
 

Results applicable elsewhere?

During the discussion at an ESO-WSO 2020 press conference, other experts pointed out that the Catalonia group is a leader in this field, being the pioneers of the RACE score used in this study for paramedics to identify suspected large-vessel occlusions. This led to questions about the applicability of the results.

“The performance by paramedics was very good using the RACE scale, and the performance times were very impressive. Are these results applicable elsewhere?” Dr. Kiechl asked.

Dr. Ribo said the combination of the RACE score and a call with a vascular neurologist was of “great value” in identifying appropriate patients. Half of the patients selected in this way for the trial were confirmed to have a large-vessel occlusion. “That is a good result,” he added.

He noted that the performance of the local hospitals improved dramatically during the study. “They had an incentive to work on their times. They could have lost most of their stroke patients if their results came out worse. We told them they had an opportunity to show that they have a role in treating these patients, and they took that opportunity.”

Dr. Ribo said there were lessons here for those involved in acute stroke care. “When creating stroke transfer policies in local networks, the performances of individual centers need to be taken into account. If primary stroke centers are motivated and can work in a well-coordinated way and perform to within the recommended times, then they can keep receiving stroke code patients. This should be possible in most developed countries.”

Noting that the in/out time of 60 minutes at local hospitals was “very impressive,” Dr. Kiechl asked how such fast times were achieved.

Dr. Ribo responded that, to a great extent, this was because of ambulance staff. “We have trained the paramedics to anticipate a second transfer after delivering the patient to the local hospital so they can prepare for this rather than waiting for a second call.”

Dr. Ribo pointed out that there were other advantages in taking patients to local centers first. “For those that do not need to be transferred on, they will be closer to relatives. It is very difficult for the family if the patient is hundreds of miles away. And there may be a cost advantage. We did look at costs, but haven’t got that data yet.”

He said: “If local stroke centers do not treat so many stroke code patients, they will lose their expertise, and that will be detrimental to the remaining patients who are taken there. We want to try to maintain a good standard of stroke care across a decent spread of hospitals—not just a couple of major comprehensive centers,” he added.

Commenting on the study, Jesse Dawson, MD, University of Glasgow, who was chair of the plenary session at which the study was presented, said: “RACECAT is very interesting but needs a lot of thought to dissect. My takeaway is that we know that time to reperfusion is key, and we need to get these times as low as possible, but we don’t need to chase a particular care pathway. Thus, if your country/geography suits ‘drip and ship’ better, this is acceptable. If direct to endovascular is possible or you are close to such a center, then this is ideal. But within those paradigms, be as fast as possible.”

He added that results of the subgroups with regard to transfer time will be helpful.

The RACECAT study was funded by Fundacio Ictus Malaltia Vascular.

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

For patients suspected of having a large-vessel occlusion stroke, direct transfer to a comprehensive stroke center capable of endovascular therapy that is farther away than a local primary stroke center does not necessarily produce better functional stroke outcomes, a new study has shown.

In the RACECAT trial, functional outcomes were similar for patients suspected of having a large-vessel occlusion stroke who were located in areas not currently served by a comprehensive stroke center, whether they were first taken to a local primary stroke center or whether they were transported over a longer distance to a comprehensive center.

“Under the particular conditions in our study where we had a very well-organized system, a ‘mothership’ transfer protocol for patients with suspected large-vessel occlusion has not proven superior over the ‘drip-and-ship’ protocol, but the opposite is also true,” lead investigator Marc Ribo, MD, concluded.

Dr. Ribo, assistant professor of neurology at Hospital Vall d’Hebron, Barcelona, presented the RACECAT results at the European Stroke Organisation–World Stroke Organisation (ESO-WSO) Conference 2020.

Dr. Ribo said in an interview that there is a feeling among the stroke community that patients with a suspected large-vessel occlusion should be transferred directly to a comprehensive stroke center capable of performing endovascular thrombectomy, even if there is a nearer, smaller primary stroke center where patients are usually taken first for thrombolysis.

“Many stroke neurologists believe we are losing time by sending patients with severe stroke to a local hospital and that we should skip this step, but this is controversial area,” he commented. “Our findings suggest that we should not automatically bypass local stroke centers.”

Dr. Ribo pointed out that the local centers performed very well in the study, with very fast “in/out” times for patients who were subsequently transferred for thrombectomy.

“On the basis of our results, we recommend that if a local stroke center can perform well like ours did – if they are within the time indicators for treating and transferring patients – then they should keep receiving these patients. But if they are not performing well in this regard, then they should probably be bypassed,” he commented.

The RACECAT trial was well received by stroke experts at an ESO-WSO 2020 press conference at which it was discussed.

Stefan Kiechl, MD, Medical University Innsbruck (Austria), described the trial as “outstanding,” adding: “It has addressed a very important question. It is a big achievement in stroke medicine.”

Patrik Michel, MD, Lausanne (Switzerland) University Hospital, said that “this is a very important and highly sophisticated trial in terms of design and execution. The message is that it doesn’t matter which pathway is used, but it is important to have a well-organized network with highly trained paramedics.”
 

RACECAT

The RACECAT trial was conducted in the Catalonia region of Spain. Twenty-seven hospitals participated, including 7 comprehensive stroke centers and 20 local stroke centers.

The trial included stroke patients with suspected large-vessel occlusion stroke, as determined on the basis of evaluation by paramedics using the criteria of a Rapid Arterial Occlusion Evaluation (RACE) scale score above 4 and on the basis of a call to a vascular neurologist. For inclusion in the study, patients had to be in a geographical area not served by a comprehensive stroke center and to have an estimated arrival time to a comprehensive center of less than 7 hours from symptom onset in order that thrombectomy would be possible.

Of 7,475 stroke code patients evaluated, 1,401 met the inclusion criteria and were randomly assigned to be transferred to a local hospital or to a comprehensive stroke center farther away.

Baseline characteristics were similar between the two groups. The patients had severe strokes with an average National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale score of 17. It was later confirmed that 46% of the patients enrolled in the study had a large-vessel occlusion stroke.

Results showed that time from symptom onset to hospital arrival was 142 minutes for those taken to a local center and 216 minutes for those taken to a comprehensive stroke center. Of those taken to a local hospital, 86% arrived within 4 hours of symptom onset and so were potential candidates for thrombolysis, compared with 76% of those taken to a comprehensive center.

Of the patients taken to a local hospital, 60% were given thrombolysis versus 43% of those taken immediately to a comprehensive center. On the other hand, 50% of patients who were taken directly to a comprehensive center underwent thrombectomy, compared with 40% who were first taken to a local center.

For patients who received thrombolysis, time to tissue plasminogen activator administration was 120 minutes for those treated at a local hospital versus 155 minutes for those taken directly to a comprehensive center.

For patients who received thrombectomy, time from symptom onset to groin puncture was 270 minutes if they were first taken to a local hospital and were then transferred, versus 214 minutes for those taken directly to the comprehensive center.

The primary efficacy endpoint was functional outcome using Modified Rankin Scale (mRS) shift analysis at 90 days for ischemic stroke patients. This showed a “completely flat” result, Dr. Ribo reported, with an adjusted hazard ratio of 1.029 for patients taken to a comprehensive center in comparison with those taken to a local center.

“There was absolutely no trend towards benefit in one group over the other,” he said.
 

What about hemorrhagic stroke?

The study also evaluated functional outcomes for the whole population enrolled. “If we make the decision just based on thrombectomy-eligible patients, we may harm the rest of the patients, so we did this study to look at the whole population of severe stroke patients,” Dr. Ribo said.

Of the study population, 25% of patients were found to have had a hemorrhagic stroke.

“The problem is, at the prehospital level, it is impossible to know if a patient is having a large-vessel occlusion ischemic stroke or a hemorrhagic stroke,” Dr. Ribo explained. “We have to make a decision for the whole population, and while a longer transport time to get to a comprehensive stroke center might help a patient with a large-vessel occlusion ischemic stroke, it might not be so appropriate for patients with a hemorrhagic stroke who need to have their blood pressure stabilized as soon as possible.”

For the whole population, the mRS shift analysis at 90 days was also neutral, with an aHR of 0.965.

When considering only patients with hemorrhagic stroke, the adjusted hazard ratio for the mRS shift analysis at 90 days was 1.216, which was still nonsignificant (95% confidence interval, 0.864-1.709). This included a nonsignificant increase in mortality among those taken directly to a comprehensive center.

“If we had better tools for a certain diagnosis in the field, then we could consider taking large-vessel occlusion ischemic stroke patients to a comprehensive center and hemorrhagic stroke patients to the local stroke center, but so far, we don’t have this option apart from a few places using mobile stroke units with CT scanners,” Dr. Ribo noted.

Transfer times to comprehensive centers in the study ranged from 30 minutes to 2.5 hours. “There might well be a difference in outcomes for short and long transfers, and we may be able to offer different transfer protocols in these different situations, and we are looking at that, but the study was only stopped in June, and we haven’t had a chance to analyze those results yet,” Dr. Ribo added.

Complications during transport occurred in 0.5% of those taken to a local hospital and in 1% of those taken directly to a comprehensive center. “We were concerned about complications with longer transfers, but these numbers are quite low. Intubations were very low – just one patient taken to a local center, versus three or four in the longer transfer group,” he added.

For both local and comprehensive centers, treatment times were impressive in the study. For local hospitals, the average in/out time was just 60 minutes for patients who went to a comprehensive center; for patients receiving thrombolysis, the average door to needle time was around 30 minutes.

Time to thrombectomy in the comprehensive center for patients transferred from a local hospital was also very fast, with an average door to groin puncture time of less than 40 minutes. “This shows we have a very well-oiled system,” Dr. Ribo said.

“There is always going to be a balance between a quicker time to thrombolysis by taking a patient to the closest hospital but a quicker time to thrombectomy if patients are taken straight to the comprehensive center,” he concluded. “But in our system, where we are achieving fast treatment and transfer times, our results show that patients had timely access to reperfusion therapies regardless of transfer protocol, and under these circumstances, it is fine for the emergency services to take stroke patients to the closest stroke center.”
 

Results applicable elsewhere?

During the discussion at an ESO-WSO 2020 press conference, other experts pointed out that the Catalonia group is a leader in this field, being the pioneers of the RACE score used in this study for paramedics to identify suspected large-vessel occlusions. This led to questions about the applicability of the results.

“The performance by paramedics was very good using the RACE scale, and the performance times were very impressive. Are these results applicable elsewhere?” Dr. Kiechl asked.

Dr. Ribo said the combination of the RACE score and a call with a vascular neurologist was of “great value” in identifying appropriate patients. Half of the patients selected in this way for the trial were confirmed to have a large-vessel occlusion. “That is a good result,” he added.

He noted that the performance of the local hospitals improved dramatically during the study. “They had an incentive to work on their times. They could have lost most of their stroke patients if their results came out worse. We told them they had an opportunity to show that they have a role in treating these patients, and they took that opportunity.”

Dr. Ribo said there were lessons here for those involved in acute stroke care. “When creating stroke transfer policies in local networks, the performances of individual centers need to be taken into account. If primary stroke centers are motivated and can work in a well-coordinated way and perform to within the recommended times, then they can keep receiving stroke code patients. This should be possible in most developed countries.”

Noting that the in/out time of 60 minutes at local hospitals was “very impressive,” Dr. Kiechl asked how such fast times were achieved.

Dr. Ribo responded that, to a great extent, this was because of ambulance staff. “We have trained the paramedics to anticipate a second transfer after delivering the patient to the local hospital so they can prepare for this rather than waiting for a second call.”

Dr. Ribo pointed out that there were other advantages in taking patients to local centers first. “For those that do not need to be transferred on, they will be closer to relatives. It is very difficult for the family if the patient is hundreds of miles away. And there may be a cost advantage. We did look at costs, but haven’t got that data yet.”

He said: “If local stroke centers do not treat so many stroke code patients, they will lose their expertise, and that will be detrimental to the remaining patients who are taken there. We want to try to maintain a good standard of stroke care across a decent spread of hospitals—not just a couple of major comprehensive centers,” he added.

Commenting on the study, Jesse Dawson, MD, University of Glasgow, who was chair of the plenary session at which the study was presented, said: “RACECAT is very interesting but needs a lot of thought to dissect. My takeaway is that we know that time to reperfusion is key, and we need to get these times as low as possible, but we don’t need to chase a particular care pathway. Thus, if your country/geography suits ‘drip and ship’ better, this is acceptable. If direct to endovascular is possible or you are close to such a center, then this is ideal. But within those paradigms, be as fast as possible.”

He added that results of the subgroups with regard to transfer time will be helpful.

The RACECAT study was funded by Fundacio Ictus Malaltia Vascular.

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

For patients suspected of having a large-vessel occlusion stroke, direct transfer to a comprehensive stroke center capable of endovascular therapy that is farther away than a local primary stroke center does not necessarily produce better functional stroke outcomes, a new study has shown.

In the RACECAT trial, functional outcomes were similar for patients suspected of having a large-vessel occlusion stroke who were located in areas not currently served by a comprehensive stroke center, whether they were first taken to a local primary stroke center or whether they were transported over a longer distance to a comprehensive center.

“Under the particular conditions in our study where we had a very well-organized system, a ‘mothership’ transfer protocol for patients with suspected large-vessel occlusion has not proven superior over the ‘drip-and-ship’ protocol, but the opposite is also true,” lead investigator Marc Ribo, MD, concluded.

Dr. Ribo, assistant professor of neurology at Hospital Vall d’Hebron, Barcelona, presented the RACECAT results at the European Stroke Organisation–World Stroke Organisation (ESO-WSO) Conference 2020.

Dr. Ribo said in an interview that there is a feeling among the stroke community that patients with a suspected large-vessel occlusion should be transferred directly to a comprehensive stroke center capable of performing endovascular thrombectomy, even if there is a nearer, smaller primary stroke center where patients are usually taken first for thrombolysis.

“Many stroke neurologists believe we are losing time by sending patients with severe stroke to a local hospital and that we should skip this step, but this is controversial area,” he commented. “Our findings suggest that we should not automatically bypass local stroke centers.”

Dr. Ribo pointed out that the local centers performed very well in the study, with very fast “in/out” times for patients who were subsequently transferred for thrombectomy.

“On the basis of our results, we recommend that if a local stroke center can perform well like ours did – if they are within the time indicators for treating and transferring patients – then they should keep receiving these patients. But if they are not performing well in this regard, then they should probably be bypassed,” he commented.

The RACECAT trial was well received by stroke experts at an ESO-WSO 2020 press conference at which it was discussed.

Stefan Kiechl, MD, Medical University Innsbruck (Austria), described the trial as “outstanding,” adding: “It has addressed a very important question. It is a big achievement in stroke medicine.”

Patrik Michel, MD, Lausanne (Switzerland) University Hospital, said that “this is a very important and highly sophisticated trial in terms of design and execution. The message is that it doesn’t matter which pathway is used, but it is important to have a well-organized network with highly trained paramedics.”
 

RACECAT

The RACECAT trial was conducted in the Catalonia region of Spain. Twenty-seven hospitals participated, including 7 comprehensive stroke centers and 20 local stroke centers.

The trial included stroke patients with suspected large-vessel occlusion stroke, as determined on the basis of evaluation by paramedics using the criteria of a Rapid Arterial Occlusion Evaluation (RACE) scale score above 4 and on the basis of a call to a vascular neurologist. For inclusion in the study, patients had to be in a geographical area not served by a comprehensive stroke center and to have an estimated arrival time to a comprehensive center of less than 7 hours from symptom onset in order that thrombectomy would be possible.

Of 7,475 stroke code patients evaluated, 1,401 met the inclusion criteria and were randomly assigned to be transferred to a local hospital or to a comprehensive stroke center farther away.

Baseline characteristics were similar between the two groups. The patients had severe strokes with an average National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale score of 17. It was later confirmed that 46% of the patients enrolled in the study had a large-vessel occlusion stroke.

Results showed that time from symptom onset to hospital arrival was 142 minutes for those taken to a local center and 216 minutes for those taken to a comprehensive stroke center. Of those taken to a local hospital, 86% arrived within 4 hours of symptom onset and so were potential candidates for thrombolysis, compared with 76% of those taken to a comprehensive center.

Of the patients taken to a local hospital, 60% were given thrombolysis versus 43% of those taken immediately to a comprehensive center. On the other hand, 50% of patients who were taken directly to a comprehensive center underwent thrombectomy, compared with 40% who were first taken to a local center.

For patients who received thrombolysis, time to tissue plasminogen activator administration was 120 minutes for those treated at a local hospital versus 155 minutes for those taken directly to a comprehensive center.

For patients who received thrombectomy, time from symptom onset to groin puncture was 270 minutes if they were first taken to a local hospital and were then transferred, versus 214 minutes for those taken directly to the comprehensive center.

The primary efficacy endpoint was functional outcome using Modified Rankin Scale (mRS) shift analysis at 90 days for ischemic stroke patients. This showed a “completely flat” result, Dr. Ribo reported, with an adjusted hazard ratio of 1.029 for patients taken to a comprehensive center in comparison with those taken to a local center.

“There was absolutely no trend towards benefit in one group over the other,” he said.
 

What about hemorrhagic stroke?

The study also evaluated functional outcomes for the whole population enrolled. “If we make the decision just based on thrombectomy-eligible patients, we may harm the rest of the patients, so we did this study to look at the whole population of severe stroke patients,” Dr. Ribo said.

Of the study population, 25% of patients were found to have had a hemorrhagic stroke.

“The problem is, at the prehospital level, it is impossible to know if a patient is having a large-vessel occlusion ischemic stroke or a hemorrhagic stroke,” Dr. Ribo explained. “We have to make a decision for the whole population, and while a longer transport time to get to a comprehensive stroke center might help a patient with a large-vessel occlusion ischemic stroke, it might not be so appropriate for patients with a hemorrhagic stroke who need to have their blood pressure stabilized as soon as possible.”

For the whole population, the mRS shift analysis at 90 days was also neutral, with an aHR of 0.965.

When considering only patients with hemorrhagic stroke, the adjusted hazard ratio for the mRS shift analysis at 90 days was 1.216, which was still nonsignificant (95% confidence interval, 0.864-1.709). This included a nonsignificant increase in mortality among those taken directly to a comprehensive center.

“If we had better tools for a certain diagnosis in the field, then we could consider taking large-vessel occlusion ischemic stroke patients to a comprehensive center and hemorrhagic stroke patients to the local stroke center, but so far, we don’t have this option apart from a few places using mobile stroke units with CT scanners,” Dr. Ribo noted.

Transfer times to comprehensive centers in the study ranged from 30 minutes to 2.5 hours. “There might well be a difference in outcomes for short and long transfers, and we may be able to offer different transfer protocols in these different situations, and we are looking at that, but the study was only stopped in June, and we haven’t had a chance to analyze those results yet,” Dr. Ribo added.

Complications during transport occurred in 0.5% of those taken to a local hospital and in 1% of those taken directly to a comprehensive center. “We were concerned about complications with longer transfers, but these numbers are quite low. Intubations were very low – just one patient taken to a local center, versus three or four in the longer transfer group,” he added.

For both local and comprehensive centers, treatment times were impressive in the study. For local hospitals, the average in/out time was just 60 minutes for patients who went to a comprehensive center; for patients receiving thrombolysis, the average door to needle time was around 30 minutes.

Time to thrombectomy in the comprehensive center for patients transferred from a local hospital was also very fast, with an average door to groin puncture time of less than 40 minutes. “This shows we have a very well-oiled system,” Dr. Ribo said.

“There is always going to be a balance between a quicker time to thrombolysis by taking a patient to the closest hospital but a quicker time to thrombectomy if patients are taken straight to the comprehensive center,” he concluded. “But in our system, where we are achieving fast treatment and transfer times, our results show that patients had timely access to reperfusion therapies regardless of transfer protocol, and under these circumstances, it is fine for the emergency services to take stroke patients to the closest stroke center.”
 

Results applicable elsewhere?

During the discussion at an ESO-WSO 2020 press conference, other experts pointed out that the Catalonia group is a leader in this field, being the pioneers of the RACE score used in this study for paramedics to identify suspected large-vessel occlusions. This led to questions about the applicability of the results.

“The performance by paramedics was very good using the RACE scale, and the performance times were very impressive. Are these results applicable elsewhere?” Dr. Kiechl asked.

Dr. Ribo said the combination of the RACE score and a call with a vascular neurologist was of “great value” in identifying appropriate patients. Half of the patients selected in this way for the trial were confirmed to have a large-vessel occlusion. “That is a good result,” he added.

He noted that the performance of the local hospitals improved dramatically during the study. “They had an incentive to work on their times. They could have lost most of their stroke patients if their results came out worse. We told them they had an opportunity to show that they have a role in treating these patients, and they took that opportunity.”

Dr. Ribo said there were lessons here for those involved in acute stroke care. “When creating stroke transfer policies in local networks, the performances of individual centers need to be taken into account. If primary stroke centers are motivated and can work in a well-coordinated way and perform to within the recommended times, then they can keep receiving stroke code patients. This should be possible in most developed countries.”

Noting that the in/out time of 60 minutes at local hospitals was “very impressive,” Dr. Kiechl asked how such fast times were achieved.

Dr. Ribo responded that, to a great extent, this was because of ambulance staff. “We have trained the paramedics to anticipate a second transfer after delivering the patient to the local hospital so they can prepare for this rather than waiting for a second call.”

Dr. Ribo pointed out that there were other advantages in taking patients to local centers first. “For those that do not need to be transferred on, they will be closer to relatives. It is very difficult for the family if the patient is hundreds of miles away. And there may be a cost advantage. We did look at costs, but haven’t got that data yet.”

He said: “If local stroke centers do not treat so many stroke code patients, they will lose their expertise, and that will be detrimental to the remaining patients who are taken there. We want to try to maintain a good standard of stroke care across a decent spread of hospitals—not just a couple of major comprehensive centers,” he added.

Commenting on the study, Jesse Dawson, MD, University of Glasgow, who was chair of the plenary session at which the study was presented, said: “RACECAT is very interesting but needs a lot of thought to dissect. My takeaway is that we know that time to reperfusion is key, and we need to get these times as low as possible, but we don’t need to chase a particular care pathway. Thus, if your country/geography suits ‘drip and ship’ better, this is acceptable. If direct to endovascular is possible or you are close to such a center, then this is ideal. But within those paradigms, be as fast as possible.”

He added that results of the subgroups with regard to transfer time will be helpful.

The RACECAT study was funded by Fundacio Ictus Malaltia Vascular.

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

Measuring serum levels of neurofilament light chain (NfL) is an effective way of detecting disease activity and the need to optimize treatment in patients with multiple sclerosis (MS), independent of relapse and MRI activity, a new study has shown. 

The study found that current serum NfL levels predicted relapses, disability worsening, and MRI activity in the following year independent of standard metrics for treatment monitoring, such as relapse rate, disability worsening, and MRI findings. The biomarker also detected subclinical disease activity in patients with no evidence of disease activity (NEDA3), as measured by absence of previous relapses, worsening score on the Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS), or brain lesion formation on MRI. 

“Our data in this well-characterized large real-world cohort supports the value of serum NfL levels for treatment monitoring in MS clinical practice,” lead author Özgür Yaldizli, MD, concluded.

Dr. Yaldizli, who is a consultant neurologist at University Hospital Basel (Switzerland), presented the findings at the Joint European Committee for Treatment and Research in Multiple Sclerosis–Americas Committee for Treatment and Research in Multiple Sclerosis (ECTRIMS-ACTRIMS) 2020, this year known as MSVirtual2020.

“This is the first study to compare NfL simultaneously with other markers of disease progression, such as MRI lesions and relapse rate in treated patients. We show that NfL gives a unique signal that is not captured by other markers,” Dr. Yaldizli said.

“This is likely the largest study of NfL in MS to date, with more than 7,000 samples from well-characterized MS patients followed longitudinally for more than 5 years of sampling and including high quality data on MRI and clinical examinations. It is the first time all these factors have been combined so that we can see how NfL compares with other markers of disease progression in predicting clinical events and monitoring treatment efficacy,” said senior author Jens Kuhle, MD, PhD, also from University Hospital Basel. 
 

Large normative database for reference

The researchers also reported a large normative database of NfL values with data from more than 8,000 healthy controls. “This is the largest normative database to date, that gives us reliable reference values for NfL across a range of ages and comorbidities,” Dr. Kuhle noted.

In his presentation, Dr. Yaldizli explained that NfL is a neuronal cytoskeletal protein released into the cerebrospinal fluid and blood following neuroaxonal injury. Although numerous studies have shown that serum NfL is associated with clinical and MRI disease activity and treatment response, it is not clear whether serum NfL under established disease-modifying therapy (DMT) can identify patients with suboptimal treatment response, compared with standard clinical and MRI activity measures.

This study addressed that question in the large real-world Swiss MS cohort.

The study involved 1,366 patients (88.8% with relapsing remitting MS [RRMS], 5.4% with secondary progressive MS, and 5.8% with primary progressive MS) receiving DMT for at least 3 months from seven MS centers. The median disease duration was 7.2 years. Serum NfL was measured every 6 or 12 months with NF-Light assay on the latest-generation HDX platform (blinded for clinical and MRI data). The median follow-up was 4.9 years. There was an average of five samples per patient, with a total of 7462 samples.

Results showed that NfL levels were higher in older patients (14.5% per 10 years), those with secondary progressive MS (12.4% vs. RRMS), those with primary progressive MS (14.4% vs. RRMS), and in those who had a relapse in the last 4 months (53.4%).

NfL levels were 13.4% lower in patients receiving oral DMT (vs. untreated patients) and 17.7% in patients receiving monoclonal antibodies (vs. untreated patients).

In the large cohort of healthy controls, NfL levels also increased with age, but levels in patients with MS were higher than in controls across the whole age spectrum.

To obtain a measure of deviation from normal, the authors converted NfL levels to z score, which express how much (in terms of number of standard deviations) a measurement differs from mean values found in healthy controls of the same age. Effects were more pronounced with use of z score derived from the normative database than with use of absolute NfL levels even after adjustment for age.

In the univariate analysis, serum NfL z score predicted relapse or EDSS worsening in the following year: The higher the z score, the higher the risk for relapse or EDSS worsening. Patients with an NfL z score greater than 1 had a 41% higher risk for relapse or EDSS worsening in the following year, compared with those whose z score was less than 1 (odds ratio, 1.41).

Patients with an NfL z score exceeding 1.5 had an 80% higher risk for relapse or EDSS worsening in the following year than did those whose score was below 1.5 (OR, 1.8).

Patients with an NfL z score greater than 2 had a 2.3 times higher risk for relapse or EDSS worsening in the following year versus those with a score below 2. (P < 0.001 for all comparisons.)

A screen for nervous system conditions?

Dr, Kuhle reported that NfL is being used on an individual basis in clinical practice at present – at certain MS centers. “One of the problems is not having reliable reference values, so this database of normative values will be very helpful in developing those,” he said. “We see an increase in NfL with age in healthy controls. In order to know what pathological levels are, we need to know what normal levels are in controls throughout the spectrum of ages and other comorbidities, which also play a role. If we normalize these, then we can work out the MS signal in a more efficient way.”

Dr. Kuhle believes that, in the future, NfL may be used to screen for nervous system disease. “NfL is a measure of neuronal health independent of MS. If we have increased levels, we should be worried.”

There is a “high level of energy in this field,” he added. “In future, it could be like having a cholesterol test at present – picking up that something is not right and indicating the need for more tests.”

Dr. Yaldizli suggested that NfL monitoring could also help to individualize and optimize use of MS treatments. “There is a huge unmet need in MS. While we have a plethora of treatment options, we are struggling to individualize and monitor treatments. If NfL levels increase, this is likely a strong indication to change treatment even if there are no other overt symptoms.”

Commenting on the current study, ACTRIMS president, Jeffrey Cohen, MD, Mellen Center for Multiple Sclerosis Treatment and Research at the Cleveland Clinic, called it “an important study.” 

“NfL clearly can detect disease activity and distinguish efficacy of DMT in groups of patients,” Dr. Cohen said.  

“This study shows that NfL can be used to monitor DMT efficacy in individual patients and can detect suboptimal treatment response in patients with NEDA (i.e., who appear stable by the measures we typically employ in practice),” he added.

Dr. Yaldizli sits on advisory boards for Sanofi Genzyme, Novartis, Biogen, and Novartis. Dr. Kuhle reported no relevant disclosures.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Measuring serum levels of neurofilament light chain (NfL) is an effective way of detecting disease activity and the need to optimize treatment in patients with multiple sclerosis (MS), independent of relapse and MRI activity, a new study has shown. 

The study found that current serum NfL levels predicted relapses, disability worsening, and MRI activity in the following year independent of standard metrics for treatment monitoring, such as relapse rate, disability worsening, and MRI findings. The biomarker also detected subclinical disease activity in patients with no evidence of disease activity (NEDA3), as measured by absence of previous relapses, worsening score on the Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS), or brain lesion formation on MRI. 

“Our data in this well-characterized large real-world cohort supports the value of serum NfL levels for treatment monitoring in MS clinical practice,” lead author Özgür Yaldizli, MD, concluded.

Dr. Yaldizli, who is a consultant neurologist at University Hospital Basel (Switzerland), presented the findings at the Joint European Committee for Treatment and Research in Multiple Sclerosis–Americas Committee for Treatment and Research in Multiple Sclerosis (ECTRIMS-ACTRIMS) 2020, this year known as MSVirtual2020.

“This is the first study to compare NfL simultaneously with other markers of disease progression, such as MRI lesions and relapse rate in treated patients. We show that NfL gives a unique signal that is not captured by other markers,” Dr. Yaldizli said.

“This is likely the largest study of NfL in MS to date, with more than 7,000 samples from well-characterized MS patients followed longitudinally for more than 5 years of sampling and including high quality data on MRI and clinical examinations. It is the first time all these factors have been combined so that we can see how NfL compares with other markers of disease progression in predicting clinical events and monitoring treatment efficacy,” said senior author Jens Kuhle, MD, PhD, also from University Hospital Basel. 
 

Large normative database for reference

The researchers also reported a large normative database of NfL values with data from more than 8,000 healthy controls. “This is the largest normative database to date, that gives us reliable reference values for NfL across a range of ages and comorbidities,” Dr. Kuhle noted.

In his presentation, Dr. Yaldizli explained that NfL is a neuronal cytoskeletal protein released into the cerebrospinal fluid and blood following neuroaxonal injury. Although numerous studies have shown that serum NfL is associated with clinical and MRI disease activity and treatment response, it is not clear whether serum NfL under established disease-modifying therapy (DMT) can identify patients with suboptimal treatment response, compared with standard clinical and MRI activity measures.

This study addressed that question in the large real-world Swiss MS cohort.

The study involved 1,366 patients (88.8% with relapsing remitting MS [RRMS], 5.4% with secondary progressive MS, and 5.8% with primary progressive MS) receiving DMT for at least 3 months from seven MS centers. The median disease duration was 7.2 years. Serum NfL was measured every 6 or 12 months with NF-Light assay on the latest-generation HDX platform (blinded for clinical and MRI data). The median follow-up was 4.9 years. There was an average of five samples per patient, with a total of 7462 samples.

Results showed that NfL levels were higher in older patients (14.5% per 10 years), those with secondary progressive MS (12.4% vs. RRMS), those with primary progressive MS (14.4% vs. RRMS), and in those who had a relapse in the last 4 months (53.4%).

NfL levels were 13.4% lower in patients receiving oral DMT (vs. untreated patients) and 17.7% in patients receiving monoclonal antibodies (vs. untreated patients).

In the large cohort of healthy controls, NfL levels also increased with age, but levels in patients with MS were higher than in controls across the whole age spectrum.

To obtain a measure of deviation from normal, the authors converted NfL levels to z score, which express how much (in terms of number of standard deviations) a measurement differs from mean values found in healthy controls of the same age. Effects were more pronounced with use of z score derived from the normative database than with use of absolute NfL levels even after adjustment for age.

In the univariate analysis, serum NfL z score predicted relapse or EDSS worsening in the following year: The higher the z score, the higher the risk for relapse or EDSS worsening. Patients with an NfL z score greater than 1 had a 41% higher risk for relapse or EDSS worsening in the following year, compared with those whose z score was less than 1 (odds ratio, 1.41).

Patients with an NfL z score exceeding 1.5 had an 80% higher risk for relapse or EDSS worsening in the following year than did those whose score was below 1.5 (OR, 1.8).

Patients with an NfL z score greater than 2 had a 2.3 times higher risk for relapse or EDSS worsening in the following year versus those with a score below 2. (P < 0.001 for all comparisons.)

A screen for nervous system conditions?

Dr, Kuhle reported that NfL is being used on an individual basis in clinical practice at present – at certain MS centers. “One of the problems is not having reliable reference values, so this database of normative values will be very helpful in developing those,” he said. “We see an increase in NfL with age in healthy controls. In order to know what pathological levels are, we need to know what normal levels are in controls throughout the spectrum of ages and other comorbidities, which also play a role. If we normalize these, then we can work out the MS signal in a more efficient way.”

Dr. Kuhle believes that, in the future, NfL may be used to screen for nervous system disease. “NfL is a measure of neuronal health independent of MS. If we have increased levels, we should be worried.”

There is a “high level of energy in this field,” he added. “In future, it could be like having a cholesterol test at present – picking up that something is not right and indicating the need for more tests.”

Dr. Yaldizli suggested that NfL monitoring could also help to individualize and optimize use of MS treatments. “There is a huge unmet need in MS. While we have a plethora of treatment options, we are struggling to individualize and monitor treatments. If NfL levels increase, this is likely a strong indication to change treatment even if there are no other overt symptoms.”

Commenting on the current study, ACTRIMS president, Jeffrey Cohen, MD, Mellen Center for Multiple Sclerosis Treatment and Research at the Cleveland Clinic, called it “an important study.” 

“NfL clearly can detect disease activity and distinguish efficacy of DMT in groups of patients,” Dr. Cohen said.  

“This study shows that NfL can be used to monitor DMT efficacy in individual patients and can detect suboptimal treatment response in patients with NEDA (i.e., who appear stable by the measures we typically employ in practice),” he added.

Dr. Yaldizli sits on advisory boards for Sanofi Genzyme, Novartis, Biogen, and Novartis. Dr. Kuhle reported no relevant disclosures.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Measuring serum levels of neurofilament light chain (NfL) is an effective way of detecting disease activity and the need to optimize treatment in patients with multiple sclerosis (MS), independent of relapse and MRI activity, a new study has shown. 

The study found that current serum NfL levels predicted relapses, disability worsening, and MRI activity in the following year independent of standard metrics for treatment monitoring, such as relapse rate, disability worsening, and MRI findings. The biomarker also detected subclinical disease activity in patients with no evidence of disease activity (NEDA3), as measured by absence of previous relapses, worsening score on the Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS), or brain lesion formation on MRI. 

“Our data in this well-characterized large real-world cohort supports the value of serum NfL levels for treatment monitoring in MS clinical practice,” lead author Özgür Yaldizli, MD, concluded.

Dr. Yaldizli, who is a consultant neurologist at University Hospital Basel (Switzerland), presented the findings at the Joint European Committee for Treatment and Research in Multiple Sclerosis–Americas Committee for Treatment and Research in Multiple Sclerosis (ECTRIMS-ACTRIMS) 2020, this year known as MSVirtual2020.

“This is the first study to compare NfL simultaneously with other markers of disease progression, such as MRI lesions and relapse rate in treated patients. We show that NfL gives a unique signal that is not captured by other markers,” Dr. Yaldizli said.

“This is likely the largest study of NfL in MS to date, with more than 7,000 samples from well-characterized MS patients followed longitudinally for more than 5 years of sampling and including high quality data on MRI and clinical examinations. It is the first time all these factors have been combined so that we can see how NfL compares with other markers of disease progression in predicting clinical events and monitoring treatment efficacy,” said senior author Jens Kuhle, MD, PhD, also from University Hospital Basel. 
 

Large normative database for reference

The researchers also reported a large normative database of NfL values with data from more than 8,000 healthy controls. “This is the largest normative database to date, that gives us reliable reference values for NfL across a range of ages and comorbidities,” Dr. Kuhle noted.

In his presentation, Dr. Yaldizli explained that NfL is a neuronal cytoskeletal protein released into the cerebrospinal fluid and blood following neuroaxonal injury. Although numerous studies have shown that serum NfL is associated with clinical and MRI disease activity and treatment response, it is not clear whether serum NfL under established disease-modifying therapy (DMT) can identify patients with suboptimal treatment response, compared with standard clinical and MRI activity measures.

This study addressed that question in the large real-world Swiss MS cohort.

The study involved 1,366 patients (88.8% with relapsing remitting MS [RRMS], 5.4% with secondary progressive MS, and 5.8% with primary progressive MS) receiving DMT for at least 3 months from seven MS centers. The median disease duration was 7.2 years. Serum NfL was measured every 6 or 12 months with NF-Light assay on the latest-generation HDX platform (blinded for clinical and MRI data). The median follow-up was 4.9 years. There was an average of five samples per patient, with a total of 7462 samples.

Results showed that NfL levels were higher in older patients (14.5% per 10 years), those with secondary progressive MS (12.4% vs. RRMS), those with primary progressive MS (14.4% vs. RRMS), and in those who had a relapse in the last 4 months (53.4%).

NfL levels were 13.4% lower in patients receiving oral DMT (vs. untreated patients) and 17.7% in patients receiving monoclonal antibodies (vs. untreated patients).

In the large cohort of healthy controls, NfL levels also increased with age, but levels in patients with MS were higher than in controls across the whole age spectrum.

To obtain a measure of deviation from normal, the authors converted NfL levels to z score, which express how much (in terms of number of standard deviations) a measurement differs from mean values found in healthy controls of the same age. Effects were more pronounced with use of z score derived from the normative database than with use of absolute NfL levels even after adjustment for age.

In the univariate analysis, serum NfL z score predicted relapse or EDSS worsening in the following year: The higher the z score, the higher the risk for relapse or EDSS worsening. Patients with an NfL z score greater than 1 had a 41% higher risk for relapse or EDSS worsening in the following year, compared with those whose z score was less than 1 (odds ratio, 1.41).

Patients with an NfL z score exceeding 1.5 had an 80% higher risk for relapse or EDSS worsening in the following year than did those whose score was below 1.5 (OR, 1.8).

Patients with an NfL z score greater than 2 had a 2.3 times higher risk for relapse or EDSS worsening in the following year versus those with a score below 2. (P < 0.001 for all comparisons.)

A screen for nervous system conditions?

Dr, Kuhle reported that NfL is being used on an individual basis in clinical practice at present – at certain MS centers. “One of the problems is not having reliable reference values, so this database of normative values will be very helpful in developing those,” he said. “We see an increase in NfL with age in healthy controls. In order to know what pathological levels are, we need to know what normal levels are in controls throughout the spectrum of ages and other comorbidities, which also play a role. If we normalize these, then we can work out the MS signal in a more efficient way.”

Dr. Kuhle believes that, in the future, NfL may be used to screen for nervous system disease. “NfL is a measure of neuronal health independent of MS. If we have increased levels, we should be worried.”

There is a “high level of energy in this field,” he added. “In future, it could be like having a cholesterol test at present – picking up that something is not right and indicating the need for more tests.”

Dr. Yaldizli suggested that NfL monitoring could also help to individualize and optimize use of MS treatments. “There is a huge unmet need in MS. While we have a plethora of treatment options, we are struggling to individualize and monitor treatments. If NfL levels increase, this is likely a strong indication to change treatment even if there are no other overt symptoms.”

Commenting on the current study, ACTRIMS president, Jeffrey Cohen, MD, Mellen Center for Multiple Sclerosis Treatment and Research at the Cleveland Clinic, called it “an important study.” 

“NfL clearly can detect disease activity and distinguish efficacy of DMT in groups of patients,” Dr. Cohen said.  

“This study shows that NfL can be used to monitor DMT efficacy in individual patients and can detect suboptimal treatment response in patients with NEDA (i.e., who appear stable by the measures we typically employ in practice),” he added.

Dr. Yaldizli sits on advisory boards for Sanofi Genzyme, Novartis, Biogen, and Novartis. Dr. Kuhle reported no relevant disclosures.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

It may be possible to diagnose Parkinson’s disease with a skin test, a new study suggests. For the study, researchers used a chemical assay to detect clumping of the protein alpha-synuclein, a hallmark of Parkinson’s disease, in autopsy skin samples taken from patients who had Parkinson’s disease confirmed by brain pathology and from controls without the disease. The test showed a high degree of sensitivity and specificity for the diagnosis of Parkinson’s disease.

The study was published online in Movement Disorders.

“This test has a lot of promise,” said senior author Anumantha Kanthasamy, PhD, professor of biomedical sciences at Iowa State University in Ames. “At present there are no peripheral biomarkers for Parkinson’s disease. The current diagnosis is just based on symptoms, and the symptoms can be similar to many other neurological diseases,” he added. “It can take many years to establish a correct diagnosis and the accuracy is low even with experienced neurologists.”

If the current results can be replicated in samples from live patients and in those with very early stages of Parkinson’s disease, a skin test could allow early diagnosis and the possibility of starting preventive treatments to slow disease progression before symptoms develop too severely, the researchers suggest.
 

Sensitive and specific test

The blinded study used a seeding assay – used previously to detect misfolded proteins in prion diseases – to analyze 50 skin samples provided by the Arizona Study of Aging and Neurodegenerative Disorders/Brain and Body Donation Program based at Banner Sun Health Research Institute in Sun City.

Half of the skin samples came from patients with Parkinson’s disease and half came from people without neurologic disease. The protein assay correctly diagnosed 24 out of 25 patients with Parkinson’s disease and only one of the 25 controls had the protein clumping.

“At present, the only way to definitely diagnose Parkinson’s disease is on autopsy – by the detection of alpha-synuclein clumps [Lewy bodies] in the brain,” commented Charles Adler, MD, professor of neurology at Mayo Clinic Arizona in Scottsdale and a coinvestigator of the study. “In our research, we have also seen clumping of alpha-synuclein in many other organs including submandibular gland, colon, skin, heart, and stomach, but in terms of access, the skin is probably the easiest source.”

In this study, “we found this seeding assay for alpha-synuclein clumps to be extremely sensitive and specific in the diagnosis of Parkinson’s disease,” he added. “This is very valuable data as we have samples from patients with autopsy-validated Parkinson’s disease.”
 

A reliable biomarker?

The researchers are now starting a study in living patients with funding from the National Institutes of Health in which they will repeat the process comparing skin samples from patients with clinically diagnosed Parkinson’s disease and controls.

“We need to know whether analyzing alpha-synuclein clumping in skin biopsies from live patients with Parkinson’s disease would serve as a reliable biomarker for disease progression. Will clumping of this protein in skin samples increase over time and does it correspond with disease progression?” Dr. Adler said.

In future they are also hoping to test individuals who have not yet developed Parkinson’s disease but may have some prodromal type symptoms and to test whether this assay could measure a treatment effect of drug therapy.

Dr. Adler noted that they are currently conducting an autopsy study of skin samples from individuals who did not have clinical Parkinson’s disease when alive but in whom Lewy bodies have been found postmortem.

“This suggests that the disease pathology starts before Parkinson’s symptoms develop, and in the future, if we can diagnose Parkinson’s disease earlier then we may be able to stop progression,” he said.

“There is a long list of compounds that have been studied to try and slow progression but haven’t shown benefits, but by the time patients develop symptoms they already have significant disease and [have] lost most of their dopamine neurons,” he added. “If we could backtrack by 10 years, then these drugs may well make a difference.”

Dr. Adler also noted that currently more advanced patients may undergo invasive procedures such as deep brain stimulation or surgery. “It is of utmost importance that they have an accurate diagnosis before being subjected to such procedures.”

In addition, he pointed out that an accurate test would help the drug development process. “It is vitally important to enroll patients with an accurate diagnosis in clinical trials of new drugs. At present, a large percentage of patients in these trials may not actually have Parkinson’s disease, which makes it very difficult to show a treatment effect.”
 

Important step, but preliminary

Commenting on the research, James Beck, PhD, chief scientific officer of the Parkinson’s Foundation, said the study “is an important step toward the creation of a new way to potentially diagnose Parkinson’s disease.”

But he cautioned that this is a preliminary study. “To really confirm the possibility of using this approach for diagnosing Parkinson’s disease, a larger study will be necessary. And it will be important to test this in a population with early disease – the most difficult group to accurately diagnose.”

Also commenting on the findings, Beate Ritz, MD, PhD, an epidemiologist at UCLA Fielding School of Public Health in Los Angeles, who is part of a team also working on ways to measure abnormal alpha-synuclein to diagnose Parkinson’s disease, described the current study of skin samples as “pretty nifty.”

“Their research shows clearly that they can distinguish between patients with Parkinson’s disease and controls in this way,” she said. “The big advantage of this study is that they have brain pathology, so they know exactly which individuals had Parkinson’s disease.”

Dr. Ritz is working with Gal Bitan, PhD, from the UCLA Brain Research Institute on a potential blood test to measure abnormal alpha-synuclein.

Dr. Ritz explained that it is not possible to measure alpha-synuclein pathology in regular blood samples as it is expressed normally in red blood cells, but they are measuring the protein and its more toxic phosphorylated form from exosomes, which contain the waste discarded by cells using technology that determines the origin of these exosomes.

“Alpha-synuclein itself is not a problem. It is the way it misfolds that causes toxicity and disrupts the workings of the cell,” Dr. Ritz added. “In Parkinson’s disease, it is particularly toxic to dopaminergic neurons, and in multiple system atrophy, it is toxic to glial cells, so if we can identify the source of the protein then that could be helpful.”

The study was funded by the National Institutes of Health and the US Army Medical Research Materiel Command. The study authors, Dr. Beck, and Dr. Ritz have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
 

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

It may be possible to diagnose Parkinson’s disease with a skin test, a new study suggests. For the study, researchers used a chemical assay to detect clumping of the protein alpha-synuclein, a hallmark of Parkinson’s disease, in autopsy skin samples taken from patients who had Parkinson’s disease confirmed by brain pathology and from controls without the disease. The test showed a high degree of sensitivity and specificity for the diagnosis of Parkinson’s disease.

The study was published online in Movement Disorders.

“This test has a lot of promise,” said senior author Anumantha Kanthasamy, PhD, professor of biomedical sciences at Iowa State University in Ames. “At present there are no peripheral biomarkers for Parkinson’s disease. The current diagnosis is just based on symptoms, and the symptoms can be similar to many other neurological diseases,” he added. “It can take many years to establish a correct diagnosis and the accuracy is low even with experienced neurologists.”

If the current results can be replicated in samples from live patients and in those with very early stages of Parkinson’s disease, a skin test could allow early diagnosis and the possibility of starting preventive treatments to slow disease progression before symptoms develop too severely, the researchers suggest.
 

Sensitive and specific test

The blinded study used a seeding assay – used previously to detect misfolded proteins in prion diseases – to analyze 50 skin samples provided by the Arizona Study of Aging and Neurodegenerative Disorders/Brain and Body Donation Program based at Banner Sun Health Research Institute in Sun City.

Half of the skin samples came from patients with Parkinson’s disease and half came from people without neurologic disease. The protein assay correctly diagnosed 24 out of 25 patients with Parkinson’s disease and only one of the 25 controls had the protein clumping.

“At present, the only way to definitely diagnose Parkinson’s disease is on autopsy – by the detection of alpha-synuclein clumps [Lewy bodies] in the brain,” commented Charles Adler, MD, professor of neurology at Mayo Clinic Arizona in Scottsdale and a coinvestigator of the study. “In our research, we have also seen clumping of alpha-synuclein in many other organs including submandibular gland, colon, skin, heart, and stomach, but in terms of access, the skin is probably the easiest source.”

In this study, “we found this seeding assay for alpha-synuclein clumps to be extremely sensitive and specific in the diagnosis of Parkinson’s disease,” he added. “This is very valuable data as we have samples from patients with autopsy-validated Parkinson’s disease.”
 

A reliable biomarker?

The researchers are now starting a study in living patients with funding from the National Institutes of Health in which they will repeat the process comparing skin samples from patients with clinically diagnosed Parkinson’s disease and controls.

“We need to know whether analyzing alpha-synuclein clumping in skin biopsies from live patients with Parkinson’s disease would serve as a reliable biomarker for disease progression. Will clumping of this protein in skin samples increase over time and does it correspond with disease progression?” Dr. Adler said.

In future they are also hoping to test individuals who have not yet developed Parkinson’s disease but may have some prodromal type symptoms and to test whether this assay could measure a treatment effect of drug therapy.

Dr. Adler noted that they are currently conducting an autopsy study of skin samples from individuals who did not have clinical Parkinson’s disease when alive but in whom Lewy bodies have been found postmortem.

“This suggests that the disease pathology starts before Parkinson’s symptoms develop, and in the future, if we can diagnose Parkinson’s disease earlier then we may be able to stop progression,” he said.

“There is a long list of compounds that have been studied to try and slow progression but haven’t shown benefits, but by the time patients develop symptoms they already have significant disease and [have] lost most of their dopamine neurons,” he added. “If we could backtrack by 10 years, then these drugs may well make a difference.”

Dr. Adler also noted that currently more advanced patients may undergo invasive procedures such as deep brain stimulation or surgery. “It is of utmost importance that they have an accurate diagnosis before being subjected to such procedures.”

In addition, he pointed out that an accurate test would help the drug development process. “It is vitally important to enroll patients with an accurate diagnosis in clinical trials of new drugs. At present, a large percentage of patients in these trials may not actually have Parkinson’s disease, which makes it very difficult to show a treatment effect.”
 

Important step, but preliminary

Commenting on the research, James Beck, PhD, chief scientific officer of the Parkinson’s Foundation, said the study “is an important step toward the creation of a new way to potentially diagnose Parkinson’s disease.”

But he cautioned that this is a preliminary study. “To really confirm the possibility of using this approach for diagnosing Parkinson’s disease, a larger study will be necessary. And it will be important to test this in a population with early disease – the most difficult group to accurately diagnose.”

Also commenting on the findings, Beate Ritz, MD, PhD, an epidemiologist at UCLA Fielding School of Public Health in Los Angeles, who is part of a team also working on ways to measure abnormal alpha-synuclein to diagnose Parkinson’s disease, described the current study of skin samples as “pretty nifty.”

“Their research shows clearly that they can distinguish between patients with Parkinson’s disease and controls in this way,” she said. “The big advantage of this study is that they have brain pathology, so they know exactly which individuals had Parkinson’s disease.”

Dr. Ritz is working with Gal Bitan, PhD, from the UCLA Brain Research Institute on a potential blood test to measure abnormal alpha-synuclein.

Dr. Ritz explained that it is not possible to measure alpha-synuclein pathology in regular blood samples as it is expressed normally in red blood cells, but they are measuring the protein and its more toxic phosphorylated form from exosomes, which contain the waste discarded by cells using technology that determines the origin of these exosomes.

“Alpha-synuclein itself is not a problem. It is the way it misfolds that causes toxicity and disrupts the workings of the cell,” Dr. Ritz added. “In Parkinson’s disease, it is particularly toxic to dopaminergic neurons, and in multiple system atrophy, it is toxic to glial cells, so if we can identify the source of the protein then that could be helpful.”

The study was funded by the National Institutes of Health and the US Army Medical Research Materiel Command. The study authors, Dr. Beck, and Dr. Ritz have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
 

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

It may be possible to diagnose Parkinson’s disease with a skin test, a new study suggests. For the study, researchers used a chemical assay to detect clumping of the protein alpha-synuclein, a hallmark of Parkinson’s disease, in autopsy skin samples taken from patients who had Parkinson’s disease confirmed by brain pathology and from controls without the disease. The test showed a high degree of sensitivity and specificity for the diagnosis of Parkinson’s disease.

The study was published online in Movement Disorders.

“This test has a lot of promise,” said senior author Anumantha Kanthasamy, PhD, professor of biomedical sciences at Iowa State University in Ames. “At present there are no peripheral biomarkers for Parkinson’s disease. The current diagnosis is just based on symptoms, and the symptoms can be similar to many other neurological diseases,” he added. “It can take many years to establish a correct diagnosis and the accuracy is low even with experienced neurologists.”

If the current results can be replicated in samples from live patients and in those with very early stages of Parkinson’s disease, a skin test could allow early diagnosis and the possibility of starting preventive treatments to slow disease progression before symptoms develop too severely, the researchers suggest.
 

Sensitive and specific test

The blinded study used a seeding assay – used previously to detect misfolded proteins in prion diseases – to analyze 50 skin samples provided by the Arizona Study of Aging and Neurodegenerative Disorders/Brain and Body Donation Program based at Banner Sun Health Research Institute in Sun City.

Half of the skin samples came from patients with Parkinson’s disease and half came from people without neurologic disease. The protein assay correctly diagnosed 24 out of 25 patients with Parkinson’s disease and only one of the 25 controls had the protein clumping.

“At present, the only way to definitely diagnose Parkinson’s disease is on autopsy – by the detection of alpha-synuclein clumps [Lewy bodies] in the brain,” commented Charles Adler, MD, professor of neurology at Mayo Clinic Arizona in Scottsdale and a coinvestigator of the study. “In our research, we have also seen clumping of alpha-synuclein in many other organs including submandibular gland, colon, skin, heart, and stomach, but in terms of access, the skin is probably the easiest source.”

In this study, “we found this seeding assay for alpha-synuclein clumps to be extremely sensitive and specific in the diagnosis of Parkinson’s disease,” he added. “This is very valuable data as we have samples from patients with autopsy-validated Parkinson’s disease.”
 

A reliable biomarker?

The researchers are now starting a study in living patients with funding from the National Institutes of Health in which they will repeat the process comparing skin samples from patients with clinically diagnosed Parkinson’s disease and controls.

“We need to know whether analyzing alpha-synuclein clumping in skin biopsies from live patients with Parkinson’s disease would serve as a reliable biomarker for disease progression. Will clumping of this protein in skin samples increase over time and does it correspond with disease progression?” Dr. Adler said.

In future they are also hoping to test individuals who have not yet developed Parkinson’s disease but may have some prodromal type symptoms and to test whether this assay could measure a treatment effect of drug therapy.

Dr. Adler noted that they are currently conducting an autopsy study of skin samples from individuals who did not have clinical Parkinson’s disease when alive but in whom Lewy bodies have been found postmortem.

“This suggests that the disease pathology starts before Parkinson’s symptoms develop, and in the future, if we can diagnose Parkinson’s disease earlier then we may be able to stop progression,” he said.

“There is a long list of compounds that have been studied to try and slow progression but haven’t shown benefits, but by the time patients develop symptoms they already have significant disease and [have] lost most of their dopamine neurons,” he added. “If we could backtrack by 10 years, then these drugs may well make a difference.”

Dr. Adler also noted that currently more advanced patients may undergo invasive procedures such as deep brain stimulation or surgery. “It is of utmost importance that they have an accurate diagnosis before being subjected to such procedures.”

In addition, he pointed out that an accurate test would help the drug development process. “It is vitally important to enroll patients with an accurate diagnosis in clinical trials of new drugs. At present, a large percentage of patients in these trials may not actually have Parkinson’s disease, which makes it very difficult to show a treatment effect.”
 

Important step, but preliminary

Commenting on the research, James Beck, PhD, chief scientific officer of the Parkinson’s Foundation, said the study “is an important step toward the creation of a new way to potentially diagnose Parkinson’s disease.”

But he cautioned that this is a preliminary study. “To really confirm the possibility of using this approach for diagnosing Parkinson’s disease, a larger study will be necessary. And it will be important to test this in a population with early disease – the most difficult group to accurately diagnose.”

Also commenting on the findings, Beate Ritz, MD, PhD, an epidemiologist at UCLA Fielding School of Public Health in Los Angeles, who is part of a team also working on ways to measure abnormal alpha-synuclein to diagnose Parkinson’s disease, described the current study of skin samples as “pretty nifty.”

“Their research shows clearly that they can distinguish between patients with Parkinson’s disease and controls in this way,” she said. “The big advantage of this study is that they have brain pathology, so they know exactly which individuals had Parkinson’s disease.”

Dr. Ritz is working with Gal Bitan, PhD, from the UCLA Brain Research Institute on a potential blood test to measure abnormal alpha-synuclein.

Dr. Ritz explained that it is not possible to measure alpha-synuclein pathology in regular blood samples as it is expressed normally in red blood cells, but they are measuring the protein and its more toxic phosphorylated form from exosomes, which contain the waste discarded by cells using technology that determines the origin of these exosomes.

“Alpha-synuclein itself is not a problem. It is the way it misfolds that causes toxicity and disrupts the workings of the cell,” Dr. Ritz added. “In Parkinson’s disease, it is particularly toxic to dopaminergic neurons, and in multiple system atrophy, it is toxic to glial cells, so if we can identify the source of the protein then that could be helpful.”

The study was funded by the National Institutes of Health and the US Army Medical Research Materiel Command. The study authors, Dr. Beck, and Dr. Ritz have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
 

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

A routine scan used to evaluate some acute stroke patients can also detect SARS-CoV-2 infection in the upper lungs, a new study shows.

“As part of the stroke evaluation workup process, we were able to diagnose COVID-19 at the same time at no extra cost or additional workload,” lead author Charles Esenwa, MD, commented to Medscape Medical News. “This is an objective way to screen for COVID-19 in the acute stroke setting,” he added.

Esenwa is an assistant professor and a stroke neurologist at the Montefiore Medical Center/Albert Einstein College of Medicine in New York City.

He explained that, during the COVID-19 surge earlier this year, assessment of patients with severe acute stroke using computed tomography angiogram (CTA) scans – used to evaluate suitability for endovascular stroke therapy – also showed findings in the upper lung consistent with viral infection in some patients.

“We then assumed that these patients had COVID-19 and took extra precautions to keep them isolated and to protect staff involved in their care. It also allowed us to triage these patients more quickly than waiting for the COVID-19 swab test and arrange the most appropriate care for them,” Esenwa said.

The researchers have now gone back and analyzed their data on acute stroke patients who underwent CTA at their institution during the COVID-19 surge. They found that the changes identified in the lungs were highly specific for diagnosing SARS-CoV-2 infection.

The study was published online on Oct. 29 in Stroke.

“Stroke patients are normally screened for COVID-19 on hospitalization, but the swab test result can take several hours or longer to come back, and it is very useful for us to know if a patient could be infected,” Esenwa noted.

“When we do a CTA, we look at the blood vessels supplying the brain, but the scan also covers the top of the lung, as it starts at the aortic arch. We don’t normally look closely at that area, but we started to notice signs of active lung infection which could have been COVID-19,” he said. “For this paper, we went back to assess how accurate this approach actually was vs. the COVID-19 PCR test.”

The researchers report on 57 patients who presented to three Montefiore Health System hospitals in the Bronx, in New York City, with acute ischemic stroke and who underwent CTA of the head and neck in March and April 2020, the peak of the COVID-19 outbreak there. The patients also underwent PCR testing for COVID-19.

Results showed that 30 patients had a positive COVID-19 test result and that 27 had a negative result. Lung findings highly or very highly suspicious for COVID-19 pneumonia were identified during the CTA scan in 20 (67%) of the COVID-19–positive patients and in two (7%) of the COVID-19–negative patients.

These findings, when used in isolation, yielded a sensitivity of 0.67 and a specificity of 0.93. They had a positive predictive value of 0.19, a negative predictive value of 0.99, and accuracy of 0.92 for the diagnosis of COVID-19.

When apical lung assessment was combined with self-reported clinical symptoms of cough or dyspnea, sensitivity for the diagnosis of COVID-19 for patients presenting to the hospital for acute ischemic stroke increased to 0.83.

“We wondered whether looking at the whole lung would have found better results, but other studies which have done this actually found similar numbers to ours, so we think actually just looking at the top of the lungs, which can be seen in a stroke CTA, may be sufficient,” Esenwa said.

He emphasized the importance of establishing whether an acute stroke patient has COVID-19. “If we had a high suspicion of COVID-19 infection, we would take more precautions during any procedures, such as thrombectomy, and make sure to keep the patient isolated afterwards. It doesn’t necessarily affect the treatment given for stroke, but it affects the safety of the patients and everyone caring for them,” he commented.

Esenwa explained that intubation – which is sometime necessary during thrombectomy – can expose everyone in the room to aerosolized droplets. “So we would take much higher safety precautions if we thought the patient was COVID-19 positive,” he said.

“Early COVID-19 diagnosis also means patients can be given supportive treatment more quickly, admitted to ICU if appropriate, and we can all keep a close eye on pulmonary issues. So having that information is important in many ways,” he added.

Esenwa advises that any medical center that evaluates acute stroke patients for thrombectomy and is experiencing a COVID-19 surge can use this technique as a screening method for COVID-19.

He pointed out that the Montefiore Health System had a very high rate of COVID-19. That part of New York City was one of the worst hit areas of the world, and the CTA approach for identifying COVID-19 has been validated only in areas with such a high local incidence of COVID. If used in an area of lower prevalence, the accuracy would likely be less.

“We don’t know if this approach would work as well at times of low COVID-19 infection, where any lung findings would be more likely to be caused by other conditions, such as pneumonia due to other causes or congestive heart failure. So there would be more false positives,” Esenwa said.

“But when COVID-19 prevalence is high, the lung findings are much more likely to be a sign of COVID-19 infection. As COVID-19 numbers are now rising for a second time, it is likely to become a useful strategy again.”

The study was approved by the Albert Einstein College of Medicine/Montefiore Medical Center Institutional Review Board and had no external funding. Esenwa has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

A routine scan used to evaluate some acute stroke patients can also detect SARS-CoV-2 infection in the upper lungs, a new study shows.

“As part of the stroke evaluation workup process, we were able to diagnose COVID-19 at the same time at no extra cost or additional workload,” lead author Charles Esenwa, MD, commented to Medscape Medical News. “This is an objective way to screen for COVID-19 in the acute stroke setting,” he added.

Esenwa is an assistant professor and a stroke neurologist at the Montefiore Medical Center/Albert Einstein College of Medicine in New York City.

He explained that, during the COVID-19 surge earlier this year, assessment of patients with severe acute stroke using computed tomography angiogram (CTA) scans – used to evaluate suitability for endovascular stroke therapy – also showed findings in the upper lung consistent with viral infection in some patients.

“We then assumed that these patients had COVID-19 and took extra precautions to keep them isolated and to protect staff involved in their care. It also allowed us to triage these patients more quickly than waiting for the COVID-19 swab test and arrange the most appropriate care for them,” Esenwa said.

The researchers have now gone back and analyzed their data on acute stroke patients who underwent CTA at their institution during the COVID-19 surge. They found that the changes identified in the lungs were highly specific for diagnosing SARS-CoV-2 infection.

The study was published online on Oct. 29 in Stroke.

“Stroke patients are normally screened for COVID-19 on hospitalization, but the swab test result can take several hours or longer to come back, and it is very useful for us to know if a patient could be infected,” Esenwa noted.

“When we do a CTA, we look at the blood vessels supplying the brain, but the scan also covers the top of the lung, as it starts at the aortic arch. We don’t normally look closely at that area, but we started to notice signs of active lung infection which could have been COVID-19,” he said. “For this paper, we went back to assess how accurate this approach actually was vs. the COVID-19 PCR test.”

The researchers report on 57 patients who presented to three Montefiore Health System hospitals in the Bronx, in New York City, with acute ischemic stroke and who underwent CTA of the head and neck in March and April 2020, the peak of the COVID-19 outbreak there. The patients also underwent PCR testing for COVID-19.

Results showed that 30 patients had a positive COVID-19 test result and that 27 had a negative result. Lung findings highly or very highly suspicious for COVID-19 pneumonia were identified during the CTA scan in 20 (67%) of the COVID-19–positive patients and in two (7%) of the COVID-19–negative patients.

These findings, when used in isolation, yielded a sensitivity of 0.67 and a specificity of 0.93. They had a positive predictive value of 0.19, a negative predictive value of 0.99, and accuracy of 0.92 for the diagnosis of COVID-19.

When apical lung assessment was combined with self-reported clinical symptoms of cough or dyspnea, sensitivity for the diagnosis of COVID-19 for patients presenting to the hospital for acute ischemic stroke increased to 0.83.

“We wondered whether looking at the whole lung would have found better results, but other studies which have done this actually found similar numbers to ours, so we think actually just looking at the top of the lungs, which can be seen in a stroke CTA, may be sufficient,” Esenwa said.

He emphasized the importance of establishing whether an acute stroke patient has COVID-19. “If we had a high suspicion of COVID-19 infection, we would take more precautions during any procedures, such as thrombectomy, and make sure to keep the patient isolated afterwards. It doesn’t necessarily affect the treatment given for stroke, but it affects the safety of the patients and everyone caring for them,” he commented.

Esenwa explained that intubation – which is sometime necessary during thrombectomy – can expose everyone in the room to aerosolized droplets. “So we would take much higher safety precautions if we thought the patient was COVID-19 positive,” he said.

“Early COVID-19 diagnosis also means patients can be given supportive treatment more quickly, admitted to ICU if appropriate, and we can all keep a close eye on pulmonary issues. So having that information is important in many ways,” he added.

Esenwa advises that any medical center that evaluates acute stroke patients for thrombectomy and is experiencing a COVID-19 surge can use this technique as a screening method for COVID-19.

He pointed out that the Montefiore Health System had a very high rate of COVID-19. That part of New York City was one of the worst hit areas of the world, and the CTA approach for identifying COVID-19 has been validated only in areas with such a high local incidence of COVID. If used in an area of lower prevalence, the accuracy would likely be less.

“We don’t know if this approach would work as well at times of low COVID-19 infection, where any lung findings would be more likely to be caused by other conditions, such as pneumonia due to other causes or congestive heart failure. So there would be more false positives,” Esenwa said.

“But when COVID-19 prevalence is high, the lung findings are much more likely to be a sign of COVID-19 infection. As COVID-19 numbers are now rising for a second time, it is likely to become a useful strategy again.”

The study was approved by the Albert Einstein College of Medicine/Montefiore Medical Center Institutional Review Board and had no external funding. Esenwa has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

A routine scan used to evaluate some acute stroke patients can also detect SARS-CoV-2 infection in the upper lungs, a new study shows.

“As part of the stroke evaluation workup process, we were able to diagnose COVID-19 at the same time at no extra cost or additional workload,” lead author Charles Esenwa, MD, commented to Medscape Medical News. “This is an objective way to screen for COVID-19 in the acute stroke setting,” he added.

Esenwa is an assistant professor and a stroke neurologist at the Montefiore Medical Center/Albert Einstein College of Medicine in New York City.

He explained that, during the COVID-19 surge earlier this year, assessment of patients with severe acute stroke using computed tomography angiogram (CTA) scans – used to evaluate suitability for endovascular stroke therapy – also showed findings in the upper lung consistent with viral infection in some patients.

“We then assumed that these patients had COVID-19 and took extra precautions to keep them isolated and to protect staff involved in their care. It also allowed us to triage these patients more quickly than waiting for the COVID-19 swab test and arrange the most appropriate care for them,” Esenwa said.

The researchers have now gone back and analyzed their data on acute stroke patients who underwent CTA at their institution during the COVID-19 surge. They found that the changes identified in the lungs were highly specific for diagnosing SARS-CoV-2 infection.

The study was published online on Oct. 29 in Stroke.

“Stroke patients are normally screened for COVID-19 on hospitalization, but the swab test result can take several hours or longer to come back, and it is very useful for us to know if a patient could be infected,” Esenwa noted.

“When we do a CTA, we look at the blood vessels supplying the brain, but the scan also covers the top of the lung, as it starts at the aortic arch. We don’t normally look closely at that area, but we started to notice signs of active lung infection which could have been COVID-19,” he said. “For this paper, we went back to assess how accurate this approach actually was vs. the COVID-19 PCR test.”

The researchers report on 57 patients who presented to three Montefiore Health System hospitals in the Bronx, in New York City, with acute ischemic stroke and who underwent CTA of the head and neck in March and April 2020, the peak of the COVID-19 outbreak there. The patients also underwent PCR testing for COVID-19.

Results showed that 30 patients had a positive COVID-19 test result and that 27 had a negative result. Lung findings highly or very highly suspicious for COVID-19 pneumonia were identified during the CTA scan in 20 (67%) of the COVID-19–positive patients and in two (7%) of the COVID-19–negative patients.

These findings, when used in isolation, yielded a sensitivity of 0.67 and a specificity of 0.93. They had a positive predictive value of 0.19, a negative predictive value of 0.99, and accuracy of 0.92 for the diagnosis of COVID-19.

When apical lung assessment was combined with self-reported clinical symptoms of cough or dyspnea, sensitivity for the diagnosis of COVID-19 for patients presenting to the hospital for acute ischemic stroke increased to 0.83.

“We wondered whether looking at the whole lung would have found better results, but other studies which have done this actually found similar numbers to ours, so we think actually just looking at the top of the lungs, which can be seen in a stroke CTA, may be sufficient,” Esenwa said.

He emphasized the importance of establishing whether an acute stroke patient has COVID-19. “If we had a high suspicion of COVID-19 infection, we would take more precautions during any procedures, such as thrombectomy, and make sure to keep the patient isolated afterwards. It doesn’t necessarily affect the treatment given for stroke, but it affects the safety of the patients and everyone caring for them,” he commented.

Esenwa explained that intubation – which is sometime necessary during thrombectomy – can expose everyone in the room to aerosolized droplets. “So we would take much higher safety precautions if we thought the patient was COVID-19 positive,” he said.

“Early COVID-19 diagnosis also means patients can be given supportive treatment more quickly, admitted to ICU if appropriate, and we can all keep a close eye on pulmonary issues. So having that information is important in many ways,” he added.

Esenwa advises that any medical center that evaluates acute stroke patients for thrombectomy and is experiencing a COVID-19 surge can use this technique as a screening method for COVID-19.

He pointed out that the Montefiore Health System had a very high rate of COVID-19. That part of New York City was one of the worst hit areas of the world, and the CTA approach for identifying COVID-19 has been validated only in areas with such a high local incidence of COVID. If used in an area of lower prevalence, the accuracy would likely be less.

“We don’t know if this approach would work as well at times of low COVID-19 infection, where any lung findings would be more likely to be caused by other conditions, such as pneumonia due to other causes or congestive heart failure. So there would be more false positives,” Esenwa said.

“But when COVID-19 prevalence is high, the lung findings are much more likely to be a sign of COVID-19 infection. As COVID-19 numbers are now rising for a second time, it is likely to become a useful strategy again.”

The study was approved by the Albert Einstein College of Medicine/Montefiore Medical Center Institutional Review Board and had no external funding. Esenwa has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Major thromboembolic complications and adverse cardiovascular events occurred with high frequency in patients with COVID-19, especially in the intensive care setting, despite a high use of thromboprophylaxis, in a new large observational U.S. study.

“Despite very high rate of antithrombotic prophylaxis there were a high rate of thromboembolic events suggesting that we are probably not providing enough thromboprophylaxis,” lead author Gregory Piazza, MD, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, said in an interview. 

“Standard prophylaxis as recommended in the guidelines is a low dose of low-molecular-weight heparin once daily, but these results suggest [patients] probably need higher doses,” he added.

However, Dr. Piazza cautioned that this is an observational study and randomized trials are needed to make changes in treatment strategies. Several such trials are currently underway.

The current study was published online ahead of print in the Nov. 3 issue of the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.
 

Rates similar to other very sick patients

The study showed that while thromboembolic complications were high, they were not as high as seen in some of the earlier studies from Asia and Europe, Dr. Piazza noted.

“The numbers we were seeing in early reports were so high we couldn’t figure out how that was possible,” he said. “Our study suggests that, in a U.S. population receiving thromboprophylaxis, the rate of thromboembolic complications [are] more in line with what we would expect to see in other very sick patients who end up in ICU.”

He suggested that the very high rates of thromboembolic complications in the early studies from Asia may have been because of the lack of thromboprophylaxis, which is not routine in hospitalized patients there. “Some of the earlier studies also used routine ultrasound and so picked up asymptomatic thrombotic events, which was not the case in our study. So our results are more representative of the U.S. population.”

Dr. Piazza attributed the high rate of thromboembolic complications being reported with COVID-19 to the sheer number of very sick patients being admitted to the hospital.

“We are accustomed to seeing a rare case of thrombosis despite prophylaxis in hospitalized patients, but we are seeing more in COVID patients. This is probably just because we have more critically ill patients,” he said.

“We are seeing an incredible influx of patients to the ICU that we have never experienced before, so the increase in thromboembolic complications is more obvious. In prior years we probably haven’t had enough critically ill patients at any one time to raise the flag about thromboprophylaxis,” he commented.

The study also found a high rate of cardiovascular complications. They are seeing an increase in the risk of MI, which is to be expected in such sick patients, but they also see quite a bit of new atrial fibrillation, myocarditis, and heart failure in patients who don’t always have underlying cardiovascular disease, he said.

“So this virus does appear to have a predilection to causing cardiovascular complications, but this is probably because it is making patients so sick,” Dr. Piazza said. “If flu was this virulent and resulted in such high rates of acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), we would probably see similar cardiovascular complication rates.”

For the current report, the researchers analyzed a retrospective cohort of 1,114 patients with COVID-19 diagnosed through the Mass General Brigham integrated health network. Of these, 170 had been admitted to the ICU, 229 had been hospitalized but not treated in ICU, and 715 were outpatients. In terms of ethnicity, 22% were Hispanic/Latino and 44% were non-White. 

Cardiovascular risk factors were common, with 36% of patients having hypertension, 29% hyperlipidemia, and 18% diabetes. Prophylactic anticoagulation was prescribed in 89% of patients with COVID-19 in the intensive care cohort and 85% of those in the hospitalized non–intensive care setting.

Results showed that major arterial or venous thromboembolism (VTE) occurred in 35% of the intensive care cohort, 2.6% of those hospitalized but not treated in ICU, and 0% of outpatients.

Major adverse cardiovascular events occurred in 46% of the intensive care cohort, 6.1% of those hospitalized but non-ICU, and 0% of outpatients.

Symptomatic VTE occurred in 27% of those admitted to ICU, 2.2% of those hospitalized but non-ICU, and 0% of outpatients.

“We found that outpatients had a very low rate of thromboembolic complications, with the vast majority of the risk being in hospitalized patients, especially those in ICU,” Dr. Piazza said.

“These results suggest that we don’t need routine thromboprophylaxis for all outpatients with COVID-19, but there will probably be some patients who need it – those with risk factors for thromboembolism.”

Catheter- and device-associated deep vein thrombosis accounted for 76.9% of the DVTs observed in the study.

“Our finding of high frequency of catheter-associated DVT supports the judicious use of central venous catheters that have been widely implemented, especially in the ICU, to minimize recurrent health care team exposure and facilitate monitoring,” the researchers wrote.
 

ARDS biggest risk factor

Of all the markers of disease severity, the presence of ARDS had the strongest association with adverse outcomes, including major arterial or VTE, major adverse cardiovascular events, symptomatic VTE, and death.

“The severe inflammatory state associated with ARDS and other complications of COVID-19 and its resultant hypercoagulability may explain, at least in part, the high frequency of thromboembolic events. Improved risk stratification, utilizing biochemical markers of inflammation and activated coagulation as well as clinical indicators, such as ARDS, may play an important role in the early identification of patients with an increased likelihood of developing symptomatic VTE or arterial thrombosis,” the researchers wrote. “They may benefit from full- or intermediate-intensity antithrombotic therapy rather than prophylactic anticoagulation.”

They point out that this study provides a cross-sectional view of the cardiovascular complications of COVID-19 in a large health care network, consisting of two academic medical centers serving the greater Boston area, several community hospitals, and numerous outpatient care sites.

“The study incorporates a wide scope of clinically meaningful cardiovascular endpoints and utilizes a rigorous process of event adjudication. Although data on patients with COVID-19 in the ICU have been the subject of most reports, our study provides insights into the broad spectrum of all hospitalized and outpatient populations,” the authors noted.

“The high frequency of arterial or venous thromboembolism in hospitalized patients despite routine thromboprophylaxis suggests the need for improved risk stratification and enhanced preventive efforts,” they concluded.

The study is continuing, and the researchers expect to have data on 10,000 patients by the end of winter.
 

Wait for randomized trials

In an accompanying editorial, Robert McBane, MD, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn., said that these data provide important real-world arterial and venous thrombotic event rates across a large, integrated health care network and an experienced roster of clinician-scientists devoted to thrombosis research.

Noting that whether to interpret these results as alarming or reassuring requires a comparison of expected thromboembolic event rates separate from the pandemic, he pointed out that, while the overall VTE rate among ICU patients was high, the vast majority of these events were attributable to central venous lines, and apart from these, the event rates do not appear inflated relative to prior published incidence rates from the pre–COVID-19 era.

“It is therefore important to resist the urge to overprevent or overtreat patients and expose them to the serious risks of major bleeding,” Dr. McBane wrote, adding that “the systematized approach to delivery of guideline-driven VTE prophylaxis across this large, integrated health network likely contributed to the relatively low rates of serious thrombotic outcomes reported.”

He further noted that, as the majority of VTE events were related to central venous lines in ICU patients, “this underscores the importance of a bundled care approach to central venous line management with daily assessment of the continued necessity of central access.

“A number of important clinical trials aimed at optimizing thromboprophylaxis during hospitalization, following hospital dismissal, and in ambulatory settings are underway. Until available, the lessons of thoughtful anticoagulant prophylaxis and treatment guidelines harvested from years of clinical research appear to apply,” he concluded.

This study was funded, in part, by a research grant from Janssen Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Piazza has received research grant support from EKOS Corporation, Bayer, Bristol-Myers Squibb/Pfizer, Portola Pharmaceuticals, and Janssen Pharmaceuticals; and has received consulting fees from Amgen, Pfizer, Boston Scientific, Agile, and Thrombolex. Dr. McBane reported no relevant disclosures.

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

Major thromboembolic complications and adverse cardiovascular events occurred with high frequency in patients with COVID-19, especially in the intensive care setting, despite a high use of thromboprophylaxis, in a new large observational U.S. study.

“Despite very high rate of antithrombotic prophylaxis there were a high rate of thromboembolic events suggesting that we are probably not providing enough thromboprophylaxis,” lead author Gregory Piazza, MD, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, said in an interview. 

“Standard prophylaxis as recommended in the guidelines is a low dose of low-molecular-weight heparin once daily, but these results suggest [patients] probably need higher doses,” he added.

However, Dr. Piazza cautioned that this is an observational study and randomized trials are needed to make changes in treatment strategies. Several such trials are currently underway.

The current study was published online ahead of print in the Nov. 3 issue of the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.
 

Rates similar to other very sick patients

The study showed that while thromboembolic complications were high, they were not as high as seen in some of the earlier studies from Asia and Europe, Dr. Piazza noted.

“The numbers we were seeing in early reports were so high we couldn’t figure out how that was possible,” he said. “Our study suggests that, in a U.S. population receiving thromboprophylaxis, the rate of thromboembolic complications [are] more in line with what we would expect to see in other very sick patients who end up in ICU.”

He suggested that the very high rates of thromboembolic complications in the early studies from Asia may have been because of the lack of thromboprophylaxis, which is not routine in hospitalized patients there. “Some of the earlier studies also used routine ultrasound and so picked up asymptomatic thrombotic events, which was not the case in our study. So our results are more representative of the U.S. population.”

Dr. Piazza attributed the high rate of thromboembolic complications being reported with COVID-19 to the sheer number of very sick patients being admitted to the hospital.

“We are accustomed to seeing a rare case of thrombosis despite prophylaxis in hospitalized patients, but we are seeing more in COVID patients. This is probably just because we have more critically ill patients,” he said.

“We are seeing an incredible influx of patients to the ICU that we have never experienced before, so the increase in thromboembolic complications is more obvious. In prior years we probably haven’t had enough critically ill patients at any one time to raise the flag about thromboprophylaxis,” he commented.

The study also found a high rate of cardiovascular complications. They are seeing an increase in the risk of MI, which is to be expected in such sick patients, but they also see quite a bit of new atrial fibrillation, myocarditis, and heart failure in patients who don’t always have underlying cardiovascular disease, he said.

“So this virus does appear to have a predilection to causing cardiovascular complications, but this is probably because it is making patients so sick,” Dr. Piazza said. “If flu was this virulent and resulted in such high rates of acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), we would probably see similar cardiovascular complication rates.”

For the current report, the researchers analyzed a retrospective cohort of 1,114 patients with COVID-19 diagnosed through the Mass General Brigham integrated health network. Of these, 170 had been admitted to the ICU, 229 had been hospitalized but not treated in ICU, and 715 were outpatients. In terms of ethnicity, 22% were Hispanic/Latino and 44% were non-White. 

Cardiovascular risk factors were common, with 36% of patients having hypertension, 29% hyperlipidemia, and 18% diabetes. Prophylactic anticoagulation was prescribed in 89% of patients with COVID-19 in the intensive care cohort and 85% of those in the hospitalized non–intensive care setting.

Results showed that major arterial or venous thromboembolism (VTE) occurred in 35% of the intensive care cohort, 2.6% of those hospitalized but not treated in ICU, and 0% of outpatients.

Major adverse cardiovascular events occurred in 46% of the intensive care cohort, 6.1% of those hospitalized but non-ICU, and 0% of outpatients.

Symptomatic VTE occurred in 27% of those admitted to ICU, 2.2% of those hospitalized but non-ICU, and 0% of outpatients.

“We found that outpatients had a very low rate of thromboembolic complications, with the vast majority of the risk being in hospitalized patients, especially those in ICU,” Dr. Piazza said.

“These results suggest that we don’t need routine thromboprophylaxis for all outpatients with COVID-19, but there will probably be some patients who need it – those with risk factors for thromboembolism.”

Catheter- and device-associated deep vein thrombosis accounted for 76.9% of the DVTs observed in the study.

“Our finding of high frequency of catheter-associated DVT supports the judicious use of central venous catheters that have been widely implemented, especially in the ICU, to minimize recurrent health care team exposure and facilitate monitoring,” the researchers wrote.
 

ARDS biggest risk factor

Of all the markers of disease severity, the presence of ARDS had the strongest association with adverse outcomes, including major arterial or VTE, major adverse cardiovascular events, symptomatic VTE, and death.

“The severe inflammatory state associated with ARDS and other complications of COVID-19 and its resultant hypercoagulability may explain, at least in part, the high frequency of thromboembolic events. Improved risk stratification, utilizing biochemical markers of inflammation and activated coagulation as well as clinical indicators, such as ARDS, may play an important role in the early identification of patients with an increased likelihood of developing symptomatic VTE or arterial thrombosis,” the researchers wrote. “They may benefit from full- or intermediate-intensity antithrombotic therapy rather than prophylactic anticoagulation.”

They point out that this study provides a cross-sectional view of the cardiovascular complications of COVID-19 in a large health care network, consisting of two academic medical centers serving the greater Boston area, several community hospitals, and numerous outpatient care sites.

“The study incorporates a wide scope of clinically meaningful cardiovascular endpoints and utilizes a rigorous process of event adjudication. Although data on patients with COVID-19 in the ICU have been the subject of most reports, our study provides insights into the broad spectrum of all hospitalized and outpatient populations,” the authors noted.

“The high frequency of arterial or venous thromboembolism in hospitalized patients despite routine thromboprophylaxis suggests the need for improved risk stratification and enhanced preventive efforts,” they concluded.

The study is continuing, and the researchers expect to have data on 10,000 patients by the end of winter.
 

Wait for randomized trials

In an accompanying editorial, Robert McBane, MD, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn., said that these data provide important real-world arterial and venous thrombotic event rates across a large, integrated health care network and an experienced roster of clinician-scientists devoted to thrombosis research.

Noting that whether to interpret these results as alarming or reassuring requires a comparison of expected thromboembolic event rates separate from the pandemic, he pointed out that, while the overall VTE rate among ICU patients was high, the vast majority of these events were attributable to central venous lines, and apart from these, the event rates do not appear inflated relative to prior published incidence rates from the pre–COVID-19 era.

“It is therefore important to resist the urge to overprevent or overtreat patients and expose them to the serious risks of major bleeding,” Dr. McBane wrote, adding that “the systematized approach to delivery of guideline-driven VTE prophylaxis across this large, integrated health network likely contributed to the relatively low rates of serious thrombotic outcomes reported.”

He further noted that, as the majority of VTE events were related to central venous lines in ICU patients, “this underscores the importance of a bundled care approach to central venous line management with daily assessment of the continued necessity of central access.

“A number of important clinical trials aimed at optimizing thromboprophylaxis during hospitalization, following hospital dismissal, and in ambulatory settings are underway. Until available, the lessons of thoughtful anticoagulant prophylaxis and treatment guidelines harvested from years of clinical research appear to apply,” he concluded.

This study was funded, in part, by a research grant from Janssen Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Piazza has received research grant support from EKOS Corporation, Bayer, Bristol-Myers Squibb/Pfizer, Portola Pharmaceuticals, and Janssen Pharmaceuticals; and has received consulting fees from Amgen, Pfizer, Boston Scientific, Agile, and Thrombolex. Dr. McBane reported no relevant disclosures.

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

Major thromboembolic complications and adverse cardiovascular events occurred with high frequency in patients with COVID-19, especially in the intensive care setting, despite a high use of thromboprophylaxis, in a new large observational U.S. study.

“Despite very high rate of antithrombotic prophylaxis there were a high rate of thromboembolic events suggesting that we are probably not providing enough thromboprophylaxis,” lead author Gregory Piazza, MD, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, said in an interview. 

“Standard prophylaxis as recommended in the guidelines is a low dose of low-molecular-weight heparin once daily, but these results suggest [patients] probably need higher doses,” he added.

However, Dr. Piazza cautioned that this is an observational study and randomized trials are needed to make changes in treatment strategies. Several such trials are currently underway.

The current study was published online ahead of print in the Nov. 3 issue of the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.
 

Rates similar to other very sick patients

The study showed that while thromboembolic complications were high, they were not as high as seen in some of the earlier studies from Asia and Europe, Dr. Piazza noted.

“The numbers we were seeing in early reports were so high we couldn’t figure out how that was possible,” he said. “Our study suggests that, in a U.S. population receiving thromboprophylaxis, the rate of thromboembolic complications [are] more in line with what we would expect to see in other very sick patients who end up in ICU.”

He suggested that the very high rates of thromboembolic complications in the early studies from Asia may have been because of the lack of thromboprophylaxis, which is not routine in hospitalized patients there. “Some of the earlier studies also used routine ultrasound and so picked up asymptomatic thrombotic events, which was not the case in our study. So our results are more representative of the U.S. population.”

Dr. Piazza attributed the high rate of thromboembolic complications being reported with COVID-19 to the sheer number of very sick patients being admitted to the hospital.

“We are accustomed to seeing a rare case of thrombosis despite prophylaxis in hospitalized patients, but we are seeing more in COVID patients. This is probably just because we have more critically ill patients,” he said.

“We are seeing an incredible influx of patients to the ICU that we have never experienced before, so the increase in thromboembolic complications is more obvious. In prior years we probably haven’t had enough critically ill patients at any one time to raise the flag about thromboprophylaxis,” he commented.

The study also found a high rate of cardiovascular complications. They are seeing an increase in the risk of MI, which is to be expected in such sick patients, but they also see quite a bit of new atrial fibrillation, myocarditis, and heart failure in patients who don’t always have underlying cardiovascular disease, he said.

“So this virus does appear to have a predilection to causing cardiovascular complications, but this is probably because it is making patients so sick,” Dr. Piazza said. “If flu was this virulent and resulted in such high rates of acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), we would probably see similar cardiovascular complication rates.”

For the current report, the researchers analyzed a retrospective cohort of 1,114 patients with COVID-19 diagnosed through the Mass General Brigham integrated health network. Of these, 170 had been admitted to the ICU, 229 had been hospitalized but not treated in ICU, and 715 were outpatients. In terms of ethnicity, 22% were Hispanic/Latino and 44% were non-White. 

Cardiovascular risk factors were common, with 36% of patients having hypertension, 29% hyperlipidemia, and 18% diabetes. Prophylactic anticoagulation was prescribed in 89% of patients with COVID-19 in the intensive care cohort and 85% of those in the hospitalized non–intensive care setting.

Results showed that major arterial or venous thromboembolism (VTE) occurred in 35% of the intensive care cohort, 2.6% of those hospitalized but not treated in ICU, and 0% of outpatients.

Major adverse cardiovascular events occurred in 46% of the intensive care cohort, 6.1% of those hospitalized but non-ICU, and 0% of outpatients.

Symptomatic VTE occurred in 27% of those admitted to ICU, 2.2% of those hospitalized but non-ICU, and 0% of outpatients.

“We found that outpatients had a very low rate of thromboembolic complications, with the vast majority of the risk being in hospitalized patients, especially those in ICU,” Dr. Piazza said.

“These results suggest that we don’t need routine thromboprophylaxis for all outpatients with COVID-19, but there will probably be some patients who need it – those with risk factors for thromboembolism.”

Catheter- and device-associated deep vein thrombosis accounted for 76.9% of the DVTs observed in the study.

“Our finding of high frequency of catheter-associated DVT supports the judicious use of central venous catheters that have been widely implemented, especially in the ICU, to minimize recurrent health care team exposure and facilitate monitoring,” the researchers wrote.
 

ARDS biggest risk factor

Of all the markers of disease severity, the presence of ARDS had the strongest association with adverse outcomes, including major arterial or VTE, major adverse cardiovascular events, symptomatic VTE, and death.

“The severe inflammatory state associated with ARDS and other complications of COVID-19 and its resultant hypercoagulability may explain, at least in part, the high frequency of thromboembolic events. Improved risk stratification, utilizing biochemical markers of inflammation and activated coagulation as well as clinical indicators, such as ARDS, may play an important role in the early identification of patients with an increased likelihood of developing symptomatic VTE or arterial thrombosis,” the researchers wrote. “They may benefit from full- or intermediate-intensity antithrombotic therapy rather than prophylactic anticoagulation.”

They point out that this study provides a cross-sectional view of the cardiovascular complications of COVID-19 in a large health care network, consisting of two academic medical centers serving the greater Boston area, several community hospitals, and numerous outpatient care sites.

“The study incorporates a wide scope of clinically meaningful cardiovascular endpoints and utilizes a rigorous process of event adjudication. Although data on patients with COVID-19 in the ICU have been the subject of most reports, our study provides insights into the broad spectrum of all hospitalized and outpatient populations,” the authors noted.

“The high frequency of arterial or venous thromboembolism in hospitalized patients despite routine thromboprophylaxis suggests the need for improved risk stratification and enhanced preventive efforts,” they concluded.

The study is continuing, and the researchers expect to have data on 10,000 patients by the end of winter.
 

Wait for randomized trials

In an accompanying editorial, Robert McBane, MD, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn., said that these data provide important real-world arterial and venous thrombotic event rates across a large, integrated health care network and an experienced roster of clinician-scientists devoted to thrombosis research.

Noting that whether to interpret these results as alarming or reassuring requires a comparison of expected thromboembolic event rates separate from the pandemic, he pointed out that, while the overall VTE rate among ICU patients was high, the vast majority of these events were attributable to central venous lines, and apart from these, the event rates do not appear inflated relative to prior published incidence rates from the pre–COVID-19 era.

“It is therefore important to resist the urge to overprevent or overtreat patients and expose them to the serious risks of major bleeding,” Dr. McBane wrote, adding that “the systematized approach to delivery of guideline-driven VTE prophylaxis across this large, integrated health network likely contributed to the relatively low rates of serious thrombotic outcomes reported.”

He further noted that, as the majority of VTE events were related to central venous lines in ICU patients, “this underscores the importance of a bundled care approach to central venous line management with daily assessment of the continued necessity of central access.

“A number of important clinical trials aimed at optimizing thromboprophylaxis during hospitalization, following hospital dismissal, and in ambulatory settings are underway. Until available, the lessons of thoughtful anticoagulant prophylaxis and treatment guidelines harvested from years of clinical research appear to apply,” he concluded.

This study was funded, in part, by a research grant from Janssen Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Piazza has received research grant support from EKOS Corporation, Bayer, Bristol-Myers Squibb/Pfizer, Portola Pharmaceuticals, and Janssen Pharmaceuticals; and has received consulting fees from Amgen, Pfizer, Boston Scientific, Agile, and Thrombolex. Dr. McBane reported no relevant disclosures.

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