Ted Bosworth

When provided at the bedside of patients hospitalized for heart failure, an electronic health record (EHR) alert with prognostic information did not improve outcomes or appear to have any impact on what treatments were offered.

There was no signal that the EHR prognostic alerts, which identified the 12-month risk of mortality, had any impact on any of a variety of clinical-decision-making metrics or on any of the primary or secondary outcomes, according to Tariq Ahmad, MD, who reported results of the randomized REVEAL-HF trial, presented at the American Heart Association scientific sessions.

“These results call into question the hypothesis that accurate prognostic information alone will lead to better clinical decision-making,” said Dr. Ahmad, medical director of the Heart Transplant and Mechanical Circulatory Support Program at Yale University, New Haven, Conn., and principal investigator of REVEAL-HF.

He acknowledged that the possibility that many clinicians pay little or no attention to EHR alert might have played a role in the negative results.

At four participating Yale-affiliated clinical centers, all patients hospitalized for acute heart failure were randomized as long as they were over the age of 18, had an N-terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) level above 500 pg/mL, and had been placed on IV diuretics within 24 hours of admission. In the experimental arm, the provider at the time of entering orders received an EHR alert with an estimate of the risk of all-cause mortality at 12 months. There was no such alert for patients managed in the control arm.
 

Twelve-month mortality estimates calculated

The all-cause mortality risk was calculated on a sizeable list of variables that included laboratory results, such as cell counts, and patient characteristics, such as weight and age. The risk estimate was displayed along with a five-category color-coded bar to provide context for the risk in the spectrum of very low, low, medium, high, and very high likelihood of death within 12 months.

The 1,590 patients randomized to the experimental arm and the 1,534 patients randomized to the usual care arm did not differ significantly in any baseline characteristics. The median age was about 77 years, the mean left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) was 55%. About 29% had an LVEF below 40%, about 40% had chronic kidney disease, and about 30% had chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD).

The composite primary outcome of all-cause mortality or rehospitalization within 12 months was reached by 38.9% and 39.3% (P = 0.82) of the intervention and control arms, respectively. The components of the primary outcome were also nearly identical, as was inpatient mortality (8.4% vs. 8.8%; P = 0.72).

There were no significant differences in any of the secondary outcomes, which included rates of 30-day rehospitalizations, discharge on guideline-recommended heart failure therapies, implantation of a cardioverter defibrillator, use of a left ventricular assist device, or heart transplant.

The proportion of patients referred for palliative care was almost identical in the very low, low, and medium risk groups. In the high (23.4 vs. 15.6; P = 0.19) and very high (50% vs. 40%; P = 0.92) groups, there were numerically more referrals in the group randomized to usual care, but these rates did not reach significance.
 

No differences seen in discharge meds

There was essentially no difference between groups in the rates at which patients were discharged on beta-blockers, renin-angiotensin system inhibitors, sodium-glucose co-transporter type 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors, or mineralocorticoid antagonists.

When prespecified subgroups, such as those older than age 75 years relative to those younger, males relative to females, Black versus White participants, patients with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) relative to preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF), and intensive care unit versus non-ICU patients, were compared, there were no indications that the EHR alert improved outcomes.

Invited discussant Harriette G. C. Van Spall, MD, director of digital health and virtual care and associate professor of cardiology at McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont., did not dispute the conclusions, but she pointed out several potential explanations for the neutral result.

Not least, nearly 75% of those enrolled had low risk or very low risk for adverse outcomes within 1 year, so the opportunity to show a reduction in events, including all-cause mortality, was limited.

“This was largely a HFpEF population, for which there are no treatments for which a risk score would change therapy,” she said.
 

EHR alert efficacy questioned

There is considerable evidence that risk prediction tools “are common but underutilized in HF,” Dr. Van Spall added. She noted that many clinicians find alerts in the EHR more annoying than informative, and it remains unknown what proportion of clinicians pay attention to them, particularly in the absence of evidence that they lead to meaningful improvements in care over their own clinical judgment.

Dr. Ahmad agreed.

“I think that we need to study these alerts in a clinical trial format,” he said. Acknowledging that alerts have been poorly received by many clinicians, Dr. Ahmad said that trials to validate the impact of any specific alert are needed to improve their credibility. If a positive impact cannot be shown, he said the alert should be eliminated, leaving only the alerts with proven clinical value.

Dr. Ahmad reported financial relationships with Amgen, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Cytokinetics, Novartis, and Relypsa. Dr. Van Spall reports no potential conflicts of interest.

When provided at the bedside of patients hospitalized for heart failure, an electronic health record (EHR) alert with prognostic information did not improve outcomes or appear to have any impact on what treatments were offered.

There was no signal that the EHR prognostic alerts, which identified the 12-month risk of mortality, had any impact on any of a variety of clinical-decision-making metrics or on any of the primary or secondary outcomes, according to Tariq Ahmad, MD, who reported results of the randomized REVEAL-HF trial, presented at the American Heart Association scientific sessions.

“These results call into question the hypothesis that accurate prognostic information alone will lead to better clinical decision-making,” said Dr. Ahmad, medical director of the Heart Transplant and Mechanical Circulatory Support Program at Yale University, New Haven, Conn., and principal investigator of REVEAL-HF.

He acknowledged that the possibility that many clinicians pay little or no attention to EHR alert might have played a role in the negative results.

At four participating Yale-affiliated clinical centers, all patients hospitalized for acute heart failure were randomized as long as they were over the age of 18, had an N-terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) level above 500 pg/mL, and had been placed on IV diuretics within 24 hours of admission. In the experimental arm, the provider at the time of entering orders received an EHR alert with an estimate of the risk of all-cause mortality at 12 months. There was no such alert for patients managed in the control arm.
 

Twelve-month mortality estimates calculated

The all-cause mortality risk was calculated on a sizeable list of variables that included laboratory results, such as cell counts, and patient characteristics, such as weight and age. The risk estimate was displayed along with a five-category color-coded bar to provide context for the risk in the spectrum of very low, low, medium, high, and very high likelihood of death within 12 months.

The 1,590 patients randomized to the experimental arm and the 1,534 patients randomized to the usual care arm did not differ significantly in any baseline characteristics. The median age was about 77 years, the mean left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) was 55%. About 29% had an LVEF below 40%, about 40% had chronic kidney disease, and about 30% had chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD).

The composite primary outcome of all-cause mortality or rehospitalization within 12 months was reached by 38.9% and 39.3% (P = 0.82) of the intervention and control arms, respectively. The components of the primary outcome were also nearly identical, as was inpatient mortality (8.4% vs. 8.8%; P = 0.72).

There were no significant differences in any of the secondary outcomes, which included rates of 30-day rehospitalizations, discharge on guideline-recommended heart failure therapies, implantation of a cardioverter defibrillator, use of a left ventricular assist device, or heart transplant.

The proportion of patients referred for palliative care was almost identical in the very low, low, and medium risk groups. In the high (23.4 vs. 15.6; P = 0.19) and very high (50% vs. 40%; P = 0.92) groups, there were numerically more referrals in the group randomized to usual care, but these rates did not reach significance.
 

No differences seen in discharge meds

There was essentially no difference between groups in the rates at which patients were discharged on beta-blockers, renin-angiotensin system inhibitors, sodium-glucose co-transporter type 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors, or mineralocorticoid antagonists.

When prespecified subgroups, such as those older than age 75 years relative to those younger, males relative to females, Black versus White participants, patients with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) relative to preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF), and intensive care unit versus non-ICU patients, were compared, there were no indications that the EHR alert improved outcomes.

Invited discussant Harriette G. C. Van Spall, MD, director of digital health and virtual care and associate professor of cardiology at McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont., did not dispute the conclusions, but she pointed out several potential explanations for the neutral result.

Not least, nearly 75% of those enrolled had low risk or very low risk for adverse outcomes within 1 year, so the opportunity to show a reduction in events, including all-cause mortality, was limited.

“This was largely a HFpEF population, for which there are no treatments for which a risk score would change therapy,” she said.
 

EHR alert efficacy questioned

There is considerable evidence that risk prediction tools “are common but underutilized in HF,” Dr. Van Spall added. She noted that many clinicians find alerts in the EHR more annoying than informative, and it remains unknown what proportion of clinicians pay attention to them, particularly in the absence of evidence that they lead to meaningful improvements in care over their own clinical judgment.

Dr. Ahmad agreed.

“I think that we need to study these alerts in a clinical trial format,” he said. Acknowledging that alerts have been poorly received by many clinicians, Dr. Ahmad said that trials to validate the impact of any specific alert are needed to improve their credibility. If a positive impact cannot be shown, he said the alert should be eliminated, leaving only the alerts with proven clinical value.

Dr. Ahmad reported financial relationships with Amgen, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Cytokinetics, Novartis, and Relypsa. Dr. Van Spall reports no potential conflicts of interest.

When provided at the bedside of patients hospitalized for heart failure, an electronic health record (EHR) alert with prognostic information did not improve outcomes or appear to have any impact on what treatments were offered.

There was no signal that the EHR prognostic alerts, which identified the 12-month risk of mortality, had any impact on any of a variety of clinical-decision-making metrics or on any of the primary or secondary outcomes, according to Tariq Ahmad, MD, who reported results of the randomized REVEAL-HF trial, presented at the American Heart Association scientific sessions.

“These results call into question the hypothesis that accurate prognostic information alone will lead to better clinical decision-making,” said Dr. Ahmad, medical director of the Heart Transplant and Mechanical Circulatory Support Program at Yale University, New Haven, Conn., and principal investigator of REVEAL-HF.

He acknowledged that the possibility that many clinicians pay little or no attention to EHR alert might have played a role in the negative results.

At four participating Yale-affiliated clinical centers, all patients hospitalized for acute heart failure were randomized as long as they were over the age of 18, had an N-terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) level above 500 pg/mL, and had been placed on IV diuretics within 24 hours of admission. In the experimental arm, the provider at the time of entering orders received an EHR alert with an estimate of the risk of all-cause mortality at 12 months. There was no such alert for patients managed in the control arm.
 

Twelve-month mortality estimates calculated

The all-cause mortality risk was calculated on a sizeable list of variables that included laboratory results, such as cell counts, and patient characteristics, such as weight and age. The risk estimate was displayed along with a five-category color-coded bar to provide context for the risk in the spectrum of very low, low, medium, high, and very high likelihood of death within 12 months.

The 1,590 patients randomized to the experimental arm and the 1,534 patients randomized to the usual care arm did not differ significantly in any baseline characteristics. The median age was about 77 years, the mean left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) was 55%. About 29% had an LVEF below 40%, about 40% had chronic kidney disease, and about 30% had chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD).

The composite primary outcome of all-cause mortality or rehospitalization within 12 months was reached by 38.9% and 39.3% (P = 0.82) of the intervention and control arms, respectively. The components of the primary outcome were also nearly identical, as was inpatient mortality (8.4% vs. 8.8%; P = 0.72).

There were no significant differences in any of the secondary outcomes, which included rates of 30-day rehospitalizations, discharge on guideline-recommended heart failure therapies, implantation of a cardioverter defibrillator, use of a left ventricular assist device, or heart transplant.

The proportion of patients referred for palliative care was almost identical in the very low, low, and medium risk groups. In the high (23.4 vs. 15.6; P = 0.19) and very high (50% vs. 40%; P = 0.92) groups, there were numerically more referrals in the group randomized to usual care, but these rates did not reach significance.
 

No differences seen in discharge meds

There was essentially no difference between groups in the rates at which patients were discharged on beta-blockers, renin-angiotensin system inhibitors, sodium-glucose co-transporter type 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors, or mineralocorticoid antagonists.

When prespecified subgroups, such as those older than age 75 years relative to those younger, males relative to females, Black versus White participants, patients with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) relative to preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF), and intensive care unit versus non-ICU patients, were compared, there were no indications that the EHR alert improved outcomes.

Invited discussant Harriette G. C. Van Spall, MD, director of digital health and virtual care and associate professor of cardiology at McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont., did not dispute the conclusions, but she pointed out several potential explanations for the neutral result.

Not least, nearly 75% of those enrolled had low risk or very low risk for adverse outcomes within 1 year, so the opportunity to show a reduction in events, including all-cause mortality, was limited.

“This was largely a HFpEF population, for which there are no treatments for which a risk score would change therapy,” she said.
 

EHR alert efficacy questioned

There is considerable evidence that risk prediction tools “are common but underutilized in HF,” Dr. Van Spall added. She noted that many clinicians find alerts in the EHR more annoying than informative, and it remains unknown what proportion of clinicians pay attention to them, particularly in the absence of evidence that they lead to meaningful improvements in care over their own clinical judgment.

Dr. Ahmad agreed.

“I think that we need to study these alerts in a clinical trial format,” he said. Acknowledging that alerts have been poorly received by many clinicians, Dr. Ahmad said that trials to validate the impact of any specific alert are needed to improve their credibility. If a positive impact cannot be shown, he said the alert should be eliminated, leaving only the alerts with proven clinical value.

Dr. Ahmad reported financial relationships with Amgen, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Cytokinetics, Novartis, and Relypsa. Dr. Van Spall reports no potential conflicts of interest.

In patients treated for persistent atrial fibrillation (AFib) with pulmonary vein antral isolation (PVAI), there was a numerical but not a statistical advantage for adjunctive left atrial appendage (LAA) ligation in a multicenter randomized trial.

SilkenOne/Thinkstock.com

The study, called aMAZE, was conducted with the LARIAT LAA (AtriCure) ligation system. AtriCure announced in August that the primary efficacy endpoint was not met; the full results were presented Nov. 14 at the American Heart Association scientific sessions.

Exploratory analyses suggested that some subgroups might benefit, but the overall 4.3% advantage provided by adjunctive LAA ligation for freedom from atrial arrhythmias (AA) at 12 months “did not meet predefined criteria for superiority,” according to coprincipal investigator David J. Wilber, MD.

Based on evidence that the LAA contributes substrate for generation of persistent AFib, the hypothesis of the study was that LAA ligation would improve on long-term rhythm control achieved with PVAI alone, which Dr. Wilber noted is currently suboptimal. The LARIAT device is deployed percutaneously into the LAA sac, where it seals off the opening to the left atrium, potentially blocking a pathway for rhythm disturbances.

The study randomized 610 patients at 53 sites in the United States in a 2:1 ratio to LARIAT LAA ligation plus PVAI or to PVAI alone. Enrollment criteria included longstanding persistent and symptomatic AFib and prior failure of ablation therapy. AA was defined as freedom from more than 30 seconds of AFib, atrial flutter, or atrial tachycardia 12 months after treatment without new or increased dosages of antiarrhythmia therapy.

The primary safety endpoint was a composite of serious adverse events within 30 days of placement of the LARIAT device. Technical success was defined as ≤1 mm (+/– 1 mm) residual communication between the LAA and the left atrium.

At 12 months, AA was achieved in 59.9% of those treated with PVAI alone and 64.3% in those who received the LARIAT ligation procedure in addition to PVAI. The P value for superiority was not significant (P = .835).

At 3.4%, the incidence of serious events at 30 days was considered reasonable, leading Dr. Wilber, director of electrophysiology at Loyola University in Chicago, to conclude that the LARIAT system “appears safe.” Overall, bleeding events requiring intervention occurred in 2.2%, cardiac structural injuries requiring surgery occurred in 0.8%, and vascular injuries requiring surgery occurred in 0.3%.

Technical success at 30 days was achieved by the study definition in 81%. If defined as a residual communication of 5 mm or less, the technical success rate was 99%.

Two groups appeared to potentially benefit in exploratory analyses. When stratified by AFib duration, there was a relative 7.5% reduction in AA for those who received LARIAT plus PVAI relative to PVAI alone. This trended towards statistical significance (P = .084), but no advantage was seen for those with longer duration of AFib.

For those with a median volume of at least133 cm³, the advantage of LARIAT for the primary endpoint was 12.4%. This also trended toward significance (P = .093). Conversely, there was a numerical disadvantage for LARIAT plus PVAI relative to PVAI alone for AA at 12 months.

While Dr. Wilber stressed that these analyses were not prespecified and require further exploration, he did conclude that strategies to build on the current success of PVAI with adjunctive strategies “may require some individualization,” taking into account patient or disease characteristics that exert an impact on risk of recurrent AA.

As an AHA-invited discussant on this trial, Usha B. Tedrow, MD, director of the clinical cardiac electrophysiology fellowship at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, reiterated that this study failed to meet its primary endpoint, but she agreed with the premise that “some subgroups may benefit.”

She identified several aspects of AFib pathophysiology involving the pulmonary vein and the LAA as well as prior studies that suggest the LAA might be a target for adjunctive therapy in patients treated with PVAI for persistent AFib. On this basis, she suggested that there might be other directions to explore before ruling out a role of the LARIAT device in all patients. For example, PVAI plus LARIAT ligation plus another adjunctive ablation intervention might be considered to add durable rhythm control.

She also said that the rigorous conduct of the aMAZE trial might have been a relative obstacle to its own success. Although she praised the meticulous design and conduct of the trial, it might have resulted in an uncommon benefit in controls that diluted the results.

“The success rate in the PVAI group in aMAZE was higher than standard ablation in previous studies looking at LAA exclusion. Could the strict protocol have played a role?” she asked.

Dr. Wilbur reports financial relationships with Abbott, Biosense Webster, Boston Scientific, and AtriCure, which provided funding for this study. Dr. Tedrow reports financial relationships with Abbott, Baylis Medical, Boston Scientific, Biosense Webster, and Thermedical.

In patients treated for persistent atrial fibrillation (AFib) with pulmonary vein antral isolation (PVAI), there was a numerical but not a statistical advantage for adjunctive left atrial appendage (LAA) ligation in a multicenter randomized trial.

SilkenOne/Thinkstock.com

The study, called aMAZE, was conducted with the LARIAT LAA (AtriCure) ligation system. AtriCure announced in August that the primary efficacy endpoint was not met; the full results were presented Nov. 14 at the American Heart Association scientific sessions.

Exploratory analyses suggested that some subgroups might benefit, but the overall 4.3% advantage provided by adjunctive LAA ligation for freedom from atrial arrhythmias (AA) at 12 months “did not meet predefined criteria for superiority,” according to coprincipal investigator David J. Wilber, MD.

Based on evidence that the LAA contributes substrate for generation of persistent AFib, the hypothesis of the study was that LAA ligation would improve on long-term rhythm control achieved with PVAI alone, which Dr. Wilber noted is currently suboptimal. The LARIAT device is deployed percutaneously into the LAA sac, where it seals off the opening to the left atrium, potentially blocking a pathway for rhythm disturbances.

The study randomized 610 patients at 53 sites in the United States in a 2:1 ratio to LARIAT LAA ligation plus PVAI or to PVAI alone. Enrollment criteria included longstanding persistent and symptomatic AFib and prior failure of ablation therapy. AA was defined as freedom from more than 30 seconds of AFib, atrial flutter, or atrial tachycardia 12 months after treatment without new or increased dosages of antiarrhythmia therapy.

The primary safety endpoint was a composite of serious adverse events within 30 days of placement of the LARIAT device. Technical success was defined as ≤1 mm (+/– 1 mm) residual communication between the LAA and the left atrium.

At 12 months, AA was achieved in 59.9% of those treated with PVAI alone and 64.3% in those who received the LARIAT ligation procedure in addition to PVAI. The P value for superiority was not significant (P = .835).

At 3.4%, the incidence of serious events at 30 days was considered reasonable, leading Dr. Wilber, director of electrophysiology at Loyola University in Chicago, to conclude that the LARIAT system “appears safe.” Overall, bleeding events requiring intervention occurred in 2.2%, cardiac structural injuries requiring surgery occurred in 0.8%, and vascular injuries requiring surgery occurred in 0.3%.

Technical success at 30 days was achieved by the study definition in 81%. If defined as a residual communication of 5 mm or less, the technical success rate was 99%.

Two groups appeared to potentially benefit in exploratory analyses. When stratified by AFib duration, there was a relative 7.5% reduction in AA for those who received LARIAT plus PVAI relative to PVAI alone. This trended towards statistical significance (P = .084), but no advantage was seen for those with longer duration of AFib.

For those with a median volume of at least133 cm³, the advantage of LARIAT for the primary endpoint was 12.4%. This also trended toward significance (P = .093). Conversely, there was a numerical disadvantage for LARIAT plus PVAI relative to PVAI alone for AA at 12 months.

While Dr. Wilber stressed that these analyses were not prespecified and require further exploration, he did conclude that strategies to build on the current success of PVAI with adjunctive strategies “may require some individualization,” taking into account patient or disease characteristics that exert an impact on risk of recurrent AA.

As an AHA-invited discussant on this trial, Usha B. Tedrow, MD, director of the clinical cardiac electrophysiology fellowship at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, reiterated that this study failed to meet its primary endpoint, but she agreed with the premise that “some subgroups may benefit.”

She identified several aspects of AFib pathophysiology involving the pulmonary vein and the LAA as well as prior studies that suggest the LAA might be a target for adjunctive therapy in patients treated with PVAI for persistent AFib. On this basis, she suggested that there might be other directions to explore before ruling out a role of the LARIAT device in all patients. For example, PVAI plus LARIAT ligation plus another adjunctive ablation intervention might be considered to add durable rhythm control.

She also said that the rigorous conduct of the aMAZE trial might have been a relative obstacle to its own success. Although she praised the meticulous design and conduct of the trial, it might have resulted in an uncommon benefit in controls that diluted the results.

“The success rate in the PVAI group in aMAZE was higher than standard ablation in previous studies looking at LAA exclusion. Could the strict protocol have played a role?” she asked.

Dr. Wilbur reports financial relationships with Abbott, Biosense Webster, Boston Scientific, and AtriCure, which provided funding for this study. Dr. Tedrow reports financial relationships with Abbott, Baylis Medical, Boston Scientific, Biosense Webster, and Thermedical.

In patients treated for persistent atrial fibrillation (AFib) with pulmonary vein antral isolation (PVAI), there was a numerical but not a statistical advantage for adjunctive left atrial appendage (LAA) ligation in a multicenter randomized trial.

SilkenOne/Thinkstock.com

The study, called aMAZE, was conducted with the LARIAT LAA (AtriCure) ligation system. AtriCure announced in August that the primary efficacy endpoint was not met; the full results were presented Nov. 14 at the American Heart Association scientific sessions.

Exploratory analyses suggested that some subgroups might benefit, but the overall 4.3% advantage provided by adjunctive LAA ligation for freedom from atrial arrhythmias (AA) at 12 months “did not meet predefined criteria for superiority,” according to coprincipal investigator David J. Wilber, MD.

Based on evidence that the LAA contributes substrate for generation of persistent AFib, the hypothesis of the study was that LAA ligation would improve on long-term rhythm control achieved with PVAI alone, which Dr. Wilber noted is currently suboptimal. The LARIAT device is deployed percutaneously into the LAA sac, where it seals off the opening to the left atrium, potentially blocking a pathway for rhythm disturbances.

The study randomized 610 patients at 53 sites in the United States in a 2:1 ratio to LARIAT LAA ligation plus PVAI or to PVAI alone. Enrollment criteria included longstanding persistent and symptomatic AFib and prior failure of ablation therapy. AA was defined as freedom from more than 30 seconds of AFib, atrial flutter, or atrial tachycardia 12 months after treatment without new or increased dosages of antiarrhythmia therapy.

The primary safety endpoint was a composite of serious adverse events within 30 days of placement of the LARIAT device. Technical success was defined as ≤1 mm (+/– 1 mm) residual communication between the LAA and the left atrium.

At 12 months, AA was achieved in 59.9% of those treated with PVAI alone and 64.3% in those who received the LARIAT ligation procedure in addition to PVAI. The P value for superiority was not significant (P = .835).

At 3.4%, the incidence of serious events at 30 days was considered reasonable, leading Dr. Wilber, director of electrophysiology at Loyola University in Chicago, to conclude that the LARIAT system “appears safe.” Overall, bleeding events requiring intervention occurred in 2.2%, cardiac structural injuries requiring surgery occurred in 0.8%, and vascular injuries requiring surgery occurred in 0.3%.

Technical success at 30 days was achieved by the study definition in 81%. If defined as a residual communication of 5 mm or less, the technical success rate was 99%.

Two groups appeared to potentially benefit in exploratory analyses. When stratified by AFib duration, there was a relative 7.5% reduction in AA for those who received LARIAT plus PVAI relative to PVAI alone. This trended towards statistical significance (P = .084), but no advantage was seen for those with longer duration of AFib.

For those with a median volume of at least133 cm³, the advantage of LARIAT for the primary endpoint was 12.4%. This also trended toward significance (P = .093). Conversely, there was a numerical disadvantage for LARIAT plus PVAI relative to PVAI alone for AA at 12 months.

While Dr. Wilber stressed that these analyses were not prespecified and require further exploration, he did conclude that strategies to build on the current success of PVAI with adjunctive strategies “may require some individualization,” taking into account patient or disease characteristics that exert an impact on risk of recurrent AA.

As an AHA-invited discussant on this trial, Usha B. Tedrow, MD, director of the clinical cardiac electrophysiology fellowship at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, reiterated that this study failed to meet its primary endpoint, but she agreed with the premise that “some subgroups may benefit.”

She identified several aspects of AFib pathophysiology involving the pulmonary vein and the LAA as well as prior studies that suggest the LAA might be a target for adjunctive therapy in patients treated with PVAI for persistent AFib. On this basis, she suggested that there might be other directions to explore before ruling out a role of the LARIAT device in all patients. For example, PVAI plus LARIAT ligation plus another adjunctive ablation intervention might be considered to add durable rhythm control.

She also said that the rigorous conduct of the aMAZE trial might have been a relative obstacle to its own success. Although she praised the meticulous design and conduct of the trial, it might have resulted in an uncommon benefit in controls that diluted the results.

“The success rate in the PVAI group in aMAZE was higher than standard ablation in previous studies looking at LAA exclusion. Could the strict protocol have played a role?” she asked.

Dr. Wilbur reports financial relationships with Abbott, Biosense Webster, Boston Scientific, and AtriCure, which provided funding for this study. Dr. Tedrow reports financial relationships with Abbott, Baylis Medical, Boston Scientific, Biosense Webster, and Thermedical.

The proportion of hypertensive patients with blood pressure control fell substantially in the United States during the COVID-19 pandemic, if the data from 24 health systems is representative of national trends.

GlobalStock/Getty Images

The decline in blood pressure control corresponded with – and might be explained by – a parallel decline in follow-up visits for uncontrolled hypertension from the same data source, according to Alanna M. Chamberlain, PhD, associate professor of epidemiology in the division of quantitative health sciences, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn.

If the data are representative, a wave of cardiovascular (CV) events might be coming.

The study, called BP Track, collated electronic medical data on almost 1.8 million patients with hypertension from 2017 through 2020. Up until the end of 2019 and prior to the pandemic, slightly less than 60% of these patients had blood pressure control, defined as less than 140/90 mm Hg.

While the pre-COVID control rates were already “suboptimal,” a decline began almost immediately when the full force of the COVID-19 pandemic began in March of 2020, said Dr. Chamberlain in reporting the BP Track results at the American Heart Association scientific sessions.

When graphed from the start of the pandemic until the end of 2020, the proportion under control fell 7.2% to a level just above 50%. For the more rigorous target of less than 130/80 mm Hg, the proportion fell 4.6% over the same period of time, leaving only about 25% at that level of control.

Repeat visits for BP control rebounded

The proportion of patients with a repeat office visit within 4 weeks of a diagnosis of uncontrolled hypertension fell even more steeply, reaching a nadir at about the middle of 2020, but it was followed by a partial recovery. The rate was 5% lower by the end of 2020, relative to the prepandemic rate (31.7% vs. 36.7%), but that was 5% higher than the nadir.

A similar phenomenon was observed with several other metrics. For example, there was a steep, immediate fall correlating with the onset of the pandemic in the proportion of patients who achieved at least a 10–mm Hg reduction or a BP under 140/90 mm Hg when treated for hypertension. Again, the nadir in this proportion was reached in about mid-2020 followed by a partial recovery. By the end of 2020, 5.9% fewer patients were achieving 10–mm Hg or better improvement in BP control when treated relative to the prepandemic level (23.8% vs. 29.7%), but this level was almost 10% higher than the nadir.

Data based on electronic medical records

The nearly 1.8 million patient records evaluated in the BP Track study were drawn from the 24 centers participating in the PCORnet Blood Pressure Control Laboratory Surveillance System. Nationally distributed, 18 of the 24 systems were academically affiliated.

When stratified by race, the proportion of Asians meeting the definition of BP control prior to the pandemic was about 5% higher than the overall average, and the proportion in Blacks was more than 5% lower. Whites had rates of blood pressure control very near the average. The relative declines in BP and the proportion of patients with uncontrolled blood pressure who had a repeat visit within 4 weeks during the pandemic were generally parallel across racial groups.

The implications of these data and the role of the COVID-19 pandemic on blood pressure control are “concerning,” according to Adam Bress, PharmD, department of population health sciences, University of Utah, Salt Lake City.

Citing a study published in 2020 that suggested blood pressure control rates in the United States were already declining before the COVID-19 pandemic, he said the COVID-19 epidemic appears to be exacerbating an existing problem. He expressed particular concern for populations who already have low rates of control, such as African Americans.

“The impact of COVID-19 is likely to be disproportionately greater for underserved and minoritized patients,” said Dr. Bress, who was the lead author of a recent article on this specific topic.

The implication of BP Track is that a wave of cardiovascular events will be coming if the data are nationally representative.

“A recent meta-analysis shows that each 5–mm Hg reduction in blood pressure is associated with age-related reductions in CV events,” Dr. Bress said. For those 55 years of age or older, he said the risk reduction is about 10%. Given that the inverse is almost certainly true, he expects diminishing blood pressure control, whether COVID-19-related or not, to translate into increased CV events.

However, there is no guarantee that the BP Track data are representative of the U.S. population, cautioned Eugene Yang, MD, professor in the division of cardiology, University of Washington, Seattle. Even though a large group of patients was included, they were largely drawn from academic centers.

Nevertheless, Dr. Yang, who chairs the Hypertension Working Group of the American College of Cardiology’s Prevention of Cardiovascular Disease Council, acknowledged that the implications are “scary.”

If the data are representative, “this type of reduction in blood pressure control would be expected to have a significant impact on morbidity and mortality, but we also have to think of all the variables that were not tracked and might add to risk,” he said. He named such risk factors as weight gain, diminished exercise, and increased alcohol consumption, which have been cited by others as being exacerbated by the pandemic.

If these lead to more cardiovascular events on a population basis, the timing of these events would be expected to be age dependent.

“If you look at the patients included in this study, about 50% were 65 years of age or older. In a population like this you would expect to see an increase in events sooner rather than later,” said Dr. Wang.

In other words, if the trial is representative, a wave of cardiovascular events might be seen in the most vulnerable patients “within the next few years,” Dr. Yang speculated.

Dr. Chamberlain reports a research grant from EpidStrategies. Dr. Bress and Dr. Yang report no potential financial conflicts of interest.

The proportion of hypertensive patients with blood pressure control fell substantially in the United States during the COVID-19 pandemic, if the data from 24 health systems is representative of national trends.

GlobalStock/Getty Images

The decline in blood pressure control corresponded with – and might be explained by – a parallel decline in follow-up visits for uncontrolled hypertension from the same data source, according to Alanna M. Chamberlain, PhD, associate professor of epidemiology in the division of quantitative health sciences, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn.

If the data are representative, a wave of cardiovascular (CV) events might be coming.

The study, called BP Track, collated electronic medical data on almost 1.8 million patients with hypertension from 2017 through 2020. Up until the end of 2019 and prior to the pandemic, slightly less than 60% of these patients had blood pressure control, defined as less than 140/90 mm Hg.

While the pre-COVID control rates were already “suboptimal,” a decline began almost immediately when the full force of the COVID-19 pandemic began in March of 2020, said Dr. Chamberlain in reporting the BP Track results at the American Heart Association scientific sessions.

When graphed from the start of the pandemic until the end of 2020, the proportion under control fell 7.2% to a level just above 50%. For the more rigorous target of less than 130/80 mm Hg, the proportion fell 4.6% over the same period of time, leaving only about 25% at that level of control.

Repeat visits for BP control rebounded

The proportion of patients with a repeat office visit within 4 weeks of a diagnosis of uncontrolled hypertension fell even more steeply, reaching a nadir at about the middle of 2020, but it was followed by a partial recovery. The rate was 5% lower by the end of 2020, relative to the prepandemic rate (31.7% vs. 36.7%), but that was 5% higher than the nadir.

A similar phenomenon was observed with several other metrics. For example, there was a steep, immediate fall correlating with the onset of the pandemic in the proportion of patients who achieved at least a 10–mm Hg reduction or a BP under 140/90 mm Hg when treated for hypertension. Again, the nadir in this proportion was reached in about mid-2020 followed by a partial recovery. By the end of 2020, 5.9% fewer patients were achieving 10–mm Hg or better improvement in BP control when treated relative to the prepandemic level (23.8% vs. 29.7%), but this level was almost 10% higher than the nadir.

Data based on electronic medical records

The nearly 1.8 million patient records evaluated in the BP Track study were drawn from the 24 centers participating in the PCORnet Blood Pressure Control Laboratory Surveillance System. Nationally distributed, 18 of the 24 systems were academically affiliated.

When stratified by race, the proportion of Asians meeting the definition of BP control prior to the pandemic was about 5% higher than the overall average, and the proportion in Blacks was more than 5% lower. Whites had rates of blood pressure control very near the average. The relative declines in BP and the proportion of patients with uncontrolled blood pressure who had a repeat visit within 4 weeks during the pandemic were generally parallel across racial groups.

The implications of these data and the role of the COVID-19 pandemic on blood pressure control are “concerning,” according to Adam Bress, PharmD, department of population health sciences, University of Utah, Salt Lake City.

Citing a study published in 2020 that suggested blood pressure control rates in the United States were already declining before the COVID-19 pandemic, he said the COVID-19 epidemic appears to be exacerbating an existing problem. He expressed particular concern for populations who already have low rates of control, such as African Americans.

“The impact of COVID-19 is likely to be disproportionately greater for underserved and minoritized patients,” said Dr. Bress, who was the lead author of a recent article on this specific topic.

The implication of BP Track is that a wave of cardiovascular events will be coming if the data are nationally representative.

“A recent meta-analysis shows that each 5–mm Hg reduction in blood pressure is associated with age-related reductions in CV events,” Dr. Bress said. For those 55 years of age or older, he said the risk reduction is about 10%. Given that the inverse is almost certainly true, he expects diminishing blood pressure control, whether COVID-19-related or not, to translate into increased CV events.

However, there is no guarantee that the BP Track data are representative of the U.S. population, cautioned Eugene Yang, MD, professor in the division of cardiology, University of Washington, Seattle. Even though a large group of patients was included, they were largely drawn from academic centers.

Nevertheless, Dr. Yang, who chairs the Hypertension Working Group of the American College of Cardiology’s Prevention of Cardiovascular Disease Council, acknowledged that the implications are “scary.”

If the data are representative, “this type of reduction in blood pressure control would be expected to have a significant impact on morbidity and mortality, but we also have to think of all the variables that were not tracked and might add to risk,” he said. He named such risk factors as weight gain, diminished exercise, and increased alcohol consumption, which have been cited by others as being exacerbated by the pandemic.

If these lead to more cardiovascular events on a population basis, the timing of these events would be expected to be age dependent.

“If you look at the patients included in this study, about 50% were 65 years of age or older. In a population like this you would expect to see an increase in events sooner rather than later,” said Dr. Wang.

In other words, if the trial is representative, a wave of cardiovascular events might be seen in the most vulnerable patients “within the next few years,” Dr. Yang speculated.

Dr. Chamberlain reports a research grant from EpidStrategies. Dr. Bress and Dr. Yang report no potential financial conflicts of interest.

The proportion of hypertensive patients with blood pressure control fell substantially in the United States during the COVID-19 pandemic, if the data from 24 health systems is representative of national trends.

GlobalStock/Getty Images

The decline in blood pressure control corresponded with – and might be explained by – a parallel decline in follow-up visits for uncontrolled hypertension from the same data source, according to Alanna M. Chamberlain, PhD, associate professor of epidemiology in the division of quantitative health sciences, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn.

If the data are representative, a wave of cardiovascular (CV) events might be coming.

The study, called BP Track, collated electronic medical data on almost 1.8 million patients with hypertension from 2017 through 2020. Up until the end of 2019 and prior to the pandemic, slightly less than 60% of these patients had blood pressure control, defined as less than 140/90 mm Hg.

While the pre-COVID control rates were already “suboptimal,” a decline began almost immediately when the full force of the COVID-19 pandemic began in March of 2020, said Dr. Chamberlain in reporting the BP Track results at the American Heart Association scientific sessions.

When graphed from the start of the pandemic until the end of 2020, the proportion under control fell 7.2% to a level just above 50%. For the more rigorous target of less than 130/80 mm Hg, the proportion fell 4.6% over the same period of time, leaving only about 25% at that level of control.

Repeat visits for BP control rebounded

The proportion of patients with a repeat office visit within 4 weeks of a diagnosis of uncontrolled hypertension fell even more steeply, reaching a nadir at about the middle of 2020, but it was followed by a partial recovery. The rate was 5% lower by the end of 2020, relative to the prepandemic rate (31.7% vs. 36.7%), but that was 5% higher than the nadir.

A similar phenomenon was observed with several other metrics. For example, there was a steep, immediate fall correlating with the onset of the pandemic in the proportion of patients who achieved at least a 10–mm Hg reduction or a BP under 140/90 mm Hg when treated for hypertension. Again, the nadir in this proportion was reached in about mid-2020 followed by a partial recovery. By the end of 2020, 5.9% fewer patients were achieving 10–mm Hg or better improvement in BP control when treated relative to the prepandemic level (23.8% vs. 29.7%), but this level was almost 10% higher than the nadir.

Data based on electronic medical records

The nearly 1.8 million patient records evaluated in the BP Track study were drawn from the 24 centers participating in the PCORnet Blood Pressure Control Laboratory Surveillance System. Nationally distributed, 18 of the 24 systems were academically affiliated.

When stratified by race, the proportion of Asians meeting the definition of BP control prior to the pandemic was about 5% higher than the overall average, and the proportion in Blacks was more than 5% lower. Whites had rates of blood pressure control very near the average. The relative declines in BP and the proportion of patients with uncontrolled blood pressure who had a repeat visit within 4 weeks during the pandemic were generally parallel across racial groups.

The implications of these data and the role of the COVID-19 pandemic on blood pressure control are “concerning,” according to Adam Bress, PharmD, department of population health sciences, University of Utah, Salt Lake City.

Citing a study published in 2020 that suggested blood pressure control rates in the United States were already declining before the COVID-19 pandemic, he said the COVID-19 epidemic appears to be exacerbating an existing problem. He expressed particular concern for populations who already have low rates of control, such as African Americans.

“The impact of COVID-19 is likely to be disproportionately greater for underserved and minoritized patients,” said Dr. Bress, who was the lead author of a recent article on this specific topic.

The implication of BP Track is that a wave of cardiovascular events will be coming if the data are nationally representative.

“A recent meta-analysis shows that each 5–mm Hg reduction in blood pressure is associated with age-related reductions in CV events,” Dr. Bress said. For those 55 years of age or older, he said the risk reduction is about 10%. Given that the inverse is almost certainly true, he expects diminishing blood pressure control, whether COVID-19-related or not, to translate into increased CV events.

However, there is no guarantee that the BP Track data are representative of the U.S. population, cautioned Eugene Yang, MD, professor in the division of cardiology, University of Washington, Seattle. Even though a large group of patients was included, they were largely drawn from academic centers.

Nevertheless, Dr. Yang, who chairs the Hypertension Working Group of the American College of Cardiology’s Prevention of Cardiovascular Disease Council, acknowledged that the implications are “scary.”

If the data are representative, “this type of reduction in blood pressure control would be expected to have a significant impact on morbidity and mortality, but we also have to think of all the variables that were not tracked and might add to risk,” he said. He named such risk factors as weight gain, diminished exercise, and increased alcohol consumption, which have been cited by others as being exacerbated by the pandemic.

If these lead to more cardiovascular events on a population basis, the timing of these events would be expected to be age dependent.

“If you look at the patients included in this study, about 50% were 65 years of age or older. In a population like this you would expect to see an increase in events sooner rather than later,” said Dr. Wang.

In other words, if the trial is representative, a wave of cardiovascular events might be seen in the most vulnerable patients “within the next few years,” Dr. Yang speculated.

Dr. Chamberlain reports a research grant from EpidStrategies. Dr. Bress and Dr. Yang report no potential financial conflicts of interest.

On the basis of outcomes, there was no clear winner from a trial that directly compared two modern devices used in patients undergoing percutaneous left atrial appendage (LAA) closure.

But the devices were not interchangeable for rates of complications or leaks, according to results of the open-label SWISS APERO trial, which compared the Amplatzer Amulet to the Watchman FLX device at eight participating centers in Europe.

At 45 days, the overall rates of leaks and the clinical outcomes in the two randomized groups were not significantly different, but there were differences in secondary endpoints, such as rates of peridevice leak (PDL), which were lower in the Amulet device group, and procedural complications, which were higher, Roberto Galea, MD, reported at the Transcatheter Cardiovascular Therapeutics annual meeting, held virtually and live in Orlando.

LAA closure devices were developed as an alternative to oral anticoagulation in patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation. Although a similar comparison of LAA closure devices, called Amulet IDE, was recently published, that trial compared Amulet to Watchman 2.5, an earlier generation device.

Started later, SWISS APERO was also a planned comparison of Amulet and the Watchman 2.5, but the comparison switched to the Watchman FLX, when it was released in March of 2019.
 

First randomized comparison with Watchman FLX

“This is the first multicenter randomized controlled trial to include the Watchman FLX,” said Dr. Galea, a clinical investigator in the department of cardiology, Bern (Switzerland) University Hospital. He noted that Watchman FLX included some adjustments in design with the potential to reduce leak rates.

After preprocedural transesophageal echocardiography confirmed that patients had suitable anatomy to receive either device, the 221 patients who qualified for SWISS APERO were randomized. The primary endpoint was a composite of a justified crossover to a device other than the one to which they were assigned or residual patency detected by coronary computed tomography angiography (CCTA) at 45 days.

The primary endpoint was reached by 67.6% of patients randomized to the Amulet device and 70% of those randomized to Watchman Flex, a statistically nonsignificant difference (P = .71).

Because only one patient in the Amulet group and none in the Watchman group had a justified crossover to a nonrandomized device, most of the differences in the 45-day CCTA involved patency, defined as LAA density of at least 100 Hounsfield units. While the proportion of patients with leaks was similar, the types of leaks, which were stratified by underlying leak mechanism into PDL, mixed leaks (including incomplete side sealing), intradevice leaks, and leaks of unclear origin, were different.
 

Peridevice leaks twofold greater with Watchman

Those randomized to the Watchman device were more than twice as likely to have PDL (27.5% vs. 13.7%; P = .02), although no visible leak exceeded 5 mm in size. They were also more likely to have mixed leaks (14% vs. 3.8%; P = .01) and patency with no visible leak (21.0% vs. 9.5%; P = .02). There were also more device-related thrombi in the Watchman group even though the difference did not reach statistical significance (9.9% vs. 3.7%; P = .08).

Intradevice leaks (44.8% vs. 23.0%; P = .001) were the only type of patency significantly more common among patients randomized to Amulet, but the difference was relatively large. In addition, procedural complications of any type (32.4% vs. 19.1%; P = .023) were higher in the Amulet group. Most of these involved non–clinically relevant pericardial effusions, Dr. Galea said at the meeting, sponsored by the Cardiovascular Research Foundation.

The proportion of patients with adverse outcomes by 45 days was similar, but the types of complications differed. Of the six deaths, two occurred in the Amulet group as a result of periprocedural complications (one stemming from an air embolism and the other from a series of events following pericardial effusion). Three of the four deaths in the Watchman group were due to fatal bleeding. The fourth was a sudden death that occurred 30 days after the procedure.
 

Amulet IDE trial generates similar data

The much larger Amulet IDE trial, which compared Amulet to the Watchman 2.5 device, produced generally similar results. Again, the proportion of patients reaching the composite primary endpoints was similar.

The primary safety endpoint, which included death and major bleeding within 12 months of randomization, occurred in 14.5% and 14.7% of the Amulet and Watchman patients, respectively (P < .001 for noninferiority). The primary efficacy endpoint, which included stroke or systemic embolism within 18 months of randomization, occurred in 2.8% of patients in both groups.

As in SWISS APERO, the 1,878-patient Amulet IDE trial showed that the devices are similarly effective and safe but not necessarily interchangeable. Ultimately, the rate of LAA occlusion was higher for Amulet than the older generation Watchman (98.9% vs. 96.8%; P = .003) but procedural complication occurred more frequently among those randomized to the Amulet device (4.5% vs. 2.5%).

“The closure mechanisms are not the same, which might explain why we see differences in some secondary outcomes even when they perform similarly on the primary outcomes,” said Dhanunjaya R. Lakkireddy, MD, executive medical director, Kansas City (Kansas) Heart Rhythm Institute.

The lead investigator of the Amulet IDE trial, Dr. Lakkireddy was referring to both the AMULET IDE and the SWISS APERO study when he said that the currently available data do not allow one device to be considered superior to the other. He did suggest that differences between devices might still be considered meaningful in specific clinical situations or to specific clinicians.

Without studies to show objective differences, Dr. Lakkireddy suggested that training and experience is probably the most important variable in achieving treatment goals. “Operator comfort is certainly important,” he said.

Dr. Galea reports no significant financial relationships. The investigator-initiated study received funding from Abbott, the manufacturer of the Amulet device. Dr. Lakkireddy has financial relationships with Abbott, AltaThera, Medtronic, Biotronik, and Boston Scientific, which makes the Watchman device.

On the basis of outcomes, there was no clear winner from a trial that directly compared two modern devices used in patients undergoing percutaneous left atrial appendage (LAA) closure.

But the devices were not interchangeable for rates of complications or leaks, according to results of the open-label SWISS APERO trial, which compared the Amplatzer Amulet to the Watchman FLX device at eight participating centers in Europe.

At 45 days, the overall rates of leaks and the clinical outcomes in the two randomized groups were not significantly different, but there were differences in secondary endpoints, such as rates of peridevice leak (PDL), which were lower in the Amulet device group, and procedural complications, which were higher, Roberto Galea, MD, reported at the Transcatheter Cardiovascular Therapeutics annual meeting, held virtually and live in Orlando.

LAA closure devices were developed as an alternative to oral anticoagulation in patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation. Although a similar comparison of LAA closure devices, called Amulet IDE, was recently published, that trial compared Amulet to Watchman 2.5, an earlier generation device.

Started later, SWISS APERO was also a planned comparison of Amulet and the Watchman 2.5, but the comparison switched to the Watchman FLX, when it was released in March of 2019.
 

First randomized comparison with Watchman FLX

“This is the first multicenter randomized controlled trial to include the Watchman FLX,” said Dr. Galea, a clinical investigator in the department of cardiology, Bern (Switzerland) University Hospital. He noted that Watchman FLX included some adjustments in design with the potential to reduce leak rates.

After preprocedural transesophageal echocardiography confirmed that patients had suitable anatomy to receive either device, the 221 patients who qualified for SWISS APERO were randomized. The primary endpoint was a composite of a justified crossover to a device other than the one to which they were assigned or residual patency detected by coronary computed tomography angiography (CCTA) at 45 days.

The primary endpoint was reached by 67.6% of patients randomized to the Amulet device and 70% of those randomized to Watchman Flex, a statistically nonsignificant difference (P = .71).

Because only one patient in the Amulet group and none in the Watchman group had a justified crossover to a nonrandomized device, most of the differences in the 45-day CCTA involved patency, defined as LAA density of at least 100 Hounsfield units. While the proportion of patients with leaks was similar, the types of leaks, which were stratified by underlying leak mechanism into PDL, mixed leaks (including incomplete side sealing), intradevice leaks, and leaks of unclear origin, were different.
 

Peridevice leaks twofold greater with Watchman

Those randomized to the Watchman device were more than twice as likely to have PDL (27.5% vs. 13.7%; P = .02), although no visible leak exceeded 5 mm in size. They were also more likely to have mixed leaks (14% vs. 3.8%; P = .01) and patency with no visible leak (21.0% vs. 9.5%; P = .02). There were also more device-related thrombi in the Watchman group even though the difference did not reach statistical significance (9.9% vs. 3.7%; P = .08).

Intradevice leaks (44.8% vs. 23.0%; P = .001) were the only type of patency significantly more common among patients randomized to Amulet, but the difference was relatively large. In addition, procedural complications of any type (32.4% vs. 19.1%; P = .023) were higher in the Amulet group. Most of these involved non–clinically relevant pericardial effusions, Dr. Galea said at the meeting, sponsored by the Cardiovascular Research Foundation.

The proportion of patients with adverse outcomes by 45 days was similar, but the types of complications differed. Of the six deaths, two occurred in the Amulet group as a result of periprocedural complications (one stemming from an air embolism and the other from a series of events following pericardial effusion). Three of the four deaths in the Watchman group were due to fatal bleeding. The fourth was a sudden death that occurred 30 days after the procedure.
 

Amulet IDE trial generates similar data

The much larger Amulet IDE trial, which compared Amulet to the Watchman 2.5 device, produced generally similar results. Again, the proportion of patients reaching the composite primary endpoints was similar.

The primary safety endpoint, which included death and major bleeding within 12 months of randomization, occurred in 14.5% and 14.7% of the Amulet and Watchman patients, respectively (P < .001 for noninferiority). The primary efficacy endpoint, which included stroke or systemic embolism within 18 months of randomization, occurred in 2.8% of patients in both groups.

As in SWISS APERO, the 1,878-patient Amulet IDE trial showed that the devices are similarly effective and safe but not necessarily interchangeable. Ultimately, the rate of LAA occlusion was higher for Amulet than the older generation Watchman (98.9% vs. 96.8%; P = .003) but procedural complication occurred more frequently among those randomized to the Amulet device (4.5% vs. 2.5%).

“The closure mechanisms are not the same, which might explain why we see differences in some secondary outcomes even when they perform similarly on the primary outcomes,” said Dhanunjaya R. Lakkireddy, MD, executive medical director, Kansas City (Kansas) Heart Rhythm Institute.

The lead investigator of the Amulet IDE trial, Dr. Lakkireddy was referring to both the AMULET IDE and the SWISS APERO study when he said that the currently available data do not allow one device to be considered superior to the other. He did suggest that differences between devices might still be considered meaningful in specific clinical situations or to specific clinicians.

Without studies to show objective differences, Dr. Lakkireddy suggested that training and experience is probably the most important variable in achieving treatment goals. “Operator comfort is certainly important,” he said.

Dr. Galea reports no significant financial relationships. The investigator-initiated study received funding from Abbott, the manufacturer of the Amulet device. Dr. Lakkireddy has financial relationships with Abbott, AltaThera, Medtronic, Biotronik, and Boston Scientific, which makes the Watchman device.

On the basis of outcomes, there was no clear winner from a trial that directly compared two modern devices used in patients undergoing percutaneous left atrial appendage (LAA) closure.

But the devices were not interchangeable for rates of complications or leaks, according to results of the open-label SWISS APERO trial, which compared the Amplatzer Amulet to the Watchman FLX device at eight participating centers in Europe.

At 45 days, the overall rates of leaks and the clinical outcomes in the two randomized groups were not significantly different, but there were differences in secondary endpoints, such as rates of peridevice leak (PDL), which were lower in the Amulet device group, and procedural complications, which were higher, Roberto Galea, MD, reported at the Transcatheter Cardiovascular Therapeutics annual meeting, held virtually and live in Orlando.

LAA closure devices were developed as an alternative to oral anticoagulation in patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation. Although a similar comparison of LAA closure devices, called Amulet IDE, was recently published, that trial compared Amulet to Watchman 2.5, an earlier generation device.

Started later, SWISS APERO was also a planned comparison of Amulet and the Watchman 2.5, but the comparison switched to the Watchman FLX, when it was released in March of 2019.
 

First randomized comparison with Watchman FLX

“This is the first multicenter randomized controlled trial to include the Watchman FLX,” said Dr. Galea, a clinical investigator in the department of cardiology, Bern (Switzerland) University Hospital. He noted that Watchman FLX included some adjustments in design with the potential to reduce leak rates.

After preprocedural transesophageal echocardiography confirmed that patients had suitable anatomy to receive either device, the 221 patients who qualified for SWISS APERO were randomized. The primary endpoint was a composite of a justified crossover to a device other than the one to which they were assigned or residual patency detected by coronary computed tomography angiography (CCTA) at 45 days.

The primary endpoint was reached by 67.6% of patients randomized to the Amulet device and 70% of those randomized to Watchman Flex, a statistically nonsignificant difference (P = .71).

Because only one patient in the Amulet group and none in the Watchman group had a justified crossover to a nonrandomized device, most of the differences in the 45-day CCTA involved patency, defined as LAA density of at least 100 Hounsfield units. While the proportion of patients with leaks was similar, the types of leaks, which were stratified by underlying leak mechanism into PDL, mixed leaks (including incomplete side sealing), intradevice leaks, and leaks of unclear origin, were different.
 

Peridevice leaks twofold greater with Watchman

Those randomized to the Watchman device were more than twice as likely to have PDL (27.5% vs. 13.7%; P = .02), although no visible leak exceeded 5 mm in size. They were also more likely to have mixed leaks (14% vs. 3.8%; P = .01) and patency with no visible leak (21.0% vs. 9.5%; P = .02). There were also more device-related thrombi in the Watchman group even though the difference did not reach statistical significance (9.9% vs. 3.7%; P = .08).

Intradevice leaks (44.8% vs. 23.0%; P = .001) were the only type of patency significantly more common among patients randomized to Amulet, but the difference was relatively large. In addition, procedural complications of any type (32.4% vs. 19.1%; P = .023) were higher in the Amulet group. Most of these involved non–clinically relevant pericardial effusions, Dr. Galea said at the meeting, sponsored by the Cardiovascular Research Foundation.

The proportion of patients with adverse outcomes by 45 days was similar, but the types of complications differed. Of the six deaths, two occurred in the Amulet group as a result of periprocedural complications (one stemming from an air embolism and the other from a series of events following pericardial effusion). Three of the four deaths in the Watchman group were due to fatal bleeding. The fourth was a sudden death that occurred 30 days after the procedure.
 

Amulet IDE trial generates similar data

The much larger Amulet IDE trial, which compared Amulet to the Watchman 2.5 device, produced generally similar results. Again, the proportion of patients reaching the composite primary endpoints was similar.

The primary safety endpoint, which included death and major bleeding within 12 months of randomization, occurred in 14.5% and 14.7% of the Amulet and Watchman patients, respectively (P < .001 for noninferiority). The primary efficacy endpoint, which included stroke or systemic embolism within 18 months of randomization, occurred in 2.8% of patients in both groups.

As in SWISS APERO, the 1,878-patient Amulet IDE trial showed that the devices are similarly effective and safe but not necessarily interchangeable. Ultimately, the rate of LAA occlusion was higher for Amulet than the older generation Watchman (98.9% vs. 96.8%; P = .003) but procedural complication occurred more frequently among those randomized to the Amulet device (4.5% vs. 2.5%).

“The closure mechanisms are not the same, which might explain why we see differences in some secondary outcomes even when they perform similarly on the primary outcomes,” said Dhanunjaya R. Lakkireddy, MD, executive medical director, Kansas City (Kansas) Heart Rhythm Institute.

The lead investigator of the Amulet IDE trial, Dr. Lakkireddy was referring to both the AMULET IDE and the SWISS APERO study when he said that the currently available data do not allow one device to be considered superior to the other. He did suggest that differences between devices might still be considered meaningful in specific clinical situations or to specific clinicians.

Without studies to show objective differences, Dr. Lakkireddy suggested that training and experience is probably the most important variable in achieving treatment goals. “Operator comfort is certainly important,” he said.

Dr. Galea reports no significant financial relationships. The investigator-initiated study received funding from Abbott, the manufacturer of the Amulet device. Dr. Lakkireddy has financial relationships with Abbott, AltaThera, Medtronic, Biotronik, and Boston Scientific, which makes the Watchman device.

The rate of major adverse cardiac events (MACE) over 5 years is similar whether revascularization is guided by instantaneous wave-free ratio (iFR) or fractional flow reserve (FFR), according to long-term results of the iFR-SWEDEHEART study.

“The results are about the same as reported at 12 months. There were no significant differences in any outcome we evaluated,” according to Matthias Götberg, MD, PhD.

When the initial results of the noninferiority iFR-SWEDEHEART trial were published after 1 year of follow-up, the primary MACE endpoint of death from any-cause nonfatal myocardial infarction, or unplanned revascularization, was met by 6.7% and 6.1% of those randomized to iFR or FFR, respectively.

These outcomes were not significantly different and placed iFR well within the predefined boundaries of noninferiority (P = .007).

In this new and final follow-up of iFR-SWEDEHEART, which evaluated the same 2,019 patients who were alive at 1 year (none were lost to follow-up), the MACE endpoint was met by 21.5% and 19.9% of those managed with iFR and FFR, respectively. The hazard ratio (1.09) had a wide 95% confidence interval (0.90-1.31) that did not approach statistical significance.
 

No differences seen across outcomes

When broken down into the MACE components, there were no differences between iFR and FFR, respectively, for all-cause death (9.4% vs. 7.9%), MI (5.8% vs. 5.7%) or unplanned revascularization (11.6% vs. 11.3%).

Across predefined subgroups, such as those defined by age, gender, stable versus unstable angina, and presence of risk factors such as diabetes, hypertension, hyperlipidemia, and smoking, there were also no significant differences in outcome.

At the time iFR-SWEDEHART was initiated, FFR had already been accepted as more effective than angiographic assessment to identify lesion ischemia and the need for percutaneous intervention (PCI). The iFR-SWEDEHEART trial tested iFR, a relatively new technology at the time, as a noninferior alternative. Unlike FFR, which requires adenosine to dilate the vessel, adding cost and patient discomfort, iFR measures the resting pressure gradient across the coronary lesion, and it is generally easier to perform.

“The advantage of iFR is that it provides an instantaneous lesion assessment without the need for adenosine,” Dr. Götberg explained in presenting the results at the Transcatheter Cardiovascular Therapeutics annual meeting, held virtually and live in Orlando.

When the procedural results were compared in the published study at 1 year, it was noted that the mean number of lesions evaluated per patient was higher (1.55 vs. 1.43; P = .002), but the proportion of lesions found functionally significant was lower (29.2% vs. 36.8%; P < .0001) among those randomized to iFR than in the FFR group.

While most other procedural characteristics, such as PCI access route, fluoroscopy time, and contrast use did not differ significantly, fewer stents were placed in patients managed with iFR (1.58 vs. 1.73; P = .048), and a reduction in the average procedural time of a few minutes approached significance (P = .09).
 

Patient discomfort is greater with FFR

Patient discomfort measured during the procedure did differ, according to Dr. Götberg, an interventional cardiologist at Skåne University Hospital, Lund, Sweden.

Only about 30% in the FFR group reported no discomfort. Most of the others reported mild or moderate discomfort, but nearly 10% characterized the discomfort as severe. In the iFR group, more than 95% reported no discomfort. All of the remaining patients reported discomfort level as mild.

Because differences in MACE would be most likely to occur in the first year after revascularization, the similarity of the 1- and 5-year results were expected, according to Dr. Götberg. However, a 5-year follow-up was considered prudent given the relatively limited experience with iFR when the study was designed. This technique is now well established and widely used.

The study supports the premise that quicker and easier-to-obtain results with iFR are obtained without sacrificing greater relative risk of failing to identify a vulnerable lesion, according to Dr. Götberg.

Nevertheless, iFR and FFR “are not an exact match,” according to Jennifer A. Rymer, MD, an interventional cardiologist and assistant professor of medicine at Duke University, Durham, N.C. Although she called this trial an “excellent” demonstration of comparable utility in distinguishing lesions that do not require intervention from those that do, she implied that some clinicians might still prefer FFR for other reasons.

For example, FFR provides information about coronary flow reserve and microvascular resistance that are relevant to the underlying pathophysiology in a diseased vessel, according to Shmuel Banai, MD, head of interventional cardiology, Tel Aviv Medical Center. Recognizing that this information is not as readily generated by iFR, he is among those who plan to continue to use FFR despite these results.

However, for those who are now routinely performing iFR for the purposes of guiding revascularization, “these data are reassuring,” said David Kandzari, MD, director of interventional cardiology, Piedmont Hart Institute, Atlanta. The 5-year data essentially eliminate the likelihood that iFR relative to FFR increases the risk of missing functionally significant lesions for revascularization procedures.

Dr. Götberg reports financial relationships with Abbott, Boston Scientific, Medtronic, and Phillips Healthcare. Dr. Rymer reports no potential financial conflicts of interest. Dr. Banai has a financial relationship with Neovasc. Dr. Kandzari reports financial relationships with Ablative Solutions and Medtronic.

The rate of major adverse cardiac events (MACE) over 5 years is similar whether revascularization is guided by instantaneous wave-free ratio (iFR) or fractional flow reserve (FFR), according to long-term results of the iFR-SWEDEHEART study.

“The results are about the same as reported at 12 months. There were no significant differences in any outcome we evaluated,” according to Matthias Götberg, MD, PhD.

When the initial results of the noninferiority iFR-SWEDEHEART trial were published after 1 year of follow-up, the primary MACE endpoint of death from any-cause nonfatal myocardial infarction, or unplanned revascularization, was met by 6.7% and 6.1% of those randomized to iFR or FFR, respectively.

These outcomes were not significantly different and placed iFR well within the predefined boundaries of noninferiority (P = .007).

In this new and final follow-up of iFR-SWEDEHEART, which evaluated the same 2,019 patients who were alive at 1 year (none were lost to follow-up), the MACE endpoint was met by 21.5% and 19.9% of those managed with iFR and FFR, respectively. The hazard ratio (1.09) had a wide 95% confidence interval (0.90-1.31) that did not approach statistical significance.
 

No differences seen across outcomes

When broken down into the MACE components, there were no differences between iFR and FFR, respectively, for all-cause death (9.4% vs. 7.9%), MI (5.8% vs. 5.7%) or unplanned revascularization (11.6% vs. 11.3%).

Across predefined subgroups, such as those defined by age, gender, stable versus unstable angina, and presence of risk factors such as diabetes, hypertension, hyperlipidemia, and smoking, there were also no significant differences in outcome.

At the time iFR-SWEDEHART was initiated, FFR had already been accepted as more effective than angiographic assessment to identify lesion ischemia and the need for percutaneous intervention (PCI). The iFR-SWEDEHEART trial tested iFR, a relatively new technology at the time, as a noninferior alternative. Unlike FFR, which requires adenosine to dilate the vessel, adding cost and patient discomfort, iFR measures the resting pressure gradient across the coronary lesion, and it is generally easier to perform.

“The advantage of iFR is that it provides an instantaneous lesion assessment without the need for adenosine,” Dr. Götberg explained in presenting the results at the Transcatheter Cardiovascular Therapeutics annual meeting, held virtually and live in Orlando.

When the procedural results were compared in the published study at 1 year, it was noted that the mean number of lesions evaluated per patient was higher (1.55 vs. 1.43; P = .002), but the proportion of lesions found functionally significant was lower (29.2% vs. 36.8%; P < .0001) among those randomized to iFR than in the FFR group.

While most other procedural characteristics, such as PCI access route, fluoroscopy time, and contrast use did not differ significantly, fewer stents were placed in patients managed with iFR (1.58 vs. 1.73; P = .048), and a reduction in the average procedural time of a few minutes approached significance (P = .09).
 

Patient discomfort is greater with FFR

Patient discomfort measured during the procedure did differ, according to Dr. Götberg, an interventional cardiologist at Skåne University Hospital, Lund, Sweden.

Only about 30% in the FFR group reported no discomfort. Most of the others reported mild or moderate discomfort, but nearly 10% characterized the discomfort as severe. In the iFR group, more than 95% reported no discomfort. All of the remaining patients reported discomfort level as mild.

Because differences in MACE would be most likely to occur in the first year after revascularization, the similarity of the 1- and 5-year results were expected, according to Dr. Götberg. However, a 5-year follow-up was considered prudent given the relatively limited experience with iFR when the study was designed. This technique is now well established and widely used.

The study supports the premise that quicker and easier-to-obtain results with iFR are obtained without sacrificing greater relative risk of failing to identify a vulnerable lesion, according to Dr. Götberg.

Nevertheless, iFR and FFR “are not an exact match,” according to Jennifer A. Rymer, MD, an interventional cardiologist and assistant professor of medicine at Duke University, Durham, N.C. Although she called this trial an “excellent” demonstration of comparable utility in distinguishing lesions that do not require intervention from those that do, she implied that some clinicians might still prefer FFR for other reasons.

For example, FFR provides information about coronary flow reserve and microvascular resistance that are relevant to the underlying pathophysiology in a diseased vessel, according to Shmuel Banai, MD, head of interventional cardiology, Tel Aviv Medical Center. Recognizing that this information is not as readily generated by iFR, he is among those who plan to continue to use FFR despite these results.

However, for those who are now routinely performing iFR for the purposes of guiding revascularization, “these data are reassuring,” said David Kandzari, MD, director of interventional cardiology, Piedmont Hart Institute, Atlanta. The 5-year data essentially eliminate the likelihood that iFR relative to FFR increases the risk of missing functionally significant lesions for revascularization procedures.

Dr. Götberg reports financial relationships with Abbott, Boston Scientific, Medtronic, and Phillips Healthcare. Dr. Rymer reports no potential financial conflicts of interest. Dr. Banai has a financial relationship with Neovasc. Dr. Kandzari reports financial relationships with Ablative Solutions and Medtronic.

The rate of major adverse cardiac events (MACE) over 5 years is similar whether revascularization is guided by instantaneous wave-free ratio (iFR) or fractional flow reserve (FFR), according to long-term results of the iFR-SWEDEHEART study.

“The results are about the same as reported at 12 months. There were no significant differences in any outcome we evaluated,” according to Matthias Götberg, MD, PhD.

When the initial results of the noninferiority iFR-SWEDEHEART trial were published after 1 year of follow-up, the primary MACE endpoint of death from any-cause nonfatal myocardial infarction, or unplanned revascularization, was met by 6.7% and 6.1% of those randomized to iFR or FFR, respectively.

These outcomes were not significantly different and placed iFR well within the predefined boundaries of noninferiority (P = .007).

In this new and final follow-up of iFR-SWEDEHEART, which evaluated the same 2,019 patients who were alive at 1 year (none were lost to follow-up), the MACE endpoint was met by 21.5% and 19.9% of those managed with iFR and FFR, respectively. The hazard ratio (1.09) had a wide 95% confidence interval (0.90-1.31) that did not approach statistical significance.
 

No differences seen across outcomes

When broken down into the MACE components, there were no differences between iFR and FFR, respectively, for all-cause death (9.4% vs. 7.9%), MI (5.8% vs. 5.7%) or unplanned revascularization (11.6% vs. 11.3%).

Across predefined subgroups, such as those defined by age, gender, stable versus unstable angina, and presence of risk factors such as diabetes, hypertension, hyperlipidemia, and smoking, there were also no significant differences in outcome.

At the time iFR-SWEDEHART was initiated, FFR had already been accepted as more effective than angiographic assessment to identify lesion ischemia and the need for percutaneous intervention (PCI). The iFR-SWEDEHEART trial tested iFR, a relatively new technology at the time, as a noninferior alternative. Unlike FFR, which requires adenosine to dilate the vessel, adding cost and patient discomfort, iFR measures the resting pressure gradient across the coronary lesion, and it is generally easier to perform.

“The advantage of iFR is that it provides an instantaneous lesion assessment without the need for adenosine,” Dr. Götberg explained in presenting the results at the Transcatheter Cardiovascular Therapeutics annual meeting, held virtually and live in Orlando.

When the procedural results were compared in the published study at 1 year, it was noted that the mean number of lesions evaluated per patient was higher (1.55 vs. 1.43; P = .002), but the proportion of lesions found functionally significant was lower (29.2% vs. 36.8%; P < .0001) among those randomized to iFR than in the FFR group.

While most other procedural characteristics, such as PCI access route, fluoroscopy time, and contrast use did not differ significantly, fewer stents were placed in patients managed with iFR (1.58 vs. 1.73; P = .048), and a reduction in the average procedural time of a few minutes approached significance (P = .09).
 

Patient discomfort is greater with FFR

Patient discomfort measured during the procedure did differ, according to Dr. Götberg, an interventional cardiologist at Skåne University Hospital, Lund, Sweden.

Only about 30% in the FFR group reported no discomfort. Most of the others reported mild or moderate discomfort, but nearly 10% characterized the discomfort as severe. In the iFR group, more than 95% reported no discomfort. All of the remaining patients reported discomfort level as mild.

Because differences in MACE would be most likely to occur in the first year after revascularization, the similarity of the 1- and 5-year results were expected, according to Dr. Götberg. However, a 5-year follow-up was considered prudent given the relatively limited experience with iFR when the study was designed. This technique is now well established and widely used.

The study supports the premise that quicker and easier-to-obtain results with iFR are obtained without sacrificing greater relative risk of failing to identify a vulnerable lesion, according to Dr. Götberg.

Nevertheless, iFR and FFR “are not an exact match,” according to Jennifer A. Rymer, MD, an interventional cardiologist and assistant professor of medicine at Duke University, Durham, N.C. Although she called this trial an “excellent” demonstration of comparable utility in distinguishing lesions that do not require intervention from those that do, she implied that some clinicians might still prefer FFR for other reasons.

For example, FFR provides information about coronary flow reserve and microvascular resistance that are relevant to the underlying pathophysiology in a diseased vessel, according to Shmuel Banai, MD, head of interventional cardiology, Tel Aviv Medical Center. Recognizing that this information is not as readily generated by iFR, he is among those who plan to continue to use FFR despite these results.

However, for those who are now routinely performing iFR for the purposes of guiding revascularization, “these data are reassuring,” said David Kandzari, MD, director of interventional cardiology, Piedmont Hart Institute, Atlanta. The 5-year data essentially eliminate the likelihood that iFR relative to FFR increases the risk of missing functionally significant lesions for revascularization procedures.

Dr. Götberg reports financial relationships with Abbott, Boston Scientific, Medtronic, and Phillips Healthcare. Dr. Rymer reports no potential financial conflicts of interest. Dr. Banai has a financial relationship with Neovasc. Dr. Kandzari reports financial relationships with Ablative Solutions and Medtronic.

For psychiatrists embarking on a telemedicine consultation, it might be helpful to review a checklist of steps that will reduce the risk of problems when things go wrong, according to an overview of the dangers at the virtual Psychopharmacology Update presented by Current Psychiatry and the American Academy of Clinical Psychiatrists, sponsored by Medscape Live.

Ideally, telepsychiatry will function much like an inpatient office visit, but the dynamics differ – as do the things that can go wrong, according to Sanjay Gupta, MD, chief medical officer, BryLin Behavioral Health System, Buffalo, N.Y. “Issues can arise suddenly. You need contingency planning.”

At the outset, psychiatrists should establish the location of the patient. This is necessary at every telemedicine encounter. With a remote device, a patient could be essentially anywhere on Earth. Patients might not even remember to mention that they are vacationing in Australia.

The location of the patient is important in the event of an unexpected crisis. This is not only relevant to an unstable patient at risk of dangerous behavior, such as actively attempting suicide, but to patients who have a seizure or some other emergency that inhibits communication. Dr. Gupta advised obtaining phone numbers for crisis services relevant to the location of the patient, and this requires confirming that the patient is where he or she was expected to be.

In addition, there should be a plan for technological failure. As everyone knows, these failures, such as dysfunction of a device, a poor connection, or an Internet outage, can happen at any time. Both the clinician and the patient can derive reassurance from at least one if not two or more plans to reconnect in the event of these failures.

The visit should also begin with questions that will establish the patient has a sense of adequate privacy. This is one of the most common obstacles to an effective telemedicine consultation. Dr. Gupta pointed out that phone or computer cameras do not typically permit the clinician to exclude the presence of another individual sitting even a few feet away from the patient. With spouses and children nearby, there might be a tenuous sense of privacy even if they are unlikely to overhear the telemedicine visit.

One strategy that can be used to assess the patient’s level of comfort is to ask for a description of the patient’s surroundings and any other people at the location. Dr. Gupta also said it is appropriate to establish ground rules about recording of the session, which has its own potential to inhibit the interaction.

Warning that some form of consent to a telemedicine visit is mandatory in most states, Dr. Gupta also cautioned that a formal identification check is appropriate for a first-time visit. The risk of an individual offering a false identification is likely to be low, but it can be eliminated entirely by a protocol that verifies consent and identify before the clinical work begins.

Because of the importance of engaging patients quickly, Dr. Gupta called the first few minutes of a telemedicine visit “crucial.” By initiating the visit with a warm and respectful tone, by relaying a competent and professional appearance, and by establishing an atmosphere that encourages communication, the initial minutes of the call can set a tone that facilitates an effective visit.

Simple and established telehealth etiquette strategies should be employed, according to Dr. Gupta. He suggested paying attention to such issues as lighting, background, and camera position. Descriptions of what constitutes adequate lighting and background are easily obtained on free how-to websites, but the goal is to provide patients with a nondistracting and clear view of the clinician.

During a telemedicine visit, the clinician’s focus should remain on the patient, according to Dr. Gupta. He advised against taking notes or documenting the visit on an electronic health record during the course of the visit. Rather, he advised positioning the camera in a way that the patient feels eye contact is being made.

“It can be helpful to periodically summarize what the patient has said to demonstrate that you are fully engaged,” Dr. Gupta suggested.

Telemedicine is very effective for many but not all patients. Some, such as those with active psychosis, are not suited to this approach, but others are simply uncomfortable with this form of communication. Dr. Gupta suggested that clinicians should be mindful of the advantages and the limitations of telepsychiatry.

Ultimately, Dr. Gupta believes that the substantial expansion of telepsychiatry that took place during the COVID-19 pandemic is likely to persist when the pandemic ends, even if many of the changes that permitted its expansion, such as a relaxation of HIPPA requirements, are withdrawn. However, parity reimbursement for visits offered by telemedicine relative to those that are face-to-face, which greatly facilitated the growth of telepsychiatry, is not guaranteed, so this remains an unanswered question.

“The question is what will happen to the billing codes when we see COVID-19 in the rearview mirror, and the answer is that no one knows,” he said.
 

Uncertainty about future use

Other experts in this field agreed. James (Jay) H. Shore, MD, MPH, director of telemedicine, Helen and Arthur E. Johnson Depression Center, University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora, has long been an advocate for the value of telepsychiatry for reaching patients with limited psychosocial services. The attention drawn to this practice by the COVID-19 pandemic has been welcome, but he does not know how it will affect the future.

“There is too much uncertainty in the system to make a good prediction of where this may end up,” he said.

It is not just reimbursement that is at risk, according to Peter Yellowlees, MBBS, MD, chief wellness officer at the University of California, Davis. Also a longtime advocate of telepsychiatry, particularly to reach the underserved, Dr. Yellowlees pointed out that the ability to prescribe controlled substances through telemedicine and the ability to consult with patients across state lines might also be in jeopardy if and when rules for telemedicine are revisited after the pandemic.

“Many organizations are lobbying to make the pandemic changes permanent because they greatly support telemedicine delivery,” Dr. Yellowlees said, but agreed about the uncertainty regarding what policy makers will do.

Jayasudha Gude, MD, who is completing her residency in psychiatry at Zucker Hillside Hospital, Northwell Health, New York, recently led a literature review evaluating the needs and viability of telepsychiatry during and after the COVID-19 era (Cureus. 2021 Aug;13:e16974). Based on the benefits she identified in her review, she said, “I would definitely want to advocate for the continued use of telepsychiatry after the pandemic is over.” She hopes that psychiatrists who now have experience in this area will join her.

“I am hopeful that a lot of mental health providers will also be advocating since they have experience, and many will want to continue its use,” she said. Medscape Live and this news organization are owned by the same parent company. Dr. Gupta, Dr. Shore, Dr. Yellowlees, and Dr. Gude reported no potential conflicts of interest.

For psychiatrists embarking on a telemedicine consultation, it might be helpful to review a checklist of steps that will reduce the risk of problems when things go wrong, according to an overview of the dangers at the virtual Psychopharmacology Update presented by Current Psychiatry and the American Academy of Clinical Psychiatrists, sponsored by Medscape Live.

Ideally, telepsychiatry will function much like an inpatient office visit, but the dynamics differ – as do the things that can go wrong, according to Sanjay Gupta, MD, chief medical officer, BryLin Behavioral Health System, Buffalo, N.Y. “Issues can arise suddenly. You need contingency planning.”

At the outset, psychiatrists should establish the location of the patient. This is necessary at every telemedicine encounter. With a remote device, a patient could be essentially anywhere on Earth. Patients might not even remember to mention that they are vacationing in Australia.

The location of the patient is important in the event of an unexpected crisis. This is not only relevant to an unstable patient at risk of dangerous behavior, such as actively attempting suicide, but to patients who have a seizure or some other emergency that inhibits communication. Dr. Gupta advised obtaining phone numbers for crisis services relevant to the location of the patient, and this requires confirming that the patient is where he or she was expected to be.

In addition, there should be a plan for technological failure. As everyone knows, these failures, such as dysfunction of a device, a poor connection, or an Internet outage, can happen at any time. Both the clinician and the patient can derive reassurance from at least one if not two or more plans to reconnect in the event of these failures.

The visit should also begin with questions that will establish the patient has a sense of adequate privacy. This is one of the most common obstacles to an effective telemedicine consultation. Dr. Gupta pointed out that phone or computer cameras do not typically permit the clinician to exclude the presence of another individual sitting even a few feet away from the patient. With spouses and children nearby, there might be a tenuous sense of privacy even if they are unlikely to overhear the telemedicine visit.

One strategy that can be used to assess the patient’s level of comfort is to ask for a description of the patient’s surroundings and any other people at the location. Dr. Gupta also said it is appropriate to establish ground rules about recording of the session, which has its own potential to inhibit the interaction.

Warning that some form of consent to a telemedicine visit is mandatory in most states, Dr. Gupta also cautioned that a formal identification check is appropriate for a first-time visit. The risk of an individual offering a false identification is likely to be low, but it can be eliminated entirely by a protocol that verifies consent and identify before the clinical work begins.

Because of the importance of engaging patients quickly, Dr. Gupta called the first few minutes of a telemedicine visit “crucial.” By initiating the visit with a warm and respectful tone, by relaying a competent and professional appearance, and by establishing an atmosphere that encourages communication, the initial minutes of the call can set a tone that facilitates an effective visit.

Simple and established telehealth etiquette strategies should be employed, according to Dr. Gupta. He suggested paying attention to such issues as lighting, background, and camera position. Descriptions of what constitutes adequate lighting and background are easily obtained on free how-to websites, but the goal is to provide patients with a nondistracting and clear view of the clinician.

During a telemedicine visit, the clinician’s focus should remain on the patient, according to Dr. Gupta. He advised against taking notes or documenting the visit on an electronic health record during the course of the visit. Rather, he advised positioning the camera in a way that the patient feels eye contact is being made.

“It can be helpful to periodically summarize what the patient has said to demonstrate that you are fully engaged,” Dr. Gupta suggested.

Telemedicine is very effective for many but not all patients. Some, such as those with active psychosis, are not suited to this approach, but others are simply uncomfortable with this form of communication. Dr. Gupta suggested that clinicians should be mindful of the advantages and the limitations of telepsychiatry.

Ultimately, Dr. Gupta believes that the substantial expansion of telepsychiatry that took place during the COVID-19 pandemic is likely to persist when the pandemic ends, even if many of the changes that permitted its expansion, such as a relaxation of HIPPA requirements, are withdrawn. However, parity reimbursement for visits offered by telemedicine relative to those that are face-to-face, which greatly facilitated the growth of telepsychiatry, is not guaranteed, so this remains an unanswered question.

“The question is what will happen to the billing codes when we see COVID-19 in the rearview mirror, and the answer is that no one knows,” he said.
 

Uncertainty about future use

Other experts in this field agreed. James (Jay) H. Shore, MD, MPH, director of telemedicine, Helen and Arthur E. Johnson Depression Center, University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora, has long been an advocate for the value of telepsychiatry for reaching patients with limited psychosocial services. The attention drawn to this practice by the COVID-19 pandemic has been welcome, but he does not know how it will affect the future.

“There is too much uncertainty in the system to make a good prediction of where this may end up,” he said.

It is not just reimbursement that is at risk, according to Peter Yellowlees, MBBS, MD, chief wellness officer at the University of California, Davis. Also a longtime advocate of telepsychiatry, particularly to reach the underserved, Dr. Yellowlees pointed out that the ability to prescribe controlled substances through telemedicine and the ability to consult with patients across state lines might also be in jeopardy if and when rules for telemedicine are revisited after the pandemic.

“Many organizations are lobbying to make the pandemic changes permanent because they greatly support telemedicine delivery,” Dr. Yellowlees said, but agreed about the uncertainty regarding what policy makers will do.

Jayasudha Gude, MD, who is completing her residency in psychiatry at Zucker Hillside Hospital, Northwell Health, New York, recently led a literature review evaluating the needs and viability of telepsychiatry during and after the COVID-19 era (Cureus. 2021 Aug;13:e16974). Based on the benefits she identified in her review, she said, “I would definitely want to advocate for the continued use of telepsychiatry after the pandemic is over.” She hopes that psychiatrists who now have experience in this area will join her.

“I am hopeful that a lot of mental health providers will also be advocating since they have experience, and many will want to continue its use,” she said. Medscape Live and this news organization are owned by the same parent company. Dr. Gupta, Dr. Shore, Dr. Yellowlees, and Dr. Gude reported no potential conflicts of interest.

For psychiatrists embarking on a telemedicine consultation, it might be helpful to review a checklist of steps that will reduce the risk of problems when things go wrong, according to an overview of the dangers at the virtual Psychopharmacology Update presented by Current Psychiatry and the American Academy of Clinical Psychiatrists, sponsored by Medscape Live.

Ideally, telepsychiatry will function much like an inpatient office visit, but the dynamics differ – as do the things that can go wrong, according to Sanjay Gupta, MD, chief medical officer, BryLin Behavioral Health System, Buffalo, N.Y. “Issues can arise suddenly. You need contingency planning.”

At the outset, psychiatrists should establish the location of the patient. This is necessary at every telemedicine encounter. With a remote device, a patient could be essentially anywhere on Earth. Patients might not even remember to mention that they are vacationing in Australia.

The location of the patient is important in the event of an unexpected crisis. This is not only relevant to an unstable patient at risk of dangerous behavior, such as actively attempting suicide, but to patients who have a seizure or some other emergency that inhibits communication. Dr. Gupta advised obtaining phone numbers for crisis services relevant to the location of the patient, and this requires confirming that the patient is where he or she was expected to be.

In addition, there should be a plan for technological failure. As everyone knows, these failures, such as dysfunction of a device, a poor connection, or an Internet outage, can happen at any time. Both the clinician and the patient can derive reassurance from at least one if not two or more plans to reconnect in the event of these failures.

The visit should also begin with questions that will establish the patient has a sense of adequate privacy. This is one of the most common obstacles to an effective telemedicine consultation. Dr. Gupta pointed out that phone or computer cameras do not typically permit the clinician to exclude the presence of another individual sitting even a few feet away from the patient. With spouses and children nearby, there might be a tenuous sense of privacy even if they are unlikely to overhear the telemedicine visit.

One strategy that can be used to assess the patient’s level of comfort is to ask for a description of the patient’s surroundings and any other people at the location. Dr. Gupta also said it is appropriate to establish ground rules about recording of the session, which has its own potential to inhibit the interaction.

Warning that some form of consent to a telemedicine visit is mandatory in most states, Dr. Gupta also cautioned that a formal identification check is appropriate for a first-time visit. The risk of an individual offering a false identification is likely to be low, but it can be eliminated entirely by a protocol that verifies consent and identify before the clinical work begins.

Because of the importance of engaging patients quickly, Dr. Gupta called the first few minutes of a telemedicine visit “crucial.” By initiating the visit with a warm and respectful tone, by relaying a competent and professional appearance, and by establishing an atmosphere that encourages communication, the initial minutes of the call can set a tone that facilitates an effective visit.

Simple and established telehealth etiquette strategies should be employed, according to Dr. Gupta. He suggested paying attention to such issues as lighting, background, and camera position. Descriptions of what constitutes adequate lighting and background are easily obtained on free how-to websites, but the goal is to provide patients with a nondistracting and clear view of the clinician.

During a telemedicine visit, the clinician’s focus should remain on the patient, according to Dr. Gupta. He advised against taking notes or documenting the visit on an electronic health record during the course of the visit. Rather, he advised positioning the camera in a way that the patient feels eye contact is being made.

“It can be helpful to periodically summarize what the patient has said to demonstrate that you are fully engaged,” Dr. Gupta suggested.

Telemedicine is very effective for many but not all patients. Some, such as those with active psychosis, are not suited to this approach, but others are simply uncomfortable with this form of communication. Dr. Gupta suggested that clinicians should be mindful of the advantages and the limitations of telepsychiatry.

Ultimately, Dr. Gupta believes that the substantial expansion of telepsychiatry that took place during the COVID-19 pandemic is likely to persist when the pandemic ends, even if many of the changes that permitted its expansion, such as a relaxation of HIPPA requirements, are withdrawn. However, parity reimbursement for visits offered by telemedicine relative to those that are face-to-face, which greatly facilitated the growth of telepsychiatry, is not guaranteed, so this remains an unanswered question.

“The question is what will happen to the billing codes when we see COVID-19 in the rearview mirror, and the answer is that no one knows,” he said.
 

Uncertainty about future use

Other experts in this field agreed. James (Jay) H. Shore, MD, MPH, director of telemedicine, Helen and Arthur E. Johnson Depression Center, University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora, has long been an advocate for the value of telepsychiatry for reaching patients with limited psychosocial services. The attention drawn to this practice by the COVID-19 pandemic has been welcome, but he does not know how it will affect the future.

“There is too much uncertainty in the system to make a good prediction of where this may end up,” he said.

It is not just reimbursement that is at risk, according to Peter Yellowlees, MBBS, MD, chief wellness officer at the University of California, Davis. Also a longtime advocate of telepsychiatry, particularly to reach the underserved, Dr. Yellowlees pointed out that the ability to prescribe controlled substances through telemedicine and the ability to consult with patients across state lines might also be in jeopardy if and when rules for telemedicine are revisited after the pandemic.

“Many organizations are lobbying to make the pandemic changes permanent because they greatly support telemedicine delivery,” Dr. Yellowlees said, but agreed about the uncertainty regarding what policy makers will do.

Jayasudha Gude, MD, who is completing her residency in psychiatry at Zucker Hillside Hospital, Northwell Health, New York, recently led a literature review evaluating the needs and viability of telepsychiatry during and after the COVID-19 era (Cureus. 2021 Aug;13:e16974). Based on the benefits she identified in her review, she said, “I would definitely want to advocate for the continued use of telepsychiatry after the pandemic is over.” She hopes that psychiatrists who now have experience in this area will join her.

“I am hopeful that a lot of mental health providers will also be advocating since they have experience, and many will want to continue its use,” she said. Medscape Live and this news organization are owned by the same parent company. Dr. Gupta, Dr. Shore, Dr. Yellowlees, and Dr. Gude reported no potential conflicts of interest.

Just months after the MASTER DAPT trial showed that abbreviated dual-antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) lowers the risk of bleeding after stent placement in patients at high bleeding risk, a new analysis showed the favorable benefit-to-risk ratio was about the same in the subgroup who also had an acute or recent myocardial infarction.

In the new prespecified MASTER DAPT analysis, the data show that the subgroup with both an increased bleeding risk and an increased risk of ischemic events benefited much like the entire study population from a shorter DAPT duration, reported Pieter C. Smits, MD, PhD, at the Transcatheter Cardiovascular Therapeutics annual meeting, held virtually and live in Orlando.

“There was no signal towards increased ischemic risk in the abbreviated DAPT population presenting with recent acute MI,” said Dr. Smits, emphasizing the consistency of results in this “bi-risk” subgroup with objective criteria for increased risks of bleeding and ischemic events.

MASTER DAPT main results published

The main results of the MASTER DAPT trial were presented at the 2021 annual meeting of the European Society of Cardiology and published recently in the New England Journal of Medicine. The trial randomized 4,434 patients who met one or more criteria for high bleeding risk. These included age of at least 75 years, documented anemia, a clinical indication for oral anticoagulants, and previous bleeding episodes requiring hospitalization.

In the trial, all patients were maintained on DAPT for 1 month after implantation of a biodegradable-polymer, sirolimus-eluting coronary stent (Ultimaster, Terumo). At the end of the month, those randomized to abbreviated DAPT started immediately on single-agent antiplatelet therapy, while those in the standard DAPT group remained on DAPT for at least 2 additional months.

Over 1 year of follow-up, the bleeding event rate was lower in the abbreviated DAPT group (6.5% vs. 9.4%; P < .0001 for superiority). The slight increase in major ischemic events among those in the abbreviated DAPT group (6.1% vs. 5.9%) was not significantly different (P = .001 for noninferiority).

When compared on the basis of net adverse clinical events (NACE), which comprised all-case death, MI, stroke, or Bleeding Academic Research Consortium (BARC) level 3 or 5 bleeding, there was a slight advantage for abbreviated DAPT (7.5% vs. 7.7%). This did not reach significance, but it was similar (P < .001 for noninferiority), favoring the abbreviated course of DAPT because of the bleeding advantage.

Recent MI vs. no MI

In the new analysis, patients in both the abbreviated and standard DAPT group were stratified into those with no major cardiovascular event within the past 12 months and those with an acute MI or acute coronary syndrome within this time. There were somewhat more patients without a history of MI within the previous 12 months in both the abbreviated DAPT (1,381 vs. 914 patients) and standard DAPT (1,418 vs. 866) groups.

In those without a recent MI, NACE rates were nearly identical over 1-year follow-up for those who received abbreviated versus standard DAPT. In both, slightly more than 6% had a NACE event, producing a hazard ratio of 1.03 for abbreviated versus standard DAPT (P = 0.85).

For those with a recent MI, event rates began to separate within 30 days. By 1 year, NACE rates exceeded 10% in those on standard DAPT, but remained below 9% for those on abbreviated DAPT. The lower hazard ratio in the abbreviated DAPT group (HR, 0.83; P = .22) did not reach statistical significance, but it did echo the larger MASTER DAPT conclusion.

“An abbreviated DAPT strategy significantly reduced clinically relevant bleeding risk in these bi-risk patients without increasing risk of ischemic events,” reported Dr. Smits, director of interventional cardiology at Maasstad Hospital, Rotterdam, the Netherlands.
 

No difference in NACE components

In fact, when the components of NACE were evaluated individually in the subgroup of patients with prior MI, both stroke (HR, 0.47; P = .16) and all-cause death (HR, 0.78; P = .28), although not significant, numerically favored abbreviated DAPT.

There was no difference between abbreviated and standard DAPT for risk of MI at 1 year (HR, 1.03; P = .92).

As in the overall MASTER DAPT results, bleeding risk (BARC 2, 3, or 5 bleeding) was significantly reduced in the substudy among those with a recent prior MI (P = .013) or those with no MI in the prior 12 months (P = .01).

In MASTER DAPT, which was an open-label study that randomized participants in 30 countries, all patients received one type of drug-eluting stent. While Dr. Smits conceded that it is not clear whether the conclusions about abbreviated DAPT can be extrapolated to other stents, he noted that recent long-term outcomes for modern drug-eluting coronary stents have been similar, suggesting these results might be more broadly applicable.

According to Dr. Smit, the consistency of this subgroup analysis with the previously published MASTER DAPT study is mutually reinforcing for a role of abbreviated DAPT in patients at high bleeding risk. Other experts agreed.

“One of the concerns that people have had is exactly what has been addressed here in this subgroup analysis. These are the patients that are not only bleeding-risk high but ischemic-risk high. The question was whether the benefit of reducing bleeding risk is offset by increasing stent thrombosis or other ischemic event outcomes, and the answer from the analysis is really clearly no,” said Philippe Gabriel Steg, MD, chief, department of cardiology, Hôpital Bichat, Paris, at the meeting, sponsored by the Cardiovascular Research Foundation.

Dr. Smits reports financial relationships with Abiomed, Abbott Vascular, Daiichi-Sankyo, Microport, Opsense, and Terumo Medical. Dr. Steg reports financial relationships with Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Idorsia, Merck, Novartis, Regeneron, and Sanofi-Aventis.

Just months after the MASTER DAPT trial showed that abbreviated dual-antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) lowers the risk of bleeding after stent placement in patients at high bleeding risk, a new analysis showed the favorable benefit-to-risk ratio was about the same in the subgroup who also had an acute or recent myocardial infarction.

In the new prespecified MASTER DAPT analysis, the data show that the subgroup with both an increased bleeding risk and an increased risk of ischemic events benefited much like the entire study population from a shorter DAPT duration, reported Pieter C. Smits, MD, PhD, at the Transcatheter Cardiovascular Therapeutics annual meeting, held virtually and live in Orlando.

“There was no signal towards increased ischemic risk in the abbreviated DAPT population presenting with recent acute MI,” said Dr. Smits, emphasizing the consistency of results in this “bi-risk” subgroup with objective criteria for increased risks of bleeding and ischemic events.

MASTER DAPT main results published

The main results of the MASTER DAPT trial were presented at the 2021 annual meeting of the European Society of Cardiology and published recently in the New England Journal of Medicine. The trial randomized 4,434 patients who met one or more criteria for high bleeding risk. These included age of at least 75 years, documented anemia, a clinical indication for oral anticoagulants, and previous bleeding episodes requiring hospitalization.

In the trial, all patients were maintained on DAPT for 1 month after implantation of a biodegradable-polymer, sirolimus-eluting coronary stent (Ultimaster, Terumo). At the end of the month, those randomized to abbreviated DAPT started immediately on single-agent antiplatelet therapy, while those in the standard DAPT group remained on DAPT for at least 2 additional months.

Over 1 year of follow-up, the bleeding event rate was lower in the abbreviated DAPT group (6.5% vs. 9.4%; P < .0001 for superiority). The slight increase in major ischemic events among those in the abbreviated DAPT group (6.1% vs. 5.9%) was not significantly different (P = .001 for noninferiority).

When compared on the basis of net adverse clinical events (NACE), which comprised all-case death, MI, stroke, or Bleeding Academic Research Consortium (BARC) level 3 or 5 bleeding, there was a slight advantage for abbreviated DAPT (7.5% vs. 7.7%). This did not reach significance, but it was similar (P < .001 for noninferiority), favoring the abbreviated course of DAPT because of the bleeding advantage.

Recent MI vs. no MI

In the new analysis, patients in both the abbreviated and standard DAPT group were stratified into those with no major cardiovascular event within the past 12 months and those with an acute MI or acute coronary syndrome within this time. There were somewhat more patients without a history of MI within the previous 12 months in both the abbreviated DAPT (1,381 vs. 914 patients) and standard DAPT (1,418 vs. 866) groups.

In those without a recent MI, NACE rates were nearly identical over 1-year follow-up for those who received abbreviated versus standard DAPT. In both, slightly more than 6% had a NACE event, producing a hazard ratio of 1.03 for abbreviated versus standard DAPT (P = 0.85).

For those with a recent MI, event rates began to separate within 30 days. By 1 year, NACE rates exceeded 10% in those on standard DAPT, but remained below 9% for those on abbreviated DAPT. The lower hazard ratio in the abbreviated DAPT group (HR, 0.83; P = .22) did not reach statistical significance, but it did echo the larger MASTER DAPT conclusion.

“An abbreviated DAPT strategy significantly reduced clinically relevant bleeding risk in these bi-risk patients without increasing risk of ischemic events,” reported Dr. Smits, director of interventional cardiology at Maasstad Hospital, Rotterdam, the Netherlands.
 

No difference in NACE components

In fact, when the components of NACE were evaluated individually in the subgroup of patients with prior MI, both stroke (HR, 0.47; P = .16) and all-cause death (HR, 0.78; P = .28), although not significant, numerically favored abbreviated DAPT.

There was no difference between abbreviated and standard DAPT for risk of MI at 1 year (HR, 1.03; P = .92).

As in the overall MASTER DAPT results, bleeding risk (BARC 2, 3, or 5 bleeding) was significantly reduced in the substudy among those with a recent prior MI (P = .013) or those with no MI in the prior 12 months (P = .01).

In MASTER DAPT, which was an open-label study that randomized participants in 30 countries, all patients received one type of drug-eluting stent. While Dr. Smits conceded that it is not clear whether the conclusions about abbreviated DAPT can be extrapolated to other stents, he noted that recent long-term outcomes for modern drug-eluting coronary stents have been similar, suggesting these results might be more broadly applicable.

According to Dr. Smit, the consistency of this subgroup analysis with the previously published MASTER DAPT study is mutually reinforcing for a role of abbreviated DAPT in patients at high bleeding risk. Other experts agreed.

“One of the concerns that people have had is exactly what has been addressed here in this subgroup analysis. These are the patients that are not only bleeding-risk high but ischemic-risk high. The question was whether the benefit of reducing bleeding risk is offset by increasing stent thrombosis or other ischemic event outcomes, and the answer from the analysis is really clearly no,” said Philippe Gabriel Steg, MD, chief, department of cardiology, Hôpital Bichat, Paris, at the meeting, sponsored by the Cardiovascular Research Foundation.

Dr. Smits reports financial relationships with Abiomed, Abbott Vascular, Daiichi-Sankyo, Microport, Opsense, and Terumo Medical. Dr. Steg reports financial relationships with Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Idorsia, Merck, Novartis, Regeneron, and Sanofi-Aventis.

Just months after the MASTER DAPT trial showed that abbreviated dual-antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) lowers the risk of bleeding after stent placement in patients at high bleeding risk, a new analysis showed the favorable benefit-to-risk ratio was about the same in the subgroup who also had an acute or recent myocardial infarction.

In the new prespecified MASTER DAPT analysis, the data show that the subgroup with both an increased bleeding risk and an increased risk of ischemic events benefited much like the entire study population from a shorter DAPT duration, reported Pieter C. Smits, MD, PhD, at the Transcatheter Cardiovascular Therapeutics annual meeting, held virtually and live in Orlando.

“There was no signal towards increased ischemic risk in the abbreviated DAPT population presenting with recent acute MI,” said Dr. Smits, emphasizing the consistency of results in this “bi-risk” subgroup with objective criteria for increased risks of bleeding and ischemic events.

MASTER DAPT main results published

The main results of the MASTER DAPT trial were presented at the 2021 annual meeting of the European Society of Cardiology and published recently in the New England Journal of Medicine. The trial randomized 4,434 patients who met one or more criteria for high bleeding risk. These included age of at least 75 years, documented anemia, a clinical indication for oral anticoagulants, and previous bleeding episodes requiring hospitalization.

In the trial, all patients were maintained on DAPT for 1 month after implantation of a biodegradable-polymer, sirolimus-eluting coronary stent (Ultimaster, Terumo). At the end of the month, those randomized to abbreviated DAPT started immediately on single-agent antiplatelet therapy, while those in the standard DAPT group remained on DAPT for at least 2 additional months.

Over 1 year of follow-up, the bleeding event rate was lower in the abbreviated DAPT group (6.5% vs. 9.4%; P < .0001 for superiority). The slight increase in major ischemic events among those in the abbreviated DAPT group (6.1% vs. 5.9%) was not significantly different (P = .001 for noninferiority).

When compared on the basis of net adverse clinical events (NACE), which comprised all-case death, MI, stroke, or Bleeding Academic Research Consortium (BARC) level 3 or 5 bleeding, there was a slight advantage for abbreviated DAPT (7.5% vs. 7.7%). This did not reach significance, but it was similar (P < .001 for noninferiority), favoring the abbreviated course of DAPT because of the bleeding advantage.

Recent MI vs. no MI

In the new analysis, patients in both the abbreviated and standard DAPT group were stratified into those with no major cardiovascular event within the past 12 months and those with an acute MI or acute coronary syndrome within this time. There were somewhat more patients without a history of MI within the previous 12 months in both the abbreviated DAPT (1,381 vs. 914 patients) and standard DAPT (1,418 vs. 866) groups.

In those without a recent MI, NACE rates were nearly identical over 1-year follow-up for those who received abbreviated versus standard DAPT. In both, slightly more than 6% had a NACE event, producing a hazard ratio of 1.03 for abbreviated versus standard DAPT (P = 0.85).

For those with a recent MI, event rates began to separate within 30 days. By 1 year, NACE rates exceeded 10% in those on standard DAPT, but remained below 9% for those on abbreviated DAPT. The lower hazard ratio in the abbreviated DAPT group (HR, 0.83; P = .22) did not reach statistical significance, but it did echo the larger MASTER DAPT conclusion.

“An abbreviated DAPT strategy significantly reduced clinically relevant bleeding risk in these bi-risk patients without increasing risk of ischemic events,” reported Dr. Smits, director of interventional cardiology at Maasstad Hospital, Rotterdam, the Netherlands.
 

No difference in NACE components

In fact, when the components of NACE were evaluated individually in the subgroup of patients with prior MI, both stroke (HR, 0.47; P = .16) and all-cause death (HR, 0.78; P = .28), although not significant, numerically favored abbreviated DAPT.

There was no difference between abbreviated and standard DAPT for risk of MI at 1 year (HR, 1.03; P = .92).

As in the overall MASTER DAPT results, bleeding risk (BARC 2, 3, or 5 bleeding) was significantly reduced in the substudy among those with a recent prior MI (P = .013) or those with no MI in the prior 12 months (P = .01).

In MASTER DAPT, which was an open-label study that randomized participants in 30 countries, all patients received one type of drug-eluting stent. While Dr. Smits conceded that it is not clear whether the conclusions about abbreviated DAPT can be extrapolated to other stents, he noted that recent long-term outcomes for modern drug-eluting coronary stents have been similar, suggesting these results might be more broadly applicable.

According to Dr. Smit, the consistency of this subgroup analysis with the previously published MASTER DAPT study is mutually reinforcing for a role of abbreviated DAPT in patients at high bleeding risk. Other experts agreed.

“One of the concerns that people have had is exactly what has been addressed here in this subgroup analysis. These are the patients that are not only bleeding-risk high but ischemic-risk high. The question was whether the benefit of reducing bleeding risk is offset by increasing stent thrombosis or other ischemic event outcomes, and the answer from the analysis is really clearly no,” said Philippe Gabriel Steg, MD, chief, department of cardiology, Hôpital Bichat, Paris, at the meeting, sponsored by the Cardiovascular Research Foundation.

Dr. Smits reports financial relationships with Abiomed, Abbott Vascular, Daiichi-Sankyo, Microport, Opsense, and Terumo Medical. Dr. Steg reports financial relationships with Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Idorsia, Merck, Novartis, Regeneron, and Sanofi-Aventis.

Designed to show noninferiority for treatment of coronary artery disease (CAD) in patients with diabetes, a head-to-head comparison of contemporary stents ended up showing that one was superior to the for the primary endpoint of target lesion failure (TLF).

HandmadePictures/Thinkstock

In the superiority analysis, the 35% relative reduction in the risk of TLF at 1 year for the Cre8 EVO (Alvimedica) stent relative to the Resolute Onyx (Medtronic) device reached significance, according to Rafael Romaguera, MD, PhD, an interventional cardiologist at the Bellvitge University Hospital, Barcelona.

At 1 year, the rates of TLF were 7.2% and 10.5% for the Cre8 EVO and Resolute Onyx stents, respectively. On the basis of noninferiority, the 3.73% reduction in TLF at 1 year among those receiving the Cre8 EVO device provided a highly significant confirmation of noninferiority (P < .001) and triggered the preplanned superiority analysis.

When the significant advantage on the TLF endpoint (P = .03) was broken down into its components, the Cre8 EVO stent was linked to numerically lower rates of cardiac death (2.1% vs. 2.7%), target vessel MI (5.3% vs. 7.2%), and target lesion revascularization (2.4% vs. 3.9%), according to the SUGAR (Second-Generation Drug-Eluting Stents in Diabetes) trial results presented at the Transcatheter Cardiovascular Therapeutics annual meeting, held virtually and live in Orlando and sponsored by the Cardiovascular Research Foundation.

In a previous study comparing these devices, called the ReCre8 trial, the rates of TLF in an all-comer CAD population were similar at 1 year. When an updated 3-year analysis was presented earlier in 2021 at the Cardiovascular Research Technologies meeting, they remained similar.
 

Diabetes-centered trial was unmet need

The rationale for conducting a new trial limited to patients with diabetes was based on the greater risk in this population, according to Dr. Romaguera. He cited data that indicate the risk of major adverse cardiac events are about two times higher 2 years after stent implantation in patients with diabetes relative to those without, even when contemporary drug-eluting stents are used.

Both the Cre8 EVO and Resolute Onyx stent are drug eluting and employ contemporary architecture that provides the basis for marketing claims that they are suitable for complex patients; but they have differences.

“There are three features that I think differentiate the Cre8 EVO stent,” Dr. Romaguera reported at the meeting, sponsored by the Cardiovascular Research Foundation.

One is the absence of polymer, which contrasts with the permanent polymer of the Resolute device. This feature affects the dissolution of the anti-inflammatory drug and might be one explanation for the greater protection from ischemic events, according to Dr. Romaguera.

Another is the thickness of the struts, which range from 70 to 80 mm for the Cre8 EVO device and from 92 to 102 mm for the Resolute Onyx device. In experimental studies, strut thickness has been associated with greater risk of thrombus formation, although it is unclear if this modest difference is clinically significant.

Also important, the Cre8 EVO device employs sirolimus for an anti-inflammatory effect, while the Resolute Onyx elutes zotarolimus. Again, experimental evidence suggests a greater anti-inflammatory effect reduces the need for dual-antiplatelet therapy (DAPT); that might offer a relative advantage in patients with an elevated risk of bleeding.

It is not clear whether all of these features contribute to the better results observed in this trial in diabetes patients, but Dr. Romaguera indicated that the lower risk of TLF with Cre8 EVO is not just statistically significant but also clinically meaningful.

In SUGAR, which included 23 centers in Spain, 1,175 patients with confirmed diabetes scheduled for percutaneous intervention (PCI) were randomized to one of the two stents. The study was purposely designed with very few exclusion criteria.
 

SUGAR trial employed all-comer design

“This was an all-comer design and there was no limitation in regard to clinical presentation, complexity, number of lesions, or other disease features,” said Dr. Romaguera. The major exclusions were a life expectancy of less than 2 years and a contraindication to taking DAPT for at least 1 month,

The patients were almost equally divided between those who had a non–ST-segment elevation MI) and those with chronic coronary artery disease, but patients with a STEMI, representing about 12% of the population, were included. Almost all of the patients (about 95%) had type 2 diabetes; nearly one-third were on insulin at the time of randomization.

According to Dr. Romaguera, “SUGAR is the first powered trial to compare new-generation drug-eluting stents in patients with diabetes,” and he emphasized the all-comer design in supporting its clinical relevance.

Several of those participating in discussion of the trial during the late-breaker session agreed. Although the moderator, Gregg Stone, MD, of the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, expressed surprise that the trial “actually demonstrated superiority” given the difficulty of showing a difference between modern stents, he called the findings “remarkable.”

Others seemed to suggest that it would alter their practice.

“This study is sweet like sugar for us, because now we have a stent that is dedicated and fitted for the diabetic population,” said Gennaro Sardella, MD, of Sapienza University of Rome.

For Marc Etienne Jolicoeur, MD, an interventional cardiologist associated with Duke University, Durham, N.C., one of the impressive findings was the early separation of the curves in favor of Cre8 EVO. Calling SUGAR a “fantastic trial,” he indicated that the progressive advantage over time reinforced his impression that the difference is real.

However, David Kandzari, MD, director of interventional cardiology, Piedmont Hart Institute, Atlanta, was more circumspect. He did not express any criticisms of the trial, but he called for “a larger evidence base” before declaring the Cre8 EVO device a standard of care for patients with diabetes undergoing PCI.

The SUGAR results were published in the European Heart Journal at the time of presentation at the meeting.

The trial was funded by the Spanish Society of Cardiology. Dr. Romaguera reported financial relationships with Biotronik and Boston Scientific. Dr. Stone, has financial relationships with more than 10 pharmaceutical companies, including those developing devices used in PCI. Dr. Sardella and Dr. Jolicoeur reported no financial relationships relevant to this topic. Dr. Kandzari reported financial relationships with Ablative Solutions and Medtronic.

Designed to show noninferiority for treatment of coronary artery disease (CAD) in patients with diabetes, a head-to-head comparison of contemporary stents ended up showing that one was superior to the for the primary endpoint of target lesion failure (TLF).

HandmadePictures/Thinkstock

In the superiority analysis, the 35% relative reduction in the risk of TLF at 1 year for the Cre8 EVO (Alvimedica) stent relative to the Resolute Onyx (Medtronic) device reached significance, according to Rafael Romaguera, MD, PhD, an interventional cardiologist at the Bellvitge University Hospital, Barcelona.

At 1 year, the rates of TLF were 7.2% and 10.5% for the Cre8 EVO and Resolute Onyx stents, respectively. On the basis of noninferiority, the 3.73% reduction in TLF at 1 year among those receiving the Cre8 EVO device provided a highly significant confirmation of noninferiority (P < .001) and triggered the preplanned superiority analysis.

When the significant advantage on the TLF endpoint (P = .03) was broken down into its components, the Cre8 EVO stent was linked to numerically lower rates of cardiac death (2.1% vs. 2.7%), target vessel MI (5.3% vs. 7.2%), and target lesion revascularization (2.4% vs. 3.9%), according to the SUGAR (Second-Generation Drug-Eluting Stents in Diabetes) trial results presented at the Transcatheter Cardiovascular Therapeutics annual meeting, held virtually and live in Orlando and sponsored by the Cardiovascular Research Foundation.

In a previous study comparing these devices, called the ReCre8 trial, the rates of TLF in an all-comer CAD population were similar at 1 year. When an updated 3-year analysis was presented earlier in 2021 at the Cardiovascular Research Technologies meeting, they remained similar.
 

Diabetes-centered trial was unmet need

The rationale for conducting a new trial limited to patients with diabetes was based on the greater risk in this population, according to Dr. Romaguera. He cited data that indicate the risk of major adverse cardiac events are about two times higher 2 years after stent implantation in patients with diabetes relative to those without, even when contemporary drug-eluting stents are used.

Both the Cre8 EVO and Resolute Onyx stent are drug eluting and employ contemporary architecture that provides the basis for marketing claims that they are suitable for complex patients; but they have differences.

“There are three features that I think differentiate the Cre8 EVO stent,” Dr. Romaguera reported at the meeting, sponsored by the Cardiovascular Research Foundation.

One is the absence of polymer, which contrasts with the permanent polymer of the Resolute device. This feature affects the dissolution of the anti-inflammatory drug and might be one explanation for the greater protection from ischemic events, according to Dr. Romaguera.

Another is the thickness of the struts, which range from 70 to 80 mm for the Cre8 EVO device and from 92 to 102 mm for the Resolute Onyx device. In experimental studies, strut thickness has been associated with greater risk of thrombus formation, although it is unclear if this modest difference is clinically significant.

Also important, the Cre8 EVO device employs sirolimus for an anti-inflammatory effect, while the Resolute Onyx elutes zotarolimus. Again, experimental evidence suggests a greater anti-inflammatory effect reduces the need for dual-antiplatelet therapy (DAPT); that might offer a relative advantage in patients with an elevated risk of bleeding.

It is not clear whether all of these features contribute to the better results observed in this trial in diabetes patients, but Dr. Romaguera indicated that the lower risk of TLF with Cre8 EVO is not just statistically significant but also clinically meaningful.

In SUGAR, which included 23 centers in Spain, 1,175 patients with confirmed diabetes scheduled for percutaneous intervention (PCI) were randomized to one of the two stents. The study was purposely designed with very few exclusion criteria.
 

SUGAR trial employed all-comer design

“This was an all-comer design and there was no limitation in regard to clinical presentation, complexity, number of lesions, or other disease features,” said Dr. Romaguera. The major exclusions were a life expectancy of less than 2 years and a contraindication to taking DAPT for at least 1 month,

The patients were almost equally divided between those who had a non–ST-segment elevation MI) and those with chronic coronary artery disease, but patients with a STEMI, representing about 12% of the population, were included. Almost all of the patients (about 95%) had type 2 diabetes; nearly one-third were on insulin at the time of randomization.

According to Dr. Romaguera, “SUGAR is the first powered trial to compare new-generation drug-eluting stents in patients with diabetes,” and he emphasized the all-comer design in supporting its clinical relevance.

Several of those participating in discussion of the trial during the late-breaker session agreed. Although the moderator, Gregg Stone, MD, of the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, expressed surprise that the trial “actually demonstrated superiority” given the difficulty of showing a difference between modern stents, he called the findings “remarkable.”

Others seemed to suggest that it would alter their practice.

“This study is sweet like sugar for us, because now we have a stent that is dedicated and fitted for the diabetic population,” said Gennaro Sardella, MD, of Sapienza University of Rome.

For Marc Etienne Jolicoeur, MD, an interventional cardiologist associated with Duke University, Durham, N.C., one of the impressive findings was the early separation of the curves in favor of Cre8 EVO. Calling SUGAR a “fantastic trial,” he indicated that the progressive advantage over time reinforced his impression that the difference is real.

However, David Kandzari, MD, director of interventional cardiology, Piedmont Hart Institute, Atlanta, was more circumspect. He did not express any criticisms of the trial, but he called for “a larger evidence base” before declaring the Cre8 EVO device a standard of care for patients with diabetes undergoing PCI.

The SUGAR results were published in the European Heart Journal at the time of presentation at the meeting.

The trial was funded by the Spanish Society of Cardiology. Dr. Romaguera reported financial relationships with Biotronik and Boston Scientific. Dr. Stone, has financial relationships with more than 10 pharmaceutical companies, including those developing devices used in PCI. Dr. Sardella and Dr. Jolicoeur reported no financial relationships relevant to this topic. Dr. Kandzari reported financial relationships with Ablative Solutions and Medtronic.

Designed to show noninferiority for treatment of coronary artery disease (CAD) in patients with diabetes, a head-to-head comparison of contemporary stents ended up showing that one was superior to the for the primary endpoint of target lesion failure (TLF).

HandmadePictures/Thinkstock

In the superiority analysis, the 35% relative reduction in the risk of TLF at 1 year for the Cre8 EVO (Alvimedica) stent relative to the Resolute Onyx (Medtronic) device reached significance, according to Rafael Romaguera, MD, PhD, an interventional cardiologist at the Bellvitge University Hospital, Barcelona.

At 1 year, the rates of TLF were 7.2% and 10.5% for the Cre8 EVO and Resolute Onyx stents, respectively. On the basis of noninferiority, the 3.73% reduction in TLF at 1 year among those receiving the Cre8 EVO device provided a highly significant confirmation of noninferiority (P < .001) and triggered the preplanned superiority analysis.

When the significant advantage on the TLF endpoint (P = .03) was broken down into its components, the Cre8 EVO stent was linked to numerically lower rates of cardiac death (2.1% vs. 2.7%), target vessel MI (5.3% vs. 7.2%), and target lesion revascularization (2.4% vs. 3.9%), according to the SUGAR (Second-Generation Drug-Eluting Stents in Diabetes) trial results presented at the Transcatheter Cardiovascular Therapeutics annual meeting, held virtually and live in Orlando and sponsored by the Cardiovascular Research Foundation.

In a previous study comparing these devices, called the ReCre8 trial, the rates of TLF in an all-comer CAD population were similar at 1 year. When an updated 3-year analysis was presented earlier in 2021 at the Cardiovascular Research Technologies meeting, they remained similar.
 

Diabetes-centered trial was unmet need

The rationale for conducting a new trial limited to patients with diabetes was based on the greater risk in this population, according to Dr. Romaguera. He cited data that indicate the risk of major adverse cardiac events are about two times higher 2 years after stent implantation in patients with diabetes relative to those without, even when contemporary drug-eluting stents are used.

Both the Cre8 EVO and Resolute Onyx stent are drug eluting and employ contemporary architecture that provides the basis for marketing claims that they are suitable for complex patients; but they have differences.

“There are three features that I think differentiate the Cre8 EVO stent,” Dr. Romaguera reported at the meeting, sponsored by the Cardiovascular Research Foundation.

One is the absence of polymer, which contrasts with the permanent polymer of the Resolute device. This feature affects the dissolution of the anti-inflammatory drug and might be one explanation for the greater protection from ischemic events, according to Dr. Romaguera.

Another is the thickness of the struts, which range from 70 to 80 mm for the Cre8 EVO device and from 92 to 102 mm for the Resolute Onyx device. In experimental studies, strut thickness has been associated with greater risk of thrombus formation, although it is unclear if this modest difference is clinically significant.

Also important, the Cre8 EVO device employs sirolimus for an anti-inflammatory effect, while the Resolute Onyx elutes zotarolimus. Again, experimental evidence suggests a greater anti-inflammatory effect reduces the need for dual-antiplatelet therapy (DAPT); that might offer a relative advantage in patients with an elevated risk of bleeding.

It is not clear whether all of these features contribute to the better results observed in this trial in diabetes patients, but Dr. Romaguera indicated that the lower risk of TLF with Cre8 EVO is not just statistically significant but also clinically meaningful.

In SUGAR, which included 23 centers in Spain, 1,175 patients with confirmed diabetes scheduled for percutaneous intervention (PCI) were randomized to one of the two stents. The study was purposely designed with very few exclusion criteria.
 

SUGAR trial employed all-comer design

“This was an all-comer design and there was no limitation in regard to clinical presentation, complexity, number of lesions, or other disease features,” said Dr. Romaguera. The major exclusions were a life expectancy of less than 2 years and a contraindication to taking DAPT for at least 1 month,

The patients were almost equally divided between those who had a non–ST-segment elevation MI) and those with chronic coronary artery disease, but patients with a STEMI, representing about 12% of the population, were included. Almost all of the patients (about 95%) had type 2 diabetes; nearly one-third were on insulin at the time of randomization.

According to Dr. Romaguera, “SUGAR is the first powered trial to compare new-generation drug-eluting stents in patients with diabetes,” and he emphasized the all-comer design in supporting its clinical relevance.

Several of those participating in discussion of the trial during the late-breaker session agreed. Although the moderator, Gregg Stone, MD, of the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, expressed surprise that the trial “actually demonstrated superiority” given the difficulty of showing a difference between modern stents, he called the findings “remarkable.”

Others seemed to suggest that it would alter their practice.

“This study is sweet like sugar for us, because now we have a stent that is dedicated and fitted for the diabetic population,” said Gennaro Sardella, MD, of Sapienza University of Rome.

For Marc Etienne Jolicoeur, MD, an interventional cardiologist associated with Duke University, Durham, N.C., one of the impressive findings was the early separation of the curves in favor of Cre8 EVO. Calling SUGAR a “fantastic trial,” he indicated that the progressive advantage over time reinforced his impression that the difference is real.

However, David Kandzari, MD, director of interventional cardiology, Piedmont Hart Institute, Atlanta, was more circumspect. He did not express any criticisms of the trial, but he called for “a larger evidence base” before declaring the Cre8 EVO device a standard of care for patients with diabetes undergoing PCI.

The SUGAR results were published in the European Heart Journal at the time of presentation at the meeting.

The trial was funded by the Spanish Society of Cardiology. Dr. Romaguera reported financial relationships with Biotronik and Boston Scientific. Dr. Stone, has financial relationships with more than 10 pharmaceutical companies, including those developing devices used in PCI. Dr. Sardella and Dr. Jolicoeur reported no financial relationships relevant to this topic. Dr. Kandzari reported financial relationships with Ablative Solutions and Medtronic.

According to the latest meta-analysis of sham-controlled randomized trials, catheter-based renal sympathetic denervation produces clinically meaningful reductions in blood pressure with acceptable safety, but the strategy is not yet regarded as ready for prime time, according to a summary of the results to be presented at the Transcatheter Cardiovascular Therapeutics annual meeting.

This meta-analysis was based on seven blinded trials, all of which associated denervation with a reduction in systolic ambulatory BP, according to Yousif Ahmad, BMBS, PhD, an interventional cardiologist at Yale University, New Haven, Conn.

Although the BP-lowering advantage in two of these studies did not reach statistical significance, the other five did, and all the data moved in the same direction.

For ambulatory diastolic pressure, the effect was more modest. One of the studies showed essentially a neutral effect. The reductions were statistically significant in only two, but, again, the data moved in the same direction in six of the studies, and a random-effects analysis suggested that the reductions, although modest, were potentially meaningful, according to Dr. Ahmad.

Overall, at a mean follow-up of 4.5 months, the reductions in ambulatory systolic and diastolic BPs were 3.61 and 1.85 mm Hg, respectively. The benefit was about the same whether renal denervation was or was not performed on the background of antihypertensive drugs, which was permitted in five of the seven trials. In the other two, all patients were off hypertensive medication.
 

Office-based systolic reduction: 6 mm Hg

When the same analysis was performed for office-based BP reductions, which were available for five of the seven trials, the overall reductions based on the meta-analysis were 5.86 and 3.63 mm Hg for the systolic and diastolic pressures, respectively. Again, background antihypertensive therapy was not a factor.

Of the seven trials, three randomized fewer than 100 patients. The largest, SYMPLICITY HTN-3, randomized 491 patients in 2:1 ratio to denervation or sham.

Three of the studies in the meta-analysis were trials of the Symplicity flex device. Another two evaluated the Symplicity Spyral catheter. Both deliver radiofrequency energy to for denervation. The Paradise device, the focus of the remaining two trials, employs energy in the form of ultrasound.

According to Dr. Ahmad, adverse events regardless of device were rare and not more common among those in the active treatment arm than in those treated with a sham procedure. Although one of these trials, RADIANCE-HTN SOLO associated denervation with efficacy and safety out to 12 months , Dr. Ahmad concluded that the mean follow-up of 4.5 months is not sufficient to consider long-term effects.

More than 20 meta-analyses published so far

By one count, there have been more than 20 meta-analyses of renal denervation published previously yet this intervention is still considered “controversial,” according to Dr. Ahmad. Relative to the previous meta-analyses, this included the RADIANCE-HTN TRIO trial, which is the latest such sham-controlled study and added 136 patients to the dataset of high-quality trials.

Basically, the results led Dr. Ahmad to conclude that, although the treatment effect is modest, it could be valuable in specific groups of patients, such as those reluctant or unable to take multiple medications or any medications at all. In addition to generating more data on efficacy and safety, he said longer follow-up is also needed for calculations of cost-effectiveness. Larger-scale observational studies might be one way of collecting these data, he reported.

The results of this study were published online in JACC Cardiovascular Interventions with an accompanying editorial by David E. Kandzari, MD, director of interventional cardiology, Piedmont Hart Institute, Atlanta.

Commenting on the large pile of meta-analyses, sometimes published months apart, Dr. Kandzari explained that their “short half-life” is a product of the continuous updating of data with new trials. For a procedure that remains controversial, he said these constant relooks are inevitable.

“My point is that, with more studies, we can expect to see more meta-analyses. It is just the way this is going to work,” Dr. Kandzari said in an interview.
 

Individual study data also relevant

Even as the authors of these analyses attempt to cull the best data from the most rigorously performed trials, “we are also going to have to look at the individual studies, because of the differences in the trial designs, particularly the devices used,” according to Dr. Kandzari, who was the principle investigator of the sham-controlled SPYRAL HTN-ON MED trial.

So far, the data, despite some inconsistencies, have supported “clinically meaningful” BP reductions and acceptable safety regardless of the device used, according to Dr. Kandzari. Although he also agrees with the basic premise that more long-term data are needed to better determine how renal denervation should be applied in management of hypertension, he does think it will eventually find a role that is “complimentary to, rather than a replacement for, drugs.”

“The effect is modest, but keep in mind that the effect size is similar to that of a single oral medication, and there are some features, such as an always-on 24-hour effect that could be useful,” he said.

“We have enough of a signal to start thinking of how this will be enveloped into routine care,” he said.

But it is not ready yet. This was the point made by Dr. Ahmad, and it was seconded by Dr. Kandzari. One of the senior authors of the meta-analysis, Deepak Bhatt, MD, executive director of interventional cardiovascular programs, Brigham and Women’s Health, Boston, was also asked to weigh on when it will be ready for prime time.

“At a minimum, I would recommend completion of ongoing sham-controlled randomized trials before considering clinical use of renal denervation. Longer term safety and durability data, as well as data on cost-effectiveness, are all still needed – preferably from randomized trials as opposed to registries,” he said.

“Ideally, larger sham-controlled trials with longer follow-up and clinical endpoints, as opposed to only blood pressure measurements, would be performed, although I am not aware of any plans at present,” he added.

Dr. Ahmad reported no financial relationships relevant to this research. Dr. Bhatt has financial relationships with more than 30 pharmaceutical companies, including those developing products relevant to hypertension and renal denervation. Dr. Kandzari reported financial relationships with Ablative Solutions and Medtronic.

According to the latest meta-analysis of sham-controlled randomized trials, catheter-based renal sympathetic denervation produces clinically meaningful reductions in blood pressure with acceptable safety, but the strategy is not yet regarded as ready for prime time, according to a summary of the results to be presented at the Transcatheter Cardiovascular Therapeutics annual meeting.

This meta-analysis was based on seven blinded trials, all of which associated denervation with a reduction in systolic ambulatory BP, according to Yousif Ahmad, BMBS, PhD, an interventional cardiologist at Yale University, New Haven, Conn.

Although the BP-lowering advantage in two of these studies did not reach statistical significance, the other five did, and all the data moved in the same direction.

For ambulatory diastolic pressure, the effect was more modest. One of the studies showed essentially a neutral effect. The reductions were statistically significant in only two, but, again, the data moved in the same direction in six of the studies, and a random-effects analysis suggested that the reductions, although modest, were potentially meaningful, according to Dr. Ahmad.

Overall, at a mean follow-up of 4.5 months, the reductions in ambulatory systolic and diastolic BPs were 3.61 and 1.85 mm Hg, respectively. The benefit was about the same whether renal denervation was or was not performed on the background of antihypertensive drugs, which was permitted in five of the seven trials. In the other two, all patients were off hypertensive medication.
 

Office-based systolic reduction: 6 mm Hg

When the same analysis was performed for office-based BP reductions, which were available for five of the seven trials, the overall reductions based on the meta-analysis were 5.86 and 3.63 mm Hg for the systolic and diastolic pressures, respectively. Again, background antihypertensive therapy was not a factor.

Of the seven trials, three randomized fewer than 100 patients. The largest, SYMPLICITY HTN-3, randomized 491 patients in 2:1 ratio to denervation or sham.

Three of the studies in the meta-analysis were trials of the Symplicity flex device. Another two evaluated the Symplicity Spyral catheter. Both deliver radiofrequency energy to for denervation. The Paradise device, the focus of the remaining two trials, employs energy in the form of ultrasound.

According to Dr. Ahmad, adverse events regardless of device were rare and not more common among those in the active treatment arm than in those treated with a sham procedure. Although one of these trials, RADIANCE-HTN SOLO associated denervation with efficacy and safety out to 12 months , Dr. Ahmad concluded that the mean follow-up of 4.5 months is not sufficient to consider long-term effects.

More than 20 meta-analyses published so far

By one count, there have been more than 20 meta-analyses of renal denervation published previously yet this intervention is still considered “controversial,” according to Dr. Ahmad. Relative to the previous meta-analyses, this included the RADIANCE-HTN TRIO trial, which is the latest such sham-controlled study and added 136 patients to the dataset of high-quality trials.

Basically, the results led Dr. Ahmad to conclude that, although the treatment effect is modest, it could be valuable in specific groups of patients, such as those reluctant or unable to take multiple medications or any medications at all. In addition to generating more data on efficacy and safety, he said longer follow-up is also needed for calculations of cost-effectiveness. Larger-scale observational studies might be one way of collecting these data, he reported.

The results of this study were published online in JACC Cardiovascular Interventions with an accompanying editorial by David E. Kandzari, MD, director of interventional cardiology, Piedmont Hart Institute, Atlanta.

Commenting on the large pile of meta-analyses, sometimes published months apart, Dr. Kandzari explained that their “short half-life” is a product of the continuous updating of data with new trials. For a procedure that remains controversial, he said these constant relooks are inevitable.

“My point is that, with more studies, we can expect to see more meta-analyses. It is just the way this is going to work,” Dr. Kandzari said in an interview.
 

Individual study data also relevant

Even as the authors of these analyses attempt to cull the best data from the most rigorously performed trials, “we are also going to have to look at the individual studies, because of the differences in the trial designs, particularly the devices used,” according to Dr. Kandzari, who was the principle investigator of the sham-controlled SPYRAL HTN-ON MED trial.

So far, the data, despite some inconsistencies, have supported “clinically meaningful” BP reductions and acceptable safety regardless of the device used, according to Dr. Kandzari. Although he also agrees with the basic premise that more long-term data are needed to better determine how renal denervation should be applied in management of hypertension, he does think it will eventually find a role that is “complimentary to, rather than a replacement for, drugs.”

“The effect is modest, but keep in mind that the effect size is similar to that of a single oral medication, and there are some features, such as an always-on 24-hour effect that could be useful,” he said.

“We have enough of a signal to start thinking of how this will be enveloped into routine care,” he said.

But it is not ready yet. This was the point made by Dr. Ahmad, and it was seconded by Dr. Kandzari. One of the senior authors of the meta-analysis, Deepak Bhatt, MD, executive director of interventional cardiovascular programs, Brigham and Women’s Health, Boston, was also asked to weigh on when it will be ready for prime time.

“At a minimum, I would recommend completion of ongoing sham-controlled randomized trials before considering clinical use of renal denervation. Longer term safety and durability data, as well as data on cost-effectiveness, are all still needed – preferably from randomized trials as opposed to registries,” he said.

“Ideally, larger sham-controlled trials with longer follow-up and clinical endpoints, as opposed to only blood pressure measurements, would be performed, although I am not aware of any plans at present,” he added.

Dr. Ahmad reported no financial relationships relevant to this research. Dr. Bhatt has financial relationships with more than 30 pharmaceutical companies, including those developing products relevant to hypertension and renal denervation. Dr. Kandzari reported financial relationships with Ablative Solutions and Medtronic.

According to the latest meta-analysis of sham-controlled randomized trials, catheter-based renal sympathetic denervation produces clinically meaningful reductions in blood pressure with acceptable safety, but the strategy is not yet regarded as ready for prime time, according to a summary of the results to be presented at the Transcatheter Cardiovascular Therapeutics annual meeting.

This meta-analysis was based on seven blinded trials, all of which associated denervation with a reduction in systolic ambulatory BP, according to Yousif Ahmad, BMBS, PhD, an interventional cardiologist at Yale University, New Haven, Conn.

Although the BP-lowering advantage in two of these studies did not reach statistical significance, the other five did, and all the data moved in the same direction.

For ambulatory diastolic pressure, the effect was more modest. One of the studies showed essentially a neutral effect. The reductions were statistically significant in only two, but, again, the data moved in the same direction in six of the studies, and a random-effects analysis suggested that the reductions, although modest, were potentially meaningful, according to Dr. Ahmad.

Overall, at a mean follow-up of 4.5 months, the reductions in ambulatory systolic and diastolic BPs were 3.61 and 1.85 mm Hg, respectively. The benefit was about the same whether renal denervation was or was not performed on the background of antihypertensive drugs, which was permitted in five of the seven trials. In the other two, all patients were off hypertensive medication.
 

Office-based systolic reduction: 6 mm Hg

When the same analysis was performed for office-based BP reductions, which were available for five of the seven trials, the overall reductions based on the meta-analysis were 5.86 and 3.63 mm Hg for the systolic and diastolic pressures, respectively. Again, background antihypertensive therapy was not a factor.

Of the seven trials, three randomized fewer than 100 patients. The largest, SYMPLICITY HTN-3, randomized 491 patients in 2:1 ratio to denervation or sham.

Three of the studies in the meta-analysis were trials of the Symplicity flex device. Another two evaluated the Symplicity Spyral catheter. Both deliver radiofrequency energy to for denervation. The Paradise device, the focus of the remaining two trials, employs energy in the form of ultrasound.

According to Dr. Ahmad, adverse events regardless of device were rare and not more common among those in the active treatment arm than in those treated with a sham procedure. Although one of these trials, RADIANCE-HTN SOLO associated denervation with efficacy and safety out to 12 months , Dr. Ahmad concluded that the mean follow-up of 4.5 months is not sufficient to consider long-term effects.

More than 20 meta-analyses published so far

By one count, there have been more than 20 meta-analyses of renal denervation published previously yet this intervention is still considered “controversial,” according to Dr. Ahmad. Relative to the previous meta-analyses, this included the RADIANCE-HTN TRIO trial, which is the latest such sham-controlled study and added 136 patients to the dataset of high-quality trials.

Basically, the results led Dr. Ahmad to conclude that, although the treatment effect is modest, it could be valuable in specific groups of patients, such as those reluctant or unable to take multiple medications or any medications at all. In addition to generating more data on efficacy and safety, he said longer follow-up is also needed for calculations of cost-effectiveness. Larger-scale observational studies might be one way of collecting these data, he reported.

The results of this study were published online in JACC Cardiovascular Interventions with an accompanying editorial by David E. Kandzari, MD, director of interventional cardiology, Piedmont Hart Institute, Atlanta.

Commenting on the large pile of meta-analyses, sometimes published months apart, Dr. Kandzari explained that their “short half-life” is a product of the continuous updating of data with new trials. For a procedure that remains controversial, he said these constant relooks are inevitable.

“My point is that, with more studies, we can expect to see more meta-analyses. It is just the way this is going to work,” Dr. Kandzari said in an interview.
 

Individual study data also relevant

Even as the authors of these analyses attempt to cull the best data from the most rigorously performed trials, “we are also going to have to look at the individual studies, because of the differences in the trial designs, particularly the devices used,” according to Dr. Kandzari, who was the principle investigator of the sham-controlled SPYRAL HTN-ON MED trial.

So far, the data, despite some inconsistencies, have supported “clinically meaningful” BP reductions and acceptable safety regardless of the device used, according to Dr. Kandzari. Although he also agrees with the basic premise that more long-term data are needed to better determine how renal denervation should be applied in management of hypertension, he does think it will eventually find a role that is “complimentary to, rather than a replacement for, drugs.”

“The effect is modest, but keep in mind that the effect size is similar to that of a single oral medication, and there are some features, such as an always-on 24-hour effect that could be useful,” he said.

“We have enough of a signal to start thinking of how this will be enveloped into routine care,” he said.

But it is not ready yet. This was the point made by Dr. Ahmad, and it was seconded by Dr. Kandzari. One of the senior authors of the meta-analysis, Deepak Bhatt, MD, executive director of interventional cardiovascular programs, Brigham and Women’s Health, Boston, was also asked to weigh on when it will be ready for prime time.

“At a minimum, I would recommend completion of ongoing sham-controlled randomized trials before considering clinical use of renal denervation. Longer term safety and durability data, as well as data on cost-effectiveness, are all still needed – preferably from randomized trials as opposed to registries,” he said.

“Ideally, larger sham-controlled trials with longer follow-up and clinical endpoints, as opposed to only blood pressure measurements, would be performed, although I am not aware of any plans at present,” he added.

Dr. Ahmad reported no financial relationships relevant to this research. Dr. Bhatt has financial relationships with more than 30 pharmaceutical companies, including those developing products relevant to hypertension and renal denervation. Dr. Kandzari reported financial relationships with Ablative Solutions and Medtronic.

Many years ago, drug development in psychiatry turned to control of specific symptoms across disorders rather than within disorders, but regulatory agencies are still not yet on board, according to an expert psychopharmacologist outlining the ongoing evolution at the virtual Psychopharmacology Update presented by Current Psychiatry and the American Academy of Clinical Psychiatrists, sponsored by Medscape Live.

If this reorientation is going to lead to the broad indications the newer drugs likely deserve, which is control of specific types of symptoms regardless of the diagnosis, “we have to move the [Food and Drug Administration] along,” said Stephen M. Stahl, MD, PhD, chairman of the Neuroscience Institute and an adjunct professor of psychiatry at the University of California, San Diego.

On the side of drug development and clinical practice, the reorientation has already taken place. Dr. Stahl described numerous brain circuits known to produce symptoms when function is altered that are now treatment targets. This includes the ventral medial prefrontal cortex where deficient information processing leads to depression and the orbital frontal cortex where altered function leads to impulsivity.

“It is not like each part of the brain does a little bit of everything. Rather, each part of the brain has an assignment and duty and function,” Dr. Stahl explained. By addressing the disturbed signaling in brain circuits that lead to depression, impulsivity, agitation, or other symptoms, there is an opportunity for control, regardless of the psychiatric diagnosis with which the symptom is associated.

For example, Dr. Stahl predicted that pimavanserin, a highly selective 5-HT_2A inverse agonist that is already approved for psychosis in Parkinson’s disease, is now likely to be approved for psychosis associated with other conditions on the basis of recent positive clinical studies in these other disorders.

Brexpiprazole, a serotonin-dopamine activity modulator already known to be useful for control of the agitation characteristic of schizophrenia, is now showing the same type of activity against agitation when it is associated with Alzheimer’s disease. Again, Dr. Stahl thinks this drug is on course for an indication across diseases once studies are conducted in each disease individually.

Another drug being evaluated for agitation, the N-methyl-D-aspartate receptor antagonist dextromethorphan bupropion, is also being tested for treatment of symptoms across multiple disorders, he reported.

However, the FDA has so far taken the position that each drug must be tested separately for a given symptom in each disorder for which it is being considered despite the underlying premise that it is the symptom, not the disease, that is important.

“Psychiatric disorders are syndromes, categorized by a collection of symptoms defined descriptively but not neurobiologically,” Dr. Stahl said. Unlike physiological diseases where symptoms, like a fever or abdominal cramps, are the product of a disease, psychiatric symptoms are the disease and a fundamental target – regardless of the DSM-based diagnosis.

To some degree, the symptoms of psychiatric disorders have always been the focus of treatment, but a pivot toward developing therapies that will control a symptom regardless of the underlying diagnosis is an important conceptual change. It is being made possible by advances in the detail with which the neuropathology of these symptoms is understood .

“By my count, 79 symptoms are described in DSM-5, but they are spread across hundreds of syndromes because they are grouped together in different ways,” Dr. Stahl observed.

He noted that clinicians make a diagnosis on the basis symptom groupings, but their interventions are selected to address the manifestations of the disease, not the disease itself.

“If you are a real psychopharmacologist treating real patients, you are treating the specific symptoms of the specific patient,” according to Dr. Stahl.

So far, the FDA has not made this leap, insisting on trials in these categorical disorders rather than permitting trial designs that allow benefit to be demonstrated against a symptom regardless of the syndrome with which it is associated.

Of egregious examples, Dr. Stahl recounted a recent trial of a 5-HT₂ antagonist that looked so promising against psychosis in Alzheimer’s disease that the trialists enrolled patients with psychosis regardless of type of dementia, such as vascular dementia and Lewy body disease. The efficacy was impressive.

“It worked so well that they stopped the trial, but the FDA declined to approve it,” Dr. Stahl recounted. Despite clear evidence of benefit, the regulators insisted that the investigators needed to show a significant benefit in each condition individually.

While the trial investigators acknowledged that there was not enough power in the trial to show a statistically significant benefit in each category, they argued that the overall benefit and the consistent response across categories required them to stop the trial for ethical reasons.

“That’s your problem, the FDA said to the investigators,” according to Dr. Stahl.

The failure of the FDA to recognize the efficacy of psychopharmacologic therapies across symptoms regardless of the associated disease is a failure to stay current with an important evolution in medicine, Dr. Stahl indicated.

“What we have come to understand is the neurobiology of any given symptom is likely to be the same across disorders,” he said.
 

Agency’s arbitrary decisions cited

“I completely agree with Dr. Stahl,” said Henry A. Nasrallah, MD, professor of psychiatry, neurology, and neuroscience, University of Cincinnati.

In addition to the fact that symptoms are present across multiple categories, many patients manifest multiple symptoms at one time, Dr. Nasrallah pointed out. For neurodegenerative disorders associated with psychosis, depression, anxiety, aggression, and other symptoms, it is already well known that the heterogeneous symptoms “cannot be treated with a single drug,” he said. Rather different drugs targeting each symptom individually is essential for effective management.

Dr. Nasrallah, who chaired the Psychopharmacology Update meeting, has made this point many times in the past, including in his role as the editor of Current Psychiatry. In one editorial 10 years ago, he wrote that “it makes little sense for the FDA to mandate that a drug must work for a DSM diagnosis instead of specific symptoms.”

“The FDA must update its old policy, which has led to the widespread off-label use of psychiatric drugs, an artificial concept, simply because the FDA arbitrarily decided a long time ago that new drugs must be approved for a specific DSM diagnosis,” Dr. Nasrallah said.

Dr. Stahl reported financial relationships with more than 20 pharmaceutical companies, including those that are involved in the development of drugs included in his talk. Medscape Live and this news organization are owned by the same parent company.

Many years ago, drug development in psychiatry turned to control of specific symptoms across disorders rather than within disorders, but regulatory agencies are still not yet on board, according to an expert psychopharmacologist outlining the ongoing evolution at the virtual Psychopharmacology Update presented by Current Psychiatry and the American Academy of Clinical Psychiatrists, sponsored by Medscape Live.

If this reorientation is going to lead to the broad indications the newer drugs likely deserve, which is control of specific types of symptoms regardless of the diagnosis, “we have to move the [Food and Drug Administration] along,” said Stephen M. Stahl, MD, PhD, chairman of the Neuroscience Institute and an adjunct professor of psychiatry at the University of California, San Diego.

On the side of drug development and clinical practice, the reorientation has already taken place. Dr. Stahl described numerous brain circuits known to produce symptoms when function is altered that are now treatment targets. This includes the ventral medial prefrontal cortex where deficient information processing leads to depression and the orbital frontal cortex where altered function leads to impulsivity.

“It is not like each part of the brain does a little bit of everything. Rather, each part of the brain has an assignment and duty and function,” Dr. Stahl explained. By addressing the disturbed signaling in brain circuits that lead to depression, impulsivity, agitation, or other symptoms, there is an opportunity for control, regardless of the psychiatric diagnosis with which the symptom is associated.

For example, Dr. Stahl predicted that pimavanserin, a highly selective 5-HT_2A inverse agonist that is already approved for psychosis in Parkinson’s disease, is now likely to be approved for psychosis associated with other conditions on the basis of recent positive clinical studies in these other disorders.

Brexpiprazole, a serotonin-dopamine activity modulator already known to be useful for control of the agitation characteristic of schizophrenia, is now showing the same type of activity against agitation when it is associated with Alzheimer’s disease. Again, Dr. Stahl thinks this drug is on course for an indication across diseases once studies are conducted in each disease individually.

Another drug being evaluated for agitation, the N-methyl-D-aspartate receptor antagonist dextromethorphan bupropion, is also being tested for treatment of symptoms across multiple disorders, he reported.

However, the FDA has so far taken the position that each drug must be tested separately for a given symptom in each disorder for which it is being considered despite the underlying premise that it is the symptom, not the disease, that is important.

“Psychiatric disorders are syndromes, categorized by a collection of symptoms defined descriptively but not neurobiologically,” Dr. Stahl said. Unlike physiological diseases where symptoms, like a fever or abdominal cramps, are the product of a disease, psychiatric symptoms are the disease and a fundamental target – regardless of the DSM-based diagnosis.

To some degree, the symptoms of psychiatric disorders have always been the focus of treatment, but a pivot toward developing therapies that will control a symptom regardless of the underlying diagnosis is an important conceptual change. It is being made possible by advances in the detail with which the neuropathology of these symptoms is understood .

“By my count, 79 symptoms are described in DSM-5, but they are spread across hundreds of syndromes because they are grouped together in different ways,” Dr. Stahl observed.

He noted that clinicians make a diagnosis on the basis symptom groupings, but their interventions are selected to address the manifestations of the disease, not the disease itself.

“If you are a real psychopharmacologist treating real patients, you are treating the specific symptoms of the specific patient,” according to Dr. Stahl.

So far, the FDA has not made this leap, insisting on trials in these categorical disorders rather than permitting trial designs that allow benefit to be demonstrated against a symptom regardless of the syndrome with which it is associated.

Of egregious examples, Dr. Stahl recounted a recent trial of a 5-HT₂ antagonist that looked so promising against psychosis in Alzheimer’s disease that the trialists enrolled patients with psychosis regardless of type of dementia, such as vascular dementia and Lewy body disease. The efficacy was impressive.

“It worked so well that they stopped the trial, but the FDA declined to approve it,” Dr. Stahl recounted. Despite clear evidence of benefit, the regulators insisted that the investigators needed to show a significant benefit in each condition individually.

While the trial investigators acknowledged that there was not enough power in the trial to show a statistically significant benefit in each category, they argued that the overall benefit and the consistent response across categories required them to stop the trial for ethical reasons.

“That’s your problem, the FDA said to the investigators,” according to Dr. Stahl.

The failure of the FDA to recognize the efficacy of psychopharmacologic therapies across symptoms regardless of the associated disease is a failure to stay current with an important evolution in medicine, Dr. Stahl indicated.

“What we have come to understand is the neurobiology of any given symptom is likely to be the same across disorders,” he said.
 

Agency’s arbitrary decisions cited

“I completely agree with Dr. Stahl,” said Henry A. Nasrallah, MD, professor of psychiatry, neurology, and neuroscience, University of Cincinnati.

In addition to the fact that symptoms are present across multiple categories, many patients manifest multiple symptoms at one time, Dr. Nasrallah pointed out. For neurodegenerative disorders associated with psychosis, depression, anxiety, aggression, and other symptoms, it is already well known that the heterogeneous symptoms “cannot be treated with a single drug,” he said. Rather different drugs targeting each symptom individually is essential for effective management.

Dr. Nasrallah, who chaired the Psychopharmacology Update meeting, has made this point many times in the past, including in his role as the editor of Current Psychiatry. In one editorial 10 years ago, he wrote that “it makes little sense for the FDA to mandate that a drug must work for a DSM diagnosis instead of specific symptoms.”

“The FDA must update its old policy, which has led to the widespread off-label use of psychiatric drugs, an artificial concept, simply because the FDA arbitrarily decided a long time ago that new drugs must be approved for a specific DSM diagnosis,” Dr. Nasrallah said.

Dr. Stahl reported financial relationships with more than 20 pharmaceutical companies, including those that are involved in the development of drugs included in his talk. Medscape Live and this news organization are owned by the same parent company.

Many years ago, drug development in psychiatry turned to control of specific symptoms across disorders rather than within disorders, but regulatory agencies are still not yet on board, according to an expert psychopharmacologist outlining the ongoing evolution at the virtual Psychopharmacology Update presented by Current Psychiatry and the American Academy of Clinical Psychiatrists, sponsored by Medscape Live.

If this reorientation is going to lead to the broad indications the newer drugs likely deserve, which is control of specific types of symptoms regardless of the diagnosis, “we have to move the [Food and Drug Administration] along,” said Stephen M. Stahl, MD, PhD, chairman of the Neuroscience Institute and an adjunct professor of psychiatry at the University of California, San Diego.

On the side of drug development and clinical practice, the reorientation has already taken place. Dr. Stahl described numerous brain circuits known to produce symptoms when function is altered that are now treatment targets. This includes the ventral medial prefrontal cortex where deficient information processing leads to depression and the orbital frontal cortex where altered function leads to impulsivity.

“It is not like each part of the brain does a little bit of everything. Rather, each part of the brain has an assignment and duty and function,” Dr. Stahl explained. By addressing the disturbed signaling in brain circuits that lead to depression, impulsivity, agitation, or other symptoms, there is an opportunity for control, regardless of the psychiatric diagnosis with which the symptom is associated.

For example, Dr. Stahl predicted that pimavanserin, a highly selective 5-HT_2A inverse agonist that is already approved for psychosis in Parkinson’s disease, is now likely to be approved for psychosis associated with other conditions on the basis of recent positive clinical studies in these other disorders.

Brexpiprazole, a serotonin-dopamine activity modulator already known to be useful for control of the agitation characteristic of schizophrenia, is now showing the same type of activity against agitation when it is associated with Alzheimer’s disease. Again, Dr. Stahl thinks this drug is on course for an indication across diseases once studies are conducted in each disease individually.

Another drug being evaluated for agitation, the N-methyl-D-aspartate receptor antagonist dextromethorphan bupropion, is also being tested for treatment of symptoms across multiple disorders, he reported.

However, the FDA has so far taken the position that each drug must be tested separately for a given symptom in each disorder for which it is being considered despite the underlying premise that it is the symptom, not the disease, that is important.

“Psychiatric disorders are syndromes, categorized by a collection of symptoms defined descriptively but not neurobiologically,” Dr. Stahl said. Unlike physiological diseases where symptoms, like a fever or abdominal cramps, are the product of a disease, psychiatric symptoms are the disease and a fundamental target – regardless of the DSM-based diagnosis.

To some degree, the symptoms of psychiatric disorders have always been the focus of treatment, but a pivot toward developing therapies that will control a symptom regardless of the underlying diagnosis is an important conceptual change. It is being made possible by advances in the detail with which the neuropathology of these symptoms is understood .

“By my count, 79 symptoms are described in DSM-5, but they are spread across hundreds of syndromes because they are grouped together in different ways,” Dr. Stahl observed.

He noted that clinicians make a diagnosis on the basis symptom groupings, but their interventions are selected to address the manifestations of the disease, not the disease itself.

“If you are a real psychopharmacologist treating real patients, you are treating the specific symptoms of the specific patient,” according to Dr. Stahl.

So far, the FDA has not made this leap, insisting on trials in these categorical disorders rather than permitting trial designs that allow benefit to be demonstrated against a symptom regardless of the syndrome with which it is associated.

Of egregious examples, Dr. Stahl recounted a recent trial of a 5-HT₂ antagonist that looked so promising against psychosis in Alzheimer’s disease that the trialists enrolled patients with psychosis regardless of type of dementia, such as vascular dementia and Lewy body disease. The efficacy was impressive.

“It worked so well that they stopped the trial, but the FDA declined to approve it,” Dr. Stahl recounted. Despite clear evidence of benefit, the regulators insisted that the investigators needed to show a significant benefit in each condition individually.

While the trial investigators acknowledged that there was not enough power in the trial to show a statistically significant benefit in each category, they argued that the overall benefit and the consistent response across categories required them to stop the trial for ethical reasons.

“That’s your problem, the FDA said to the investigators,” according to Dr. Stahl.

The failure of the FDA to recognize the efficacy of psychopharmacologic therapies across symptoms regardless of the associated disease is a failure to stay current with an important evolution in medicine, Dr. Stahl indicated.

“What we have come to understand is the neurobiology of any given symptom is likely to be the same across disorders,” he said.
 

Agency’s arbitrary decisions cited

“I completely agree with Dr. Stahl,” said Henry A. Nasrallah, MD, professor of psychiatry, neurology, and neuroscience, University of Cincinnati.

In addition to the fact that symptoms are present across multiple categories, many patients manifest multiple symptoms at one time, Dr. Nasrallah pointed out. For neurodegenerative disorders associated with psychosis, depression, anxiety, aggression, and other symptoms, it is already well known that the heterogeneous symptoms “cannot be treated with a single drug,” he said. Rather different drugs targeting each symptom individually is essential for effective management.

Dr. Nasrallah, who chaired the Psychopharmacology Update meeting, has made this point many times in the past, including in his role as the editor of Current Psychiatry. In one editorial 10 years ago, he wrote that “it makes little sense for the FDA to mandate that a drug must work for a DSM diagnosis instead of specific symptoms.”

“The FDA must update its old policy, which has led to the widespread off-label use of psychiatric drugs, an artificial concept, simply because the FDA arbitrarily decided a long time ago that new drugs must be approved for a specific DSM diagnosis,” Dr. Nasrallah said.

Dr. Stahl reported financial relationships with more than 20 pharmaceutical companies, including those that are involved in the development of drugs included in his talk. Medscape Live and this news organization are owned by the same parent company.