CHEST Physician

The American College of Cardiology on Feb. 13, 2020, released a clinical bulletin that aims to address cardiac implications of the current epidemic of the novel coronavirus, now known as COVID-19.

The bulletin, reviewed and approved by the college’s Science and Quality Oversight Committee, “provides background on the epidemic, which was first reported in late December 2019, and looks at early cardiac implications from case reports,” the ACC noted in a press release. “It also provides information on the potential cardiac implications from analog viral respiratory pandemics and offers early clinical guidance given current COVID-19 uncertainty.”

The document looks at some early cardiac implications of the infection. For example, early case reports suggest patients with underlying conditions are at higher risk of complications or mortality from the virus, with up to 50% of hospitalized patients having a chronic medical illness, the authors wrote.

About 40% of hospitalized patients confirmed to have the virus have cardiovascular or cerebrovascular disease, they noted.

In a recent case report on 138 hospitalized COVID-19 patients, they noted, 19.6% developed acute respiratory distress syndrome, 16.7% developed arrhythmia, 8.7% developed shock, 7.2% developed acute cardiac injury, and 3.6% developed acute kidney injury. “Rates of complication were universally higher for ICU patients,” they wrote.

“The first reported death was a 61-year-old male, with a long history of smoking, who succumbed to acute respiratory distress, heart failure, and cardiac arrest,” the document noted. “Early, unpublished first-hand reports suggest at least some patients develop myocarditis.”

Stressing the current uncertainty about the virus, the bulletin provides the following clinical guidance:

• COVID-19 is spread through droplets and can live for substantial periods outside the body; containment and prevention using standard public health and personal strategies for preventing the spread of communicable disease remains the priority.
• In geographies with active COVID-19 transmission (mainly China), it is reasonable to advise patients with underlying cardiovascular disease of the potential increased risk and to encourage additional, reasonable precautions.
• Older adults are less likely to present with fever, thus close assessment for other symptoms such as cough or shortness of breath is warranted.
• Some experts have suggested that the rigorous use of guideline-directed, plaque-stabilizing agents could offer additional protection to cardiovascular disease (CVD) patients during a widespread outbreak (statins, beta-blockers, ACE inhibitors, acetylsalicylic acid); however, such therapies should be tailored to individual patients.
• It is important for patients with CVD to remain current with vaccinations, including the pneumococcal vaccine, given the increased risk of secondary bacterial infection; it would also be prudent to receive vaccination to prevent another source of fever which could be initially confused with coronavirus infection.
• It may be reasonable to triage COVID-19 patients according to the presence of underlying cardiovascular, respiratory, renal, and other chronic diseases for prioritized treatment.
• Providers are cautioned that classic symptoms and presentation of acute MI may be overshadowed in the context of coronavirus, resulting in underdiagnosis.
• For CVD patients in geographies without widespread COVID-19, emphasis should remain on the threat from influenza, the importance of vaccination and frequent handwashing, and continued adherence to all guideline-directed therapy for underlying chronic conditions.
• COVID-19 is a fast-moving epidemic with an uncertain clinical profile; providers should be prepared for guidance to shift as more information becomes available.

The full clinical update is available here.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The American College of Cardiology on Feb. 13, 2020, released a clinical bulletin that aims to address cardiac implications of the current epidemic of the novel coronavirus, now known as COVID-19.

The bulletin, reviewed and approved by the college’s Science and Quality Oversight Committee, “provides background on the epidemic, which was first reported in late December 2019, and looks at early cardiac implications from case reports,” the ACC noted in a press release. “It also provides information on the potential cardiac implications from analog viral respiratory pandemics and offers early clinical guidance given current COVID-19 uncertainty.”

The document looks at some early cardiac implications of the infection. For example, early case reports suggest patients with underlying conditions are at higher risk of complications or mortality from the virus, with up to 50% of hospitalized patients having a chronic medical illness, the authors wrote.

About 40% of hospitalized patients confirmed to have the virus have cardiovascular or cerebrovascular disease, they noted.

In a recent case report on 138 hospitalized COVID-19 patients, they noted, 19.6% developed acute respiratory distress syndrome, 16.7% developed arrhythmia, 8.7% developed shock, 7.2% developed acute cardiac injury, and 3.6% developed acute kidney injury. “Rates of complication were universally higher for ICU patients,” they wrote.

“The first reported death was a 61-year-old male, with a long history of smoking, who succumbed to acute respiratory distress, heart failure, and cardiac arrest,” the document noted. “Early, unpublished first-hand reports suggest at least some patients develop myocarditis.”

Stressing the current uncertainty about the virus, the bulletin provides the following clinical guidance:

• COVID-19 is spread through droplets and can live for substantial periods outside the body; containment and prevention using standard public health and personal strategies for preventing the spread of communicable disease remains the priority.
• In geographies with active COVID-19 transmission (mainly China), it is reasonable to advise patients with underlying cardiovascular disease of the potential increased risk and to encourage additional, reasonable precautions.
• Older adults are less likely to present with fever, thus close assessment for other symptoms such as cough or shortness of breath is warranted.
• Some experts have suggested that the rigorous use of guideline-directed, plaque-stabilizing agents could offer additional protection to cardiovascular disease (CVD) patients during a widespread outbreak (statins, beta-blockers, ACE inhibitors, acetylsalicylic acid); however, such therapies should be tailored to individual patients.
• It is important for patients with CVD to remain current with vaccinations, including the pneumococcal vaccine, given the increased risk of secondary bacterial infection; it would also be prudent to receive vaccination to prevent another source of fever which could be initially confused with coronavirus infection.
• It may be reasonable to triage COVID-19 patients according to the presence of underlying cardiovascular, respiratory, renal, and other chronic diseases for prioritized treatment.
• Providers are cautioned that classic symptoms and presentation of acute MI may be overshadowed in the context of coronavirus, resulting in underdiagnosis.
• For CVD patients in geographies without widespread COVID-19, emphasis should remain on the threat from influenza, the importance of vaccination and frequent handwashing, and continued adherence to all guideline-directed therapy for underlying chronic conditions.
• COVID-19 is a fast-moving epidemic with an uncertain clinical profile; providers should be prepared for guidance to shift as more information becomes available.

The full clinical update is available here.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The American College of Cardiology on Feb. 13, 2020, released a clinical bulletin that aims to address cardiac implications of the current epidemic of the novel coronavirus, now known as COVID-19.

The bulletin, reviewed and approved by the college’s Science and Quality Oversight Committee, “provides background on the epidemic, which was first reported in late December 2019, and looks at early cardiac implications from case reports,” the ACC noted in a press release. “It also provides information on the potential cardiac implications from analog viral respiratory pandemics and offers early clinical guidance given current COVID-19 uncertainty.”

The document looks at some early cardiac implications of the infection. For example, early case reports suggest patients with underlying conditions are at higher risk of complications or mortality from the virus, with up to 50% of hospitalized patients having a chronic medical illness, the authors wrote.

About 40% of hospitalized patients confirmed to have the virus have cardiovascular or cerebrovascular disease, they noted.

In a recent case report on 138 hospitalized COVID-19 patients, they noted, 19.6% developed acute respiratory distress syndrome, 16.7% developed arrhythmia, 8.7% developed shock, 7.2% developed acute cardiac injury, and 3.6% developed acute kidney injury. “Rates of complication were universally higher for ICU patients,” they wrote.

“The first reported death was a 61-year-old male, with a long history of smoking, who succumbed to acute respiratory distress, heart failure, and cardiac arrest,” the document noted. “Early, unpublished first-hand reports suggest at least some patients develop myocarditis.”

Stressing the current uncertainty about the virus, the bulletin provides the following clinical guidance:

• COVID-19 is spread through droplets and can live for substantial periods outside the body; containment and prevention using standard public health and personal strategies for preventing the spread of communicable disease remains the priority.
• In geographies with active COVID-19 transmission (mainly China), it is reasonable to advise patients with underlying cardiovascular disease of the potential increased risk and to encourage additional, reasonable precautions.
• Older adults are less likely to present with fever, thus close assessment for other symptoms such as cough or shortness of breath is warranted.
• Some experts have suggested that the rigorous use of guideline-directed, plaque-stabilizing agents could offer additional protection to cardiovascular disease (CVD) patients during a widespread outbreak (statins, beta-blockers, ACE inhibitors, acetylsalicylic acid); however, such therapies should be tailored to individual patients.
• It is important for patients with CVD to remain current with vaccinations, including the pneumococcal vaccine, given the increased risk of secondary bacterial infection; it would also be prudent to receive vaccination to prevent another source of fever which could be initially confused with coronavirus infection.
• It may be reasonable to triage COVID-19 patients according to the presence of underlying cardiovascular, respiratory, renal, and other chronic diseases for prioritized treatment.
• Providers are cautioned that classic symptoms and presentation of acute MI may be overshadowed in the context of coronavirus, resulting in underdiagnosis.
• For CVD patients in geographies without widespread COVID-19, emphasis should remain on the threat from influenza, the importance of vaccination and frequent handwashing, and continued adherence to all guideline-directed therapy for underlying chronic conditions.
• COVID-19 is a fast-moving epidemic with an uncertain clinical profile; providers should be prepared for guidance to shift as more information becomes available.

The full clinical update is available here.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Patients with a pulmonary artery pressure/cardiac output slope greater than 3 mm Hg/L/min on cardiopulmonary exercise tests have more than double the risk of cardiovascular hospitalization and all-cause mortality, according to a prospective study of 714 subjects with exertional dyspnea but preserved ejection fractions.

SPL/Science Source

The findings “suggest that across a wide range of individuals with chronic dyspnea, exercise can unmask abnormal pulmonary vascular responses that in turn bear significant clinical implications. These findings, coupled with a growing body of work ... suggest that reintroduction of an exercise based definition of [pulmonary hypertension (PH)] in PH guidelines” – using the pulmonary artery pressure/cardiac output slope – “merits consideration,” wrote Jennifer Ho, MD, a heart failure and transplantation cardiologist at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, and colleagues (J Am Coll Cardiol. 2020 Jan 7;75[1]:17-26. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2019.10.048).
 

A new definition takes hold

The slope captures the steepness of pulmonary artery pressure increase as cardiac output goes up, giving a measure of overall pulmonary resistance. A value above 3 mm Hg/L/min means that pulmonary artery pressure (PAP) is too high for a given cardiac output (CO). The slope “is preferable to using a single absolute cut point value for exercise PAP” to define exercise pulmonary hypertension.“ Indeed, we confirm that in the absence of elevated PAP/CO, an absolute exercise PAP [above] 30 mm Hg” – the definition of exercise-induced pulmonary hypertension in years past – “does not portend worse outcomes,” Dr. Ho and her team noted.

In an accompanying editorial titled, “Exercise Pulmonary Hypertension Is Back,” Marius Hoeper, MD, a senior physician in the department of respiratory medicine at Hannover (Germany) Medical School, explained that the findings likely signal the revival of exercise pulmonary hypertension as a useful clinical concept (J Am Coll Cardiol. 2020 Jan 7;75[1]:27-8. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2019.11.010).

The standalone 30 mm Hg cut point was largely abandoned about a decade ago when it was realized that pressures above that mark were “not necessarily abnormal in certain subjects, for instance in athletes or elderly individuals,” he said.

But it’s become clear in recent years, and now confirmed by Dr. Ho and her team, that what matters is not the stand-alone measurement, but it’s relationship to cardiac output. “There is now sufficient evidence to define exercise PH by an abnormal [mean]PAP/CO slope [above] 3 mm Hg/L/min,” Dr. Hoeper said.
 

Abnormal slopes in over 40%

Each subject in the Massachusetts General study had an average of 10 paired PAP and CO measurements taken by invasive hemodynamic monitoring, including pulmonary artery catheterization via the internal jugular vein, while they road a stationary bicycle. The measurements were used to calculate the PAP/CO slope. A slope greater than 3 mm Hg/L/min was defined as abnormal based on previous research.

Results of the one-time assessment were correlated with the study’s primary outcome – cardiovascular hospitalization or all-cause death – over a mean follow up of 3.7 years. Subjects were 57 years old, on average, and 59% were women; just 2% had a previous diagnosis of pulmonary hypertension. Overall, 41% of the subjects had abnormal PAP/CO slopes, 26% had abnormal slopes without resting pulmonary hypertension, and 208 subjects (29%) met the primary outcome.

After adjustments for age, sex, and cardiopulmonary comorbidities, abnormal slopes more than doubled the risk of the primary outcome (hazard ratio [HR] 2.03; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.48-2.78; P less than .001). The risk remained elevated even in the absence of resting pulmonary hypertension (HR 1.75, 95% CI 1.21-2.54, P = .003), and in people with only mildly elevated resting PAPs of 21-29 mm Hg.

Older people were more likely to have abnormally elevated slopes, as well as were those with cardiopulmonary comorbidities, lower exercise tolerance, lower peak oxygen uptake, and more severely impaired right ventricular function. Diabetes, prior heart failure, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and interstitial lung disease were more prevalent in the elevated slope group, and their median N-terminal pro–B type natriuretic peptide level was 154 pg/mL, versus 52 pg/mL among people with normal slopes.

A simpler test is needed

In his editorial, Dr. Hoeper noted that diagnosing exercise PH by elevated slope “will occasionally help physicians and patients to better understand exertional dyspnea and to detect early pulmonary vascular disease in patients at risk,” but for the most part, the new definition “will have little immediate [effect] on clinical practice, as evidence-based treatments for this condition are not yet available.”

Even so, “having a globally accepted gold standard” for exercise PH based on the PAP/CO slope might well spur development of “simpler, noninvasive” ways to measure it so it can be used outside of specialty settings.

Dr. Ho and her team agreed. “These findings should prompt additional work using less invasive measurement modalities such as exercise echocardiography to evaluate” exercise PAP/CO slopes, they said.

The work was funded by the National Institutes of Health, Gilead Sciences, the American Heart Association, and the Massachusetts General Hospital Heart Failure Research Innovation Fund. The investigators had no relevant disclosures. Dr. Hoeper reported lecture and consultation fees from Actelion, Bayer, Merck Sharp and Dohme, and Pfizer.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Ho JE et al., J Am Coll Cardiol. 2020 Jan 7;75(1):17-26. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2019.10.048.

Patients with a pulmonary artery pressure/cardiac output slope greater than 3 mm Hg/L/min on cardiopulmonary exercise tests have more than double the risk of cardiovascular hospitalization and all-cause mortality, according to a prospective study of 714 subjects with exertional dyspnea but preserved ejection fractions.

SPL/Science Source

The findings “suggest that across a wide range of individuals with chronic dyspnea, exercise can unmask abnormal pulmonary vascular responses that in turn bear significant clinical implications. These findings, coupled with a growing body of work ... suggest that reintroduction of an exercise based definition of [pulmonary hypertension (PH)] in PH guidelines” – using the pulmonary artery pressure/cardiac output slope – “merits consideration,” wrote Jennifer Ho, MD, a heart failure and transplantation cardiologist at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, and colleagues (J Am Coll Cardiol. 2020 Jan 7;75[1]:17-26. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2019.10.048).
 

A new definition takes hold

The slope captures the steepness of pulmonary artery pressure increase as cardiac output goes up, giving a measure of overall pulmonary resistance. A value above 3 mm Hg/L/min means that pulmonary artery pressure (PAP) is too high for a given cardiac output (CO). The slope “is preferable to using a single absolute cut point value for exercise PAP” to define exercise pulmonary hypertension.“ Indeed, we confirm that in the absence of elevated PAP/CO, an absolute exercise PAP [above] 30 mm Hg” – the definition of exercise-induced pulmonary hypertension in years past – “does not portend worse outcomes,” Dr. Ho and her team noted.

In an accompanying editorial titled, “Exercise Pulmonary Hypertension Is Back,” Marius Hoeper, MD, a senior physician in the department of respiratory medicine at Hannover (Germany) Medical School, explained that the findings likely signal the revival of exercise pulmonary hypertension as a useful clinical concept (J Am Coll Cardiol. 2020 Jan 7;75[1]:27-8. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2019.11.010).

The standalone 30 mm Hg cut point was largely abandoned about a decade ago when it was realized that pressures above that mark were “not necessarily abnormal in certain subjects, for instance in athletes or elderly individuals,” he said.

But it’s become clear in recent years, and now confirmed by Dr. Ho and her team, that what matters is not the stand-alone measurement, but it’s relationship to cardiac output. “There is now sufficient evidence to define exercise PH by an abnormal [mean]PAP/CO slope [above] 3 mm Hg/L/min,” Dr. Hoeper said.
 

Abnormal slopes in over 40%

Each subject in the Massachusetts General study had an average of 10 paired PAP and CO measurements taken by invasive hemodynamic monitoring, including pulmonary artery catheterization via the internal jugular vein, while they road a stationary bicycle. The measurements were used to calculate the PAP/CO slope. A slope greater than 3 mm Hg/L/min was defined as abnormal based on previous research.

Results of the one-time assessment were correlated with the study’s primary outcome – cardiovascular hospitalization or all-cause death – over a mean follow up of 3.7 years. Subjects were 57 years old, on average, and 59% were women; just 2% had a previous diagnosis of pulmonary hypertension. Overall, 41% of the subjects had abnormal PAP/CO slopes, 26% had abnormal slopes without resting pulmonary hypertension, and 208 subjects (29%) met the primary outcome.

After adjustments for age, sex, and cardiopulmonary comorbidities, abnormal slopes more than doubled the risk of the primary outcome (hazard ratio [HR] 2.03; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.48-2.78; P less than .001). The risk remained elevated even in the absence of resting pulmonary hypertension (HR 1.75, 95% CI 1.21-2.54, P = .003), and in people with only mildly elevated resting PAPs of 21-29 mm Hg.

Older people were more likely to have abnormally elevated slopes, as well as were those with cardiopulmonary comorbidities, lower exercise tolerance, lower peak oxygen uptake, and more severely impaired right ventricular function. Diabetes, prior heart failure, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and interstitial lung disease were more prevalent in the elevated slope group, and their median N-terminal pro–B type natriuretic peptide level was 154 pg/mL, versus 52 pg/mL among people with normal slopes.

A simpler test is needed

In his editorial, Dr. Hoeper noted that diagnosing exercise PH by elevated slope “will occasionally help physicians and patients to better understand exertional dyspnea and to detect early pulmonary vascular disease in patients at risk,” but for the most part, the new definition “will have little immediate [effect] on clinical practice, as evidence-based treatments for this condition are not yet available.”

Even so, “having a globally accepted gold standard” for exercise PH based on the PAP/CO slope might well spur development of “simpler, noninvasive” ways to measure it so it can be used outside of specialty settings.

Dr. Ho and her team agreed. “These findings should prompt additional work using less invasive measurement modalities such as exercise echocardiography to evaluate” exercise PAP/CO slopes, they said.

The work was funded by the National Institutes of Health, Gilead Sciences, the American Heart Association, and the Massachusetts General Hospital Heart Failure Research Innovation Fund. The investigators had no relevant disclosures. Dr. Hoeper reported lecture and consultation fees from Actelion, Bayer, Merck Sharp and Dohme, and Pfizer.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Ho JE et al., J Am Coll Cardiol. 2020 Jan 7;75(1):17-26. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2019.10.048.

Patients with a pulmonary artery pressure/cardiac output slope greater than 3 mm Hg/L/min on cardiopulmonary exercise tests have more than double the risk of cardiovascular hospitalization and all-cause mortality, according to a prospective study of 714 subjects with exertional dyspnea but preserved ejection fractions.

SPL/Science Source

The findings “suggest that across a wide range of individuals with chronic dyspnea, exercise can unmask abnormal pulmonary vascular responses that in turn bear significant clinical implications. These findings, coupled with a growing body of work ... suggest that reintroduction of an exercise based definition of [pulmonary hypertension (PH)] in PH guidelines” – using the pulmonary artery pressure/cardiac output slope – “merits consideration,” wrote Jennifer Ho, MD, a heart failure and transplantation cardiologist at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, and colleagues (J Am Coll Cardiol. 2020 Jan 7;75[1]:17-26. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2019.10.048).
 

A new definition takes hold

The slope captures the steepness of pulmonary artery pressure increase as cardiac output goes up, giving a measure of overall pulmonary resistance. A value above 3 mm Hg/L/min means that pulmonary artery pressure (PAP) is too high for a given cardiac output (CO). The slope “is preferable to using a single absolute cut point value for exercise PAP” to define exercise pulmonary hypertension.“ Indeed, we confirm that in the absence of elevated PAP/CO, an absolute exercise PAP [above] 30 mm Hg” – the definition of exercise-induced pulmonary hypertension in years past – “does not portend worse outcomes,” Dr. Ho and her team noted.

In an accompanying editorial titled, “Exercise Pulmonary Hypertension Is Back,” Marius Hoeper, MD, a senior physician in the department of respiratory medicine at Hannover (Germany) Medical School, explained that the findings likely signal the revival of exercise pulmonary hypertension as a useful clinical concept (J Am Coll Cardiol. 2020 Jan 7;75[1]:27-8. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2019.11.010).

The standalone 30 mm Hg cut point was largely abandoned about a decade ago when it was realized that pressures above that mark were “not necessarily abnormal in certain subjects, for instance in athletes or elderly individuals,” he said.

But it’s become clear in recent years, and now confirmed by Dr. Ho and her team, that what matters is not the stand-alone measurement, but it’s relationship to cardiac output. “There is now sufficient evidence to define exercise PH by an abnormal [mean]PAP/CO slope [above] 3 mm Hg/L/min,” Dr. Hoeper said.
 

Abnormal slopes in over 40%

Each subject in the Massachusetts General study had an average of 10 paired PAP and CO measurements taken by invasive hemodynamic monitoring, including pulmonary artery catheterization via the internal jugular vein, while they road a stationary bicycle. The measurements were used to calculate the PAP/CO slope. A slope greater than 3 mm Hg/L/min was defined as abnormal based on previous research.

Results of the one-time assessment were correlated with the study’s primary outcome – cardiovascular hospitalization or all-cause death – over a mean follow up of 3.7 years. Subjects were 57 years old, on average, and 59% were women; just 2% had a previous diagnosis of pulmonary hypertension. Overall, 41% of the subjects had abnormal PAP/CO slopes, 26% had abnormal slopes without resting pulmonary hypertension, and 208 subjects (29%) met the primary outcome.

After adjustments for age, sex, and cardiopulmonary comorbidities, abnormal slopes more than doubled the risk of the primary outcome (hazard ratio [HR] 2.03; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.48-2.78; P less than .001). The risk remained elevated even in the absence of resting pulmonary hypertension (HR 1.75, 95% CI 1.21-2.54, P = .003), and in people with only mildly elevated resting PAPs of 21-29 mm Hg.

Older people were more likely to have abnormally elevated slopes, as well as were those with cardiopulmonary comorbidities, lower exercise tolerance, lower peak oxygen uptake, and more severely impaired right ventricular function. Diabetes, prior heart failure, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and interstitial lung disease were more prevalent in the elevated slope group, and their median N-terminal pro–B type natriuretic peptide level was 154 pg/mL, versus 52 pg/mL among people with normal slopes.

A simpler test is needed

In his editorial, Dr. Hoeper noted that diagnosing exercise PH by elevated slope “will occasionally help physicians and patients to better understand exertional dyspnea and to detect early pulmonary vascular disease in patients at risk,” but for the most part, the new definition “will have little immediate [effect] on clinical practice, as evidence-based treatments for this condition are not yet available.”

Even so, “having a globally accepted gold standard” for exercise PH based on the PAP/CO slope might well spur development of “simpler, noninvasive” ways to measure it so it can be used outside of specialty settings.

Dr. Ho and her team agreed. “These findings should prompt additional work using less invasive measurement modalities such as exercise echocardiography to evaluate” exercise PAP/CO slopes, they said.

The work was funded by the National Institutes of Health, Gilead Sciences, the American Heart Association, and the Massachusetts General Hospital Heart Failure Research Innovation Fund. The investigators had no relevant disclosures. Dr. Hoeper reported lecture and consultation fees from Actelion, Bayer, Merck Sharp and Dohme, and Pfizer.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Ho JE et al., J Am Coll Cardiol. 2020 Jan 7;75(1):17-26. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2019.10.048.

As I write this, the 2019 novel coronavirus* continues to spread, exceeding 59,000 cases and 1,300 deaths worldwide. With it spreads fear. In the modern world of social media, misinformation spreads even faster than disease.

Delpixel/Shutterstock

The news about a novel and deadly illness crowds out more substantial worries. Humans are not particularly good at assessing risk or responding rationally and consistently to it. Risk is hard to fully define. If you look up “risk” in Merriam Webster’s online dictionary, you get the simple definition of “possibility of loss or injury; peril.” If you look up risk in Wikipedia, you get 12 pages of explanation and 8 more pages of links and references.

People handle risk differently. Some people are more risk adverse than others. Some get a pleasurable thrill from risk, whether a slot machine or a parachute jump. Most people really don’t comprehend small probabilities, with tens of billions of dollars spent annually on U.S. lotteries.

Because 98% of people who get COVID-19 are recovering, this is not an extinction-level event or the zombie apocalypse. It is a major health hazard, and one where morbidity and mortality might be assuaged by an early and effective public health response, including the population’s adoption of good habits such as hand washing, cough etiquette, and staying home when ill. But fear, discrimination, and misinformation may do more damage than the virus itself.

Three key factors may help reduce the fear factor.

One key factor is accurate communication of health information to the public. This has been severely harmed in the last few years by the promotion of gossip on social media, such as Facebook, within newsfeeds without any vetting, along with a smaller component of deliberate misinformation from untraceable sources. Compare this situation with the decision in May 1988 when Surgeon General C. Everett Koop chose to snail mail a brochure on AIDS to every household in America. It was unprecedented. One element of this communication is the public’s belief that government and health care officials will responsibly and timely convey the information. There are accusations that the Chinese government initially impeded early warnings about COVID-19. Dr. Koop, to his great credit and lifesaving leadership, overcame queasiness within the Reagan administration about issues of morality and taste in discussing some of the HIV information. Alas, no similar leadership occurred in the decade of the 2010s when deaths from the opioid epidemic in the United States skyrocketed to claim more lives annually than car accidents or suicide.

A second factor is the credibility of the scientists. Antivaxxers, climate change deniers, and mercenary scientists have severely damaged that credibility of science, compared with the trust in scientists 50 years ago during the Apollo moon shot.

A third factor is perspective. Poor journalism and clickbait can focus excessively on the rare events as news. Airline crashes make the front page while fatal car accidents, claiming a hundred times more lives annually, don’t even merit a story in local media. Someone wins the lottery weekly but few pay attention to those suffering from gambling debts.

Influenza is killing many times more people than the 2019 novel coronavirus, but the news is focused on cruise ships. In the United States, influenza annually will strike tens of millions, with about 10 per 1,000 hospitalized and 0.5 per 1,000 dying. The novel coronavirus is more lethal. SARS (a coronavirus epidemic in 2003) had 8,000 cases with a mortality rate of 96 per 1,000 while the novel 2019 strain so far is killing about 20 per 1,000. That value may be an overestimate, because there may be a significant fraction of COVID-19 patients with symptoms mild enough that they do not seek medical care and do not get tested and counted.

For perspective, in 1952 the United States reported 50,000 cases of polio (meningitis or paralytic) annually with 3,000 deaths. As many as 95% of cases of poliovirus infection have no or mild symptoms and would not have been reported, so the case fatality rate estimate is skewed. In the 1950s, the United States averaged about 500,000 cases of measles per year, with about 500 deaths annually for a case fatality rate of about 1 per 1,000 in a population that was well nourished with good medical care. In malnourished children without access to modern health care, the case fatality rate can be as high as 100 per 1,000, which is why globally measles killed 142,000 people in 2018, a substantial improvement from 536,000 deaths globally in 2000, but still a leading killer of children worldwide. Vaccines had reduced the annual death toll of polio and measles in the U.S. to zero.

In comparison, in this country the annual incidences are about 70,000 overdose deaths, 50,000 suicides, and 40,000 traffic deaths.

Reassurance is the most common product sold by pediatricians. We look for low-probability, high-impact bad things. Usually we don’t find them and can reassure parents that the child will be okay. Sometimes we spot a higher-risk situation and intervene. My job is to worry professionally so that parents can worry less.

COVID-19 worries me, but irrational people worry me more. The real enemies are fear, disinformation, discrimination, and economic warfare.
 

Dr. Powell is a pediatric hospitalist and clinical ethics consultant living in St. Louis. Email him at [email protected].

*This article was updated 2/21/2020.

As I write this, the 2019 novel coronavirus* continues to spread, exceeding 59,000 cases and 1,300 deaths worldwide. With it spreads fear. In the modern world of social media, misinformation spreads even faster than disease.

Delpixel/Shutterstock

The news about a novel and deadly illness crowds out more substantial worries. Humans are not particularly good at assessing risk or responding rationally and consistently to it. Risk is hard to fully define. If you look up “risk” in Merriam Webster’s online dictionary, you get the simple definition of “possibility of loss or injury; peril.” If you look up risk in Wikipedia, you get 12 pages of explanation and 8 more pages of links and references.

People handle risk differently. Some people are more risk adverse than others. Some get a pleasurable thrill from risk, whether a slot machine or a parachute jump. Most people really don’t comprehend small probabilities, with tens of billions of dollars spent annually on U.S. lotteries.

Because 98% of people who get COVID-19 are recovering, this is not an extinction-level event or the zombie apocalypse. It is a major health hazard, and one where morbidity and mortality might be assuaged by an early and effective public health response, including the population’s adoption of good habits such as hand washing, cough etiquette, and staying home when ill. But fear, discrimination, and misinformation may do more damage than the virus itself.

Three key factors may help reduce the fear factor.

One key factor is accurate communication of health information to the public. This has been severely harmed in the last few years by the promotion of gossip on social media, such as Facebook, within newsfeeds without any vetting, along with a smaller component of deliberate misinformation from untraceable sources. Compare this situation with the decision in May 1988 when Surgeon General C. Everett Koop chose to snail mail a brochure on AIDS to every household in America. It was unprecedented. One element of this communication is the public’s belief that government and health care officials will responsibly and timely convey the information. There are accusations that the Chinese government initially impeded early warnings about COVID-19. Dr. Koop, to his great credit and lifesaving leadership, overcame queasiness within the Reagan administration about issues of morality and taste in discussing some of the HIV information. Alas, no similar leadership occurred in the decade of the 2010s when deaths from the opioid epidemic in the United States skyrocketed to claim more lives annually than car accidents or suicide.

A second factor is the credibility of the scientists. Antivaxxers, climate change deniers, and mercenary scientists have severely damaged that credibility of science, compared with the trust in scientists 50 years ago during the Apollo moon shot.

A third factor is perspective. Poor journalism and clickbait can focus excessively on the rare events as news. Airline crashes make the front page while fatal car accidents, claiming a hundred times more lives annually, don’t even merit a story in local media. Someone wins the lottery weekly but few pay attention to those suffering from gambling debts.

Influenza is killing many times more people than the 2019 novel coronavirus, but the news is focused on cruise ships. In the United States, influenza annually will strike tens of millions, with about 10 per 1,000 hospitalized and 0.5 per 1,000 dying. The novel coronavirus is more lethal. SARS (a coronavirus epidemic in 2003) had 8,000 cases with a mortality rate of 96 per 1,000 while the novel 2019 strain so far is killing about 20 per 1,000. That value may be an overestimate, because there may be a significant fraction of COVID-19 patients with symptoms mild enough that they do not seek medical care and do not get tested and counted.

For perspective, in 1952 the United States reported 50,000 cases of polio (meningitis or paralytic) annually with 3,000 deaths. As many as 95% of cases of poliovirus infection have no or mild symptoms and would not have been reported, so the case fatality rate estimate is skewed. In the 1950s, the United States averaged about 500,000 cases of measles per year, with about 500 deaths annually for a case fatality rate of about 1 per 1,000 in a population that was well nourished with good medical care. In malnourished children without access to modern health care, the case fatality rate can be as high as 100 per 1,000, which is why globally measles killed 142,000 people in 2018, a substantial improvement from 536,000 deaths globally in 2000, but still a leading killer of children worldwide. Vaccines had reduced the annual death toll of polio and measles in the U.S. to zero.

In comparison, in this country the annual incidences are about 70,000 overdose deaths, 50,000 suicides, and 40,000 traffic deaths.

Reassurance is the most common product sold by pediatricians. We look for low-probability, high-impact bad things. Usually we don’t find them and can reassure parents that the child will be okay. Sometimes we spot a higher-risk situation and intervene. My job is to worry professionally so that parents can worry less.

COVID-19 worries me, but irrational people worry me more. The real enemies are fear, disinformation, discrimination, and economic warfare.
 

Dr. Powell is a pediatric hospitalist and clinical ethics consultant living in St. Louis. Email him at [email protected].

*This article was updated 2/21/2020.

As I write this, the 2019 novel coronavirus* continues to spread, exceeding 59,000 cases and 1,300 deaths worldwide. With it spreads fear. In the modern world of social media, misinformation spreads even faster than disease.

Delpixel/Shutterstock

The news about a novel and deadly illness crowds out more substantial worries. Humans are not particularly good at assessing risk or responding rationally and consistently to it. Risk is hard to fully define. If you look up “risk” in Merriam Webster’s online dictionary, you get the simple definition of “possibility of loss or injury; peril.” If you look up risk in Wikipedia, you get 12 pages of explanation and 8 more pages of links and references.

People handle risk differently. Some people are more risk adverse than others. Some get a pleasurable thrill from risk, whether a slot machine or a parachute jump. Most people really don’t comprehend small probabilities, with tens of billions of dollars spent annually on U.S. lotteries.

Because 98% of people who get COVID-19 are recovering, this is not an extinction-level event or the zombie apocalypse. It is a major health hazard, and one where morbidity and mortality might be assuaged by an early and effective public health response, including the population’s adoption of good habits such as hand washing, cough etiquette, and staying home when ill. But fear, discrimination, and misinformation may do more damage than the virus itself.

Three key factors may help reduce the fear factor.

One key factor is accurate communication of health information to the public. This has been severely harmed in the last few years by the promotion of gossip on social media, such as Facebook, within newsfeeds without any vetting, along with a smaller component of deliberate misinformation from untraceable sources. Compare this situation with the decision in May 1988 when Surgeon General C. Everett Koop chose to snail mail a brochure on AIDS to every household in America. It was unprecedented. One element of this communication is the public’s belief that government and health care officials will responsibly and timely convey the information. There are accusations that the Chinese government initially impeded early warnings about COVID-19. Dr. Koop, to his great credit and lifesaving leadership, overcame queasiness within the Reagan administration about issues of morality and taste in discussing some of the HIV information. Alas, no similar leadership occurred in the decade of the 2010s when deaths from the opioid epidemic in the United States skyrocketed to claim more lives annually than car accidents or suicide.

A second factor is the credibility of the scientists. Antivaxxers, climate change deniers, and mercenary scientists have severely damaged that credibility of science, compared with the trust in scientists 50 years ago during the Apollo moon shot.

A third factor is perspective. Poor journalism and clickbait can focus excessively on the rare events as news. Airline crashes make the front page while fatal car accidents, claiming a hundred times more lives annually, don’t even merit a story in local media. Someone wins the lottery weekly but few pay attention to those suffering from gambling debts.

Influenza is killing many times more people than the 2019 novel coronavirus, but the news is focused on cruise ships. In the United States, influenza annually will strike tens of millions, with about 10 per 1,000 hospitalized and 0.5 per 1,000 dying. The novel coronavirus is more lethal. SARS (a coronavirus epidemic in 2003) had 8,000 cases with a mortality rate of 96 per 1,000 while the novel 2019 strain so far is killing about 20 per 1,000. That value may be an overestimate, because there may be a significant fraction of COVID-19 patients with symptoms mild enough that they do not seek medical care and do not get tested and counted.

For perspective, in 1952 the United States reported 50,000 cases of polio (meningitis or paralytic) annually with 3,000 deaths. As many as 95% of cases of poliovirus infection have no or mild symptoms and would not have been reported, so the case fatality rate estimate is skewed. In the 1950s, the United States averaged about 500,000 cases of measles per year, with about 500 deaths annually for a case fatality rate of about 1 per 1,000 in a population that was well nourished with good medical care. In malnourished children without access to modern health care, the case fatality rate can be as high as 100 per 1,000, which is why globally measles killed 142,000 people in 2018, a substantial improvement from 536,000 deaths globally in 2000, but still a leading killer of children worldwide. Vaccines had reduced the annual death toll of polio and measles in the U.S. to zero.

In comparison, in this country the annual incidences are about 70,000 overdose deaths, 50,000 suicides, and 40,000 traffic deaths.

Reassurance is the most common product sold by pediatricians. We look for low-probability, high-impact bad things. Usually we don’t find them and can reassure parents that the child will be okay. Sometimes we spot a higher-risk situation and intervene. My job is to worry professionally so that parents can worry less.

COVID-19 worries me, but irrational people worry me more. The real enemies are fear, disinformation, discrimination, and economic warfare.
 

Dr. Powell is a pediatric hospitalist and clinical ethics consultant living in St. Louis. Email him at [email protected].

*This article was updated 2/21/2020.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention announced two new patients now have the 2019 Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV), bringing the case total in the United States to 15.

The 14th case was discovered in California among a group of people under federal quarantine after returning from the Hubei Province in China. That patient was on a U.S. State Department–chartered flight that arrived in the United States on Feb. 7.

The 15th case was discovered in Texas among a group of people who also are under federal quarantine. That patient arrived on a State Department–chartered flight that arrived on Feb. 7. It is the first person in Texas that has tested positive for 2019-nCoV.

CDC said in a statement announcing the Texas case that there “will likely be additional cases in the coming days and weeks, including among other people recently returned from Wuhan.” Officials noted that more than 600 people who have returned as part of State Department–chartered flights are currently under that 14-day quarantine.

The agency is preparing for more widespread cases of 2019-nCoV.

Nancy Messonnier, MD, director of the CDC National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases, said that containment has been the early focus for the agency.

“The goal of the measures we have taken to date are to slow the introduction and impact of this disease in the United States, but at some point, we are likely to see community spread in the U.S.,” Dr. Messonnier said during a Feb. 12 teleconference with reporters. She added that the federal response will change over time as the virus spreads.

Dr. Messonnier noted that public health officials are planning for the increased demands that a wider outbreak of 2019-nCov would place on the health care delivery system, including ensuring an adequate supply of medical equipment.

[email protected]

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention announced two new patients now have the 2019 Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV), bringing the case total in the United States to 15.

The 14th case was discovered in California among a group of people under federal quarantine after returning from the Hubei Province in China. That patient was on a U.S. State Department–chartered flight that arrived in the United States on Feb. 7.

The 15th case was discovered in Texas among a group of people who also are under federal quarantine. That patient arrived on a State Department–chartered flight that arrived on Feb. 7. It is the first person in Texas that has tested positive for 2019-nCoV.

CDC said in a statement announcing the Texas case that there “will likely be additional cases in the coming days and weeks, including among other people recently returned from Wuhan.” Officials noted that more than 600 people who have returned as part of State Department–chartered flights are currently under that 14-day quarantine.

The agency is preparing for more widespread cases of 2019-nCoV.

Nancy Messonnier, MD, director of the CDC National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases, said that containment has been the early focus for the agency.

“The goal of the measures we have taken to date are to slow the introduction and impact of this disease in the United States, but at some point, we are likely to see community spread in the U.S.,” Dr. Messonnier said during a Feb. 12 teleconference with reporters. She added that the federal response will change over time as the virus spreads.

Dr. Messonnier noted that public health officials are planning for the increased demands that a wider outbreak of 2019-nCov would place on the health care delivery system, including ensuring an adequate supply of medical equipment.

[email protected]

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention announced two new patients now have the 2019 Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV), bringing the case total in the United States to 15.

The 14th case was discovered in California among a group of people under federal quarantine after returning from the Hubei Province in China. That patient was on a U.S. State Department–chartered flight that arrived in the United States on Feb. 7.

The 15th case was discovered in Texas among a group of people who also are under federal quarantine. That patient arrived on a State Department–chartered flight that arrived on Feb. 7. It is the first person in Texas that has tested positive for 2019-nCoV.

CDC said in a statement announcing the Texas case that there “will likely be additional cases in the coming days and weeks, including among other people recently returned from Wuhan.” Officials noted that more than 600 people who have returned as part of State Department–chartered flights are currently under that 14-day quarantine.

The agency is preparing for more widespread cases of 2019-nCoV.

Nancy Messonnier, MD, director of the CDC National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases, said that containment has been the early focus for the agency.

“The goal of the measures we have taken to date are to slow the introduction and impact of this disease in the United States, but at some point, we are likely to see community spread in the U.S.,” Dr. Messonnier said during a Feb. 12 teleconference with reporters. She added that the federal response will change over time as the virus spreads.

Dr. Messonnier noted that public health officials are planning for the increased demands that a wider outbreak of 2019-nCov would place on the health care delivery system, including ensuring an adequate supply of medical equipment.

[email protected]

No specific treatment is currently available for human coronaviruses to date, but numerous antiviral agents are being identified through a variety of approaches, according to Thanigaimalai Pillaiyar, PhD, and colleagues in a review published in Drug Discovery Today.

Using the six previously discovered human coronaviruses – human CoV 229E (HCoV-229E), OC43 (HCoV-OC43), NL63 (HCoV-NL63), HKU1 (HCoV-HKU1); severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) CoV; and Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS) CoV – the investigators examined progress in the use and development of therapeutic drugs, focusing on the potential roles of virus inhibitors.

“Research has mainly been focused on SARS- and MERS-CoV infections, because they were responsible for severe illness when compared with other CoVs,” Dr. Pillaiyar, of the department of pharmaceutical and medicinal chemistry at the University of Bonn (Germany), and colleagues wrote.

2019-nCov has been linked genomically as most closely related to SARS, and the Coronavirus Study Group of the International Committee on Virus Taxonomy, which has the responsibility for naming viruses, has designated the new virus SARS-CoV-2.
 

Examining extant drugs

The first approach to identifying possible antiviral agents reevaluates known, broadly acting antiviral drugs that have been used for other viral infections or other indications. The initial research into coronavirus therapeutics, in particular, has examined current antiviral therapeutics for their effectiveness against both SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV, but with mixed results.

For example, in a search of potential antiviral agents against CoVs, researchers identified four drugs – chloroquine, chlorpromazine, loperamide, and lopinavir – by screening drug libraries approved by the Food and Drug Administration. They were all able to inhibit the replication of MERS-CoV, SARS-CoV, and HCoV-229E in the low-micromolar range, which suggested that they could be used for broad-spectrum antiviral activity, according to Dr. Pillaiyar and colleagues.

Other research groups have also reported the discovery of antiviral drugs using this drug-repurposing approach, which included a number of broad-spectrum inhibitors of HCoVs (lycorine, emetine, monensin sodium, mycophenolate mofetil, mycophenolic acid, phenazopyridine, and pyrvinium pamoate) that showed strong inhibition of replication by four CoVs in vitro at low-micromolar concentrations and suppressed the replication of all CoVs in a dose-dependent manner. Findings from in vivo studies showed lycorine protected mice against lethal HCoV-OC43 infection.

Along with the aforementioned drugs, a number of others have also shown potential usefulness, but, as yet, none has been validated for use in humans.
 

Developing new antivirals

The second approach for anti-CoV drug discovery involves the development of new therapeutics based on the genomic and biophysical understanding of the individual CoV in order to interfere with the virus itself or to disrupt its direct metabolic requirements. This can take several approaches.

MERS-CoV and SARS-CoV PL protease inhibitors

Of particular interest are antiviral therapies that attack papain-like protease, which is an important target because it is a multifunctional protein involved in proteolytic deubiquitination and viral evasion of the innate immune response. One such potential therapeutic that takes advantage of this target is disulfiram, an FDA-approved drug for use in alcohol-aversion therapy. Disulfiram has been reported as an allosteric inhibitor of MERS-CoV papain-like protease. Numerous other drug categories are being examined, with promising results in targeting the papain-like protease enzymes of both SARS and MERS.

Replicase inhibitors

Helicase (nsP13) protein is a crucial component required for virus replication in host cells and could serve as a feasible target for anti-MERS and anti-SARS chemical therapies, the review authors wrote, citing as an example, the recent development of a small 1,2,4-triazole derivative that inhibited the viral NTPase/helicase of SARS- and MERS-CoVs and demonstrated high antiviral activity and low cytotoxicity.

Membrane-bound viral RNA synthesis inhibitors

Antiviral agents that target membrane-bound coronaviral RNA synthesis represent a novel and attractive approach, according to Dr. Pillaiyar and colleagues. And recently, an inhibitor was developed that targets membrane-bound coronaviral RNA synthesis and “showed potent antiviral activity of MERS-CoV infection with remarkable efficacy.”

Host-based, anti-CoV treatment options

An alternate therapeutic tactic is to bolster host defenses or to modify host susceptibilities to prevent virus infection or replication. The innate interferon response of the host is crucial for the control of viral replication after infection, and the addition of exogenous recombinant interferon or use of drugs to stimulate the normal host interferon response are both potential therapeutic avenues. For example, nitazoxanide is a potent type I interferon inducer that has been used in humans for parasitic infections, and a synthetic nitrothiazolyl-salicylamide derivative was found to exhibit broad-spectrum antiviral activities against RNA and DNA viruses, including some coronaviruses.

Numerous other host pathways are being investigated as potential areas to enhance defense against infection and replication, for example, using inhibitors to block nucleic acid synthesis has been shown to provide broad-spectrum activity against SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV.

One particular example is remdesivir, a novel nucleotide analog antiviral drug, that was developed as a therapy for Ebola virus disease and Marburg virus infections. It was later shown to provide “reasonable antiviral activity against more distantly related viruses, such as respiratory syncytial virus, Junin virus, Lassa fever virus, and MERS-CoV,” the authors wrote.

Also of interest regarding remdesivir’s potential broad-spectrum use is that it has shown potent in vitro “antiviral activity against Malaysian and Bangladesh genotypes of Nipah virus (an RNA virus, although not a coronavirus, that infects both humans and animals) and reduced replication of Malaysian Nipah virus in primary human lung microvascular endothelial cells by more than four orders of magnitude,” Dr. Pillaiyar and colleagues added. Of particular note, all remdesivir-treated, Nipah virus–infected animals “survived the lethal challenge, indicating that remdesivir represents a promising antiviral treatment.”

In a press briefing earlier this month, Anthony S. Fauci, MD, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, reported that a randomized, controlled, phase 3 trial of the antiviral drug remdesivir is currently underway in China to establish whether the drug would be an effective and safe treatment for adults patients with mild or moderate 2019 Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV) disease.

“Our increasing understanding of novel emerging coronaviruses will be accompanied by increasing opportunities for the reasonable design of therapeutics. Importantly, understanding this basic information about CoV protease targets will not only aid the public health against SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV but also help in advance to target new coronaviruses that might emerge in the future,” the authors concluded.

Dr. Pillaiyar and colleagues reported that they had no financial conflicts of interest.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Pillaiyar T et al. Drug Discov Today. 2020 Jan 30. doi: 10.1016/j.drudis.2020.01.015.

No specific treatment is currently available for human coronaviruses to date, but numerous antiviral agents are being identified through a variety of approaches, according to Thanigaimalai Pillaiyar, PhD, and colleagues in a review published in Drug Discovery Today.

Using the six previously discovered human coronaviruses – human CoV 229E (HCoV-229E), OC43 (HCoV-OC43), NL63 (HCoV-NL63), HKU1 (HCoV-HKU1); severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) CoV; and Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS) CoV – the investigators examined progress in the use and development of therapeutic drugs, focusing on the potential roles of virus inhibitors.

“Research has mainly been focused on SARS- and MERS-CoV infections, because they were responsible for severe illness when compared with other CoVs,” Dr. Pillaiyar, of the department of pharmaceutical and medicinal chemistry at the University of Bonn (Germany), and colleagues wrote.

2019-nCov has been linked genomically as most closely related to SARS, and the Coronavirus Study Group of the International Committee on Virus Taxonomy, which has the responsibility for naming viruses, has designated the new virus SARS-CoV-2.
 

Examining extant drugs

The first approach to identifying possible antiviral agents reevaluates known, broadly acting antiviral drugs that have been used for other viral infections or other indications. The initial research into coronavirus therapeutics, in particular, has examined current antiviral therapeutics for their effectiveness against both SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV, but with mixed results.

For example, in a search of potential antiviral agents against CoVs, researchers identified four drugs – chloroquine, chlorpromazine, loperamide, and lopinavir – by screening drug libraries approved by the Food and Drug Administration. They were all able to inhibit the replication of MERS-CoV, SARS-CoV, and HCoV-229E in the low-micromolar range, which suggested that they could be used for broad-spectrum antiviral activity, according to Dr. Pillaiyar and colleagues.

Other research groups have also reported the discovery of antiviral drugs using this drug-repurposing approach, which included a number of broad-spectrum inhibitors of HCoVs (lycorine, emetine, monensin sodium, mycophenolate mofetil, mycophenolic acid, phenazopyridine, and pyrvinium pamoate) that showed strong inhibition of replication by four CoVs in vitro at low-micromolar concentrations and suppressed the replication of all CoVs in a dose-dependent manner. Findings from in vivo studies showed lycorine protected mice against lethal HCoV-OC43 infection.

Along with the aforementioned drugs, a number of others have also shown potential usefulness, but, as yet, none has been validated for use in humans.
 

Developing new antivirals

The second approach for anti-CoV drug discovery involves the development of new therapeutics based on the genomic and biophysical understanding of the individual CoV in order to interfere with the virus itself or to disrupt its direct metabolic requirements. This can take several approaches.

MERS-CoV and SARS-CoV PL protease inhibitors

Of particular interest are antiviral therapies that attack papain-like protease, which is an important target because it is a multifunctional protein involved in proteolytic deubiquitination and viral evasion of the innate immune response. One such potential therapeutic that takes advantage of this target is disulfiram, an FDA-approved drug for use in alcohol-aversion therapy. Disulfiram has been reported as an allosteric inhibitor of MERS-CoV papain-like protease. Numerous other drug categories are being examined, with promising results in targeting the papain-like protease enzymes of both SARS and MERS.

Replicase inhibitors

Helicase (nsP13) protein is a crucial component required for virus replication in host cells and could serve as a feasible target for anti-MERS and anti-SARS chemical therapies, the review authors wrote, citing as an example, the recent development of a small 1,2,4-triazole derivative that inhibited the viral NTPase/helicase of SARS- and MERS-CoVs and demonstrated high antiviral activity and low cytotoxicity.

Membrane-bound viral RNA synthesis inhibitors

Antiviral agents that target membrane-bound coronaviral RNA synthesis represent a novel and attractive approach, according to Dr. Pillaiyar and colleagues. And recently, an inhibitor was developed that targets membrane-bound coronaviral RNA synthesis and “showed potent antiviral activity of MERS-CoV infection with remarkable efficacy.”

Host-based, anti-CoV treatment options

An alternate therapeutic tactic is to bolster host defenses or to modify host susceptibilities to prevent virus infection or replication. The innate interferon response of the host is crucial for the control of viral replication after infection, and the addition of exogenous recombinant interferon or use of drugs to stimulate the normal host interferon response are both potential therapeutic avenues. For example, nitazoxanide is a potent type I interferon inducer that has been used in humans for parasitic infections, and a synthetic nitrothiazolyl-salicylamide derivative was found to exhibit broad-spectrum antiviral activities against RNA and DNA viruses, including some coronaviruses.

Numerous other host pathways are being investigated as potential areas to enhance defense against infection and replication, for example, using inhibitors to block nucleic acid synthesis has been shown to provide broad-spectrum activity against SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV.

One particular example is remdesivir, a novel nucleotide analog antiviral drug, that was developed as a therapy for Ebola virus disease and Marburg virus infections. It was later shown to provide “reasonable antiviral activity against more distantly related viruses, such as respiratory syncytial virus, Junin virus, Lassa fever virus, and MERS-CoV,” the authors wrote.

Also of interest regarding remdesivir’s potential broad-spectrum use is that it has shown potent in vitro “antiviral activity against Malaysian and Bangladesh genotypes of Nipah virus (an RNA virus, although not a coronavirus, that infects both humans and animals) and reduced replication of Malaysian Nipah virus in primary human lung microvascular endothelial cells by more than four orders of magnitude,” Dr. Pillaiyar and colleagues added. Of particular note, all remdesivir-treated, Nipah virus–infected animals “survived the lethal challenge, indicating that remdesivir represents a promising antiviral treatment.”

In a press briefing earlier this month, Anthony S. Fauci, MD, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, reported that a randomized, controlled, phase 3 trial of the antiviral drug remdesivir is currently underway in China to establish whether the drug would be an effective and safe treatment for adults patients with mild or moderate 2019 Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV) disease.

“Our increasing understanding of novel emerging coronaviruses will be accompanied by increasing opportunities for the reasonable design of therapeutics. Importantly, understanding this basic information about CoV protease targets will not only aid the public health against SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV but also help in advance to target new coronaviruses that might emerge in the future,” the authors concluded.

Dr. Pillaiyar and colleagues reported that they had no financial conflicts of interest.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Pillaiyar T et al. Drug Discov Today. 2020 Jan 30. doi: 10.1016/j.drudis.2020.01.015.

No specific treatment is currently available for human coronaviruses to date, but numerous antiviral agents are being identified through a variety of approaches, according to Thanigaimalai Pillaiyar, PhD, and colleagues in a review published in Drug Discovery Today.

Using the six previously discovered human coronaviruses – human CoV 229E (HCoV-229E), OC43 (HCoV-OC43), NL63 (HCoV-NL63), HKU1 (HCoV-HKU1); severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) CoV; and Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS) CoV – the investigators examined progress in the use and development of therapeutic drugs, focusing on the potential roles of virus inhibitors.

“Research has mainly been focused on SARS- and MERS-CoV infections, because they were responsible for severe illness when compared with other CoVs,” Dr. Pillaiyar, of the department of pharmaceutical and medicinal chemistry at the University of Bonn (Germany), and colleagues wrote.

2019-nCov has been linked genomically as most closely related to SARS, and the Coronavirus Study Group of the International Committee on Virus Taxonomy, which has the responsibility for naming viruses, has designated the new virus SARS-CoV-2.
 

Examining extant drugs

The first approach to identifying possible antiviral agents reevaluates known, broadly acting antiviral drugs that have been used for other viral infections or other indications. The initial research into coronavirus therapeutics, in particular, has examined current antiviral therapeutics for their effectiveness against both SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV, but with mixed results.

For example, in a search of potential antiviral agents against CoVs, researchers identified four drugs – chloroquine, chlorpromazine, loperamide, and lopinavir – by screening drug libraries approved by the Food and Drug Administration. They were all able to inhibit the replication of MERS-CoV, SARS-CoV, and HCoV-229E in the low-micromolar range, which suggested that they could be used for broad-spectrum antiviral activity, according to Dr. Pillaiyar and colleagues.

Other research groups have also reported the discovery of antiviral drugs using this drug-repurposing approach, which included a number of broad-spectrum inhibitors of HCoVs (lycorine, emetine, monensin sodium, mycophenolate mofetil, mycophenolic acid, phenazopyridine, and pyrvinium pamoate) that showed strong inhibition of replication by four CoVs in vitro at low-micromolar concentrations and suppressed the replication of all CoVs in a dose-dependent manner. Findings from in vivo studies showed lycorine protected mice against lethal HCoV-OC43 infection.

Along with the aforementioned drugs, a number of others have also shown potential usefulness, but, as yet, none has been validated for use in humans.
 

Developing new antivirals

The second approach for anti-CoV drug discovery involves the development of new therapeutics based on the genomic and biophysical understanding of the individual CoV in order to interfere with the virus itself or to disrupt its direct metabolic requirements. This can take several approaches.

MERS-CoV and SARS-CoV PL protease inhibitors

Of particular interest are antiviral therapies that attack papain-like protease, which is an important target because it is a multifunctional protein involved in proteolytic deubiquitination and viral evasion of the innate immune response. One such potential therapeutic that takes advantage of this target is disulfiram, an FDA-approved drug for use in alcohol-aversion therapy. Disulfiram has been reported as an allosteric inhibitor of MERS-CoV papain-like protease. Numerous other drug categories are being examined, with promising results in targeting the papain-like protease enzymes of both SARS and MERS.

Replicase inhibitors

Helicase (nsP13) protein is a crucial component required for virus replication in host cells and could serve as a feasible target for anti-MERS and anti-SARS chemical therapies, the review authors wrote, citing as an example, the recent development of a small 1,2,4-triazole derivative that inhibited the viral NTPase/helicase of SARS- and MERS-CoVs and demonstrated high antiviral activity and low cytotoxicity.

Membrane-bound viral RNA synthesis inhibitors

Antiviral agents that target membrane-bound coronaviral RNA synthesis represent a novel and attractive approach, according to Dr. Pillaiyar and colleagues. And recently, an inhibitor was developed that targets membrane-bound coronaviral RNA synthesis and “showed potent antiviral activity of MERS-CoV infection with remarkable efficacy.”

Host-based, anti-CoV treatment options

An alternate therapeutic tactic is to bolster host defenses or to modify host susceptibilities to prevent virus infection or replication. The innate interferon response of the host is crucial for the control of viral replication after infection, and the addition of exogenous recombinant interferon or use of drugs to stimulate the normal host interferon response are both potential therapeutic avenues. For example, nitazoxanide is a potent type I interferon inducer that has been used in humans for parasitic infections, and a synthetic nitrothiazolyl-salicylamide derivative was found to exhibit broad-spectrum antiviral activities against RNA and DNA viruses, including some coronaviruses.

Numerous other host pathways are being investigated as potential areas to enhance defense against infection and replication, for example, using inhibitors to block nucleic acid synthesis has been shown to provide broad-spectrum activity against SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV.

One particular example is remdesivir, a novel nucleotide analog antiviral drug, that was developed as a therapy for Ebola virus disease and Marburg virus infections. It was later shown to provide “reasonable antiviral activity against more distantly related viruses, such as respiratory syncytial virus, Junin virus, Lassa fever virus, and MERS-CoV,” the authors wrote.

Also of interest regarding remdesivir’s potential broad-spectrum use is that it has shown potent in vitro “antiviral activity against Malaysian and Bangladesh genotypes of Nipah virus (an RNA virus, although not a coronavirus, that infects both humans and animals) and reduced replication of Malaysian Nipah virus in primary human lung microvascular endothelial cells by more than four orders of magnitude,” Dr. Pillaiyar and colleagues added. Of particular note, all remdesivir-treated, Nipah virus–infected animals “survived the lethal challenge, indicating that remdesivir represents a promising antiviral treatment.”

In a press briefing earlier this month, Anthony S. Fauci, MD, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, reported that a randomized, controlled, phase 3 trial of the antiviral drug remdesivir is currently underway in China to establish whether the drug would be an effective and safe treatment for adults patients with mild or moderate 2019 Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV) disease.

“Our increasing understanding of novel emerging coronaviruses will be accompanied by increasing opportunities for the reasonable design of therapeutics. Importantly, understanding this basic information about CoV protease targets will not only aid the public health against SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV but also help in advance to target new coronaviruses that might emerge in the future,” the authors concluded.

Dr. Pillaiyar and colleagues reported that they had no financial conflicts of interest.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Pillaiyar T et al. Drug Discov Today. 2020 Jan 30. doi: 10.1016/j.drudis.2020.01.015.

SNOWMASS, COLO. – If ever there was a major chronic disease that’s teed up and ready to be stamped into submission through diligent application of preventive medicine, it’s the epidemic of heart failure.

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

“The best way to treat heart failure is to prevent it in the first place. There will be more than 1 million new cases of heart failure this year, and the vast majority of them could have been prevented,” Gregg C. Fonarow, MD, asserted at the annual Cardiovascular Conference at Snowmass sponsored by the American College of Cardiology.

Using firmly evidence-based, guideline-directed therapies, it’s often possible to prevent patients at high risk for developing heart failure (HF) from actually doing so. Or, in the terminology of the ACC/American Heart Association heart failure guidelines coauthored by Dr. Fonarow, the goal is to keep patients who are stage A – that is, pre-HF but at high risk because of hypertension, coronary artery disease, diabetes, family history of cardiomyopathy, or other reasons – from progressing to stage B, marked by asymptomatic left ventricular dysfunction, a prior MI, or asymptomatic valvular disease; and blocking those who are stage B from then moving on to stage C, the classic symptomatic form of HF; and thence to end-stage stage D disease.

Heart failure is an enormous public health problem, and one of the most expensive of all diseases. The prognostic impact of newly diagnosed HF is profound, with 10-15 years of life lost, compared with the general population. Even today, roughly one in five newly diagnosed patients won’t survive for a year, and the 5-year mortality is about 50%, said Dr. Fonarow, who is professor of cardiovascular medicine and chief of the division of cardiology at the University of California, Los Angeles, and director of the Ahmanson-UCLA Cardiomyopathy Center, also in Los Angeles.

Symptomatic stage C is “the tip of the iceberg,” the cardiologist stressed. Vastly more patients are in stages A and B. In order to keep them from progressing to stage C, it’s first necessary to identify them. That’s why the 2013 guidelines give a class IC recommendation for periodic evaluation for signs and symptoms of HF in patients who are at high risk, and for a noninvasive assessment of left ventricular ejection fraction in those with a strong family history of cardiomyopathy or who are on cardiotoxic drugs (J Am Coll Cardiol. 2013 Oct 15;62[16]:e147-239).

The two biggest risk factors for the development of symptomatic stage C HF are hypertension and atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease. Close to 80% of patients presenting with heart failure have prevalent hypertension, and a history of ischemic heart disease is nearly as common.

Other major modifiable risk factors are diabetes, overweight and obesity, metabolic syndrome, dyslipidemia, smoking, valvular heart disease, and chronic kidney disease.
 

Hypertension

Most patients with high blood pressure believe they’re on antihypertensive medication to prevent MI and stroke, but in reality the largest benefit is what Dr. Fonarow termed the “phenomenal” reduction in the risk of developing HF, which amounted to a 52% relative risk reduction in one meta-analysis of older randomized trials. In the contemporary era, the landmark SPRINT trial of close to 10,000 randomized hypertensive patients showed that more-intensive blood pressure lowering to a target systolic BP of less than 120 mm Hg resulted in a 38% reduction in the risk of new-onset HF, compared with standard treatment to a target of less than 140 mm Hg. That’s why the 2017 focused update of the HF guidelines gives a strong class IB recommendation for a target blood pressure of less than 130/80 mm Hg in hypertensive patients with stage A HF (J Am Coll Cardiol. 2017 Aug 8;70[6]:776-803).

Atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease

Within 6 years after diagnosis of an MI, 22% of men and 46% of women will develop symptomatic heart failure. Intensive statin therapy gets a strong recommendation post MI in the guidelines, not only because in a meta-analysis of four major randomized trials it resulted in a further 64% reduction in the risk of coronary death or recurrent MI, compared with moderate statin therapy, but also because of the 27% relative risk reduction in new-onset HF. ACE inhibitors get a class IA recommendation for prevention of symptomatic HF in patients who are stage A with a history of atherosclerotic disease, diabetes, or hypertension. Angiotensin receptor blockers get a class IC recommendation.

Diabetes

Diabetes markedly increases the risk of developing HF: by two to four times overall and by four to eight times in younger diabetes patients. The two chronic diseases are highly comorbid, with roughly 45% of patients with HF also having diabetes. Moreover, diabetes in HF patients is associated with a substantially worse prognosis, even when standard HF therapies are applied.

Choices regarding glycemic management can markedly affect HF risk and outcomes. Randomized trials show that the peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor agonists double the risk of HF. The glucagonlike peptide–1 receptor agonists are absolutely neutral with regard to HF outcomes. Similarly, the dipeptidyl peptidase–4 inhibitors have no impact on the risks of major adverse cardiovascular events or HF. Intensive glycemic control has no impact on the risk of new-onset HF. Insulin therapy, too, is neutral on this score.

“Depressingly, even lifestyle modification with weight loss, once you have type 2 diabetes, does not lower the risk,” Dr. Fonarow continued.

In contrast, the sodium-glucose transporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors have impressive cardiovascular and renal protective benefits in patients with type 2 diabetes, as demonstrated in a meta-analysis of more than 34,000 participants in the randomized trials of empagliflozin (Jardiance) in EMPA-REG OUTCOME, canagliflozin (Invokana) in CANVAS/CANVAS-R, and dapagliflozin (Farxiga) in DECLARE-TIMI 58. The SGLT2 inhibitors collectively reduced the risk of HF hospitalization by 21% in participants with no baseline history of the disease and by 29% in those with a history of HF. Moreover, the risk of progression of renal disease was reduced by 45% (Lancet. 2019 Jan 5;393[10166]:31-9).

More recently, the landmark DAPA-HF trial established SGLT2 inhibitor therapy as part of standard-of-care, guideline-directed medical therapy for patients with HF with reduced ejection fraction regardless of whether they have comorbid type 2 diabetes (N Engl J Med. 2019 Nov 21;381[21]:1995-2008).

These are remarkable medications, generally very well tolerated, and it’s critical that cardiologists get on board in prescribing them, Dr. Fonarow emphasized. He alerted his colleagues to what he called an “incredibly helpful” review article that provides practical guidance for cardiologists in how to start using the SGLT2 inhibitors (JACC Heart Fail. 2019 Feb;7[2]:169-72).

“It’s pretty straightforward,” according to Dr. Fonarow. “If you’re comfortable enough in using ACE inhibitors, angiotensin receptor blockers, and beta-blockers, I think you’ll find these medications fit similarly when you actually get experience in utilizing them.”

He reported serving as a consultant to 10 pharmaceutical or medical device companies.

[email protected]

SNOWMASS, COLO. – If ever there was a major chronic disease that’s teed up and ready to be stamped into submission through diligent application of preventive medicine, it’s the epidemic of heart failure.

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

“The best way to treat heart failure is to prevent it in the first place. There will be more than 1 million new cases of heart failure this year, and the vast majority of them could have been prevented,” Gregg C. Fonarow, MD, asserted at the annual Cardiovascular Conference at Snowmass sponsored by the American College of Cardiology.

Using firmly evidence-based, guideline-directed therapies, it’s often possible to prevent patients at high risk for developing heart failure (HF) from actually doing so. Or, in the terminology of the ACC/American Heart Association heart failure guidelines coauthored by Dr. Fonarow, the goal is to keep patients who are stage A – that is, pre-HF but at high risk because of hypertension, coronary artery disease, diabetes, family history of cardiomyopathy, or other reasons – from progressing to stage B, marked by asymptomatic left ventricular dysfunction, a prior MI, or asymptomatic valvular disease; and blocking those who are stage B from then moving on to stage C, the classic symptomatic form of HF; and thence to end-stage stage D disease.

Heart failure is an enormous public health problem, and one of the most expensive of all diseases. The prognostic impact of newly diagnosed HF is profound, with 10-15 years of life lost, compared with the general population. Even today, roughly one in five newly diagnosed patients won’t survive for a year, and the 5-year mortality is about 50%, said Dr. Fonarow, who is professor of cardiovascular medicine and chief of the division of cardiology at the University of California, Los Angeles, and director of the Ahmanson-UCLA Cardiomyopathy Center, also in Los Angeles.

Symptomatic stage C is “the tip of the iceberg,” the cardiologist stressed. Vastly more patients are in stages A and B. In order to keep them from progressing to stage C, it’s first necessary to identify them. That’s why the 2013 guidelines give a class IC recommendation for periodic evaluation for signs and symptoms of HF in patients who are at high risk, and for a noninvasive assessment of left ventricular ejection fraction in those with a strong family history of cardiomyopathy or who are on cardiotoxic drugs (J Am Coll Cardiol. 2013 Oct 15;62[16]:e147-239).

The two biggest risk factors for the development of symptomatic stage C HF are hypertension and atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease. Close to 80% of patients presenting with heart failure have prevalent hypertension, and a history of ischemic heart disease is nearly as common.

Other major modifiable risk factors are diabetes, overweight and obesity, metabolic syndrome, dyslipidemia, smoking, valvular heart disease, and chronic kidney disease.
 

Hypertension

Most patients with high blood pressure believe they’re on antihypertensive medication to prevent MI and stroke, but in reality the largest benefit is what Dr. Fonarow termed the “phenomenal” reduction in the risk of developing HF, which amounted to a 52% relative risk reduction in one meta-analysis of older randomized trials. In the contemporary era, the landmark SPRINT trial of close to 10,000 randomized hypertensive patients showed that more-intensive blood pressure lowering to a target systolic BP of less than 120 mm Hg resulted in a 38% reduction in the risk of new-onset HF, compared with standard treatment to a target of less than 140 mm Hg. That’s why the 2017 focused update of the HF guidelines gives a strong class IB recommendation for a target blood pressure of less than 130/80 mm Hg in hypertensive patients with stage A HF (J Am Coll Cardiol. 2017 Aug 8;70[6]:776-803).

Atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease

Within 6 years after diagnosis of an MI, 22% of men and 46% of women will develop symptomatic heart failure. Intensive statin therapy gets a strong recommendation post MI in the guidelines, not only because in a meta-analysis of four major randomized trials it resulted in a further 64% reduction in the risk of coronary death or recurrent MI, compared with moderate statin therapy, but also because of the 27% relative risk reduction in new-onset HF. ACE inhibitors get a class IA recommendation for prevention of symptomatic HF in patients who are stage A with a history of atherosclerotic disease, diabetes, or hypertension. Angiotensin receptor blockers get a class IC recommendation.

Diabetes

Diabetes markedly increases the risk of developing HF: by two to four times overall and by four to eight times in younger diabetes patients. The two chronic diseases are highly comorbid, with roughly 45% of patients with HF also having diabetes. Moreover, diabetes in HF patients is associated with a substantially worse prognosis, even when standard HF therapies are applied.

Choices regarding glycemic management can markedly affect HF risk and outcomes. Randomized trials show that the peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor agonists double the risk of HF. The glucagonlike peptide–1 receptor agonists are absolutely neutral with regard to HF outcomes. Similarly, the dipeptidyl peptidase–4 inhibitors have no impact on the risks of major adverse cardiovascular events or HF. Intensive glycemic control has no impact on the risk of new-onset HF. Insulin therapy, too, is neutral on this score.

“Depressingly, even lifestyle modification with weight loss, once you have type 2 diabetes, does not lower the risk,” Dr. Fonarow continued.

In contrast, the sodium-glucose transporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors have impressive cardiovascular and renal protective benefits in patients with type 2 diabetes, as demonstrated in a meta-analysis of more than 34,000 participants in the randomized trials of empagliflozin (Jardiance) in EMPA-REG OUTCOME, canagliflozin (Invokana) in CANVAS/CANVAS-R, and dapagliflozin (Farxiga) in DECLARE-TIMI 58. The SGLT2 inhibitors collectively reduced the risk of HF hospitalization by 21% in participants with no baseline history of the disease and by 29% in those with a history of HF. Moreover, the risk of progression of renal disease was reduced by 45% (Lancet. 2019 Jan 5;393[10166]:31-9).

More recently, the landmark DAPA-HF trial established SGLT2 inhibitor therapy as part of standard-of-care, guideline-directed medical therapy for patients with HF with reduced ejection fraction regardless of whether they have comorbid type 2 diabetes (N Engl J Med. 2019 Nov 21;381[21]:1995-2008).

These are remarkable medications, generally very well tolerated, and it’s critical that cardiologists get on board in prescribing them, Dr. Fonarow emphasized. He alerted his colleagues to what he called an “incredibly helpful” review article that provides practical guidance for cardiologists in how to start using the SGLT2 inhibitors (JACC Heart Fail. 2019 Feb;7[2]:169-72).

“It’s pretty straightforward,” according to Dr. Fonarow. “If you’re comfortable enough in using ACE inhibitors, angiotensin receptor blockers, and beta-blockers, I think you’ll find these medications fit similarly when you actually get experience in utilizing them.”

He reported serving as a consultant to 10 pharmaceutical or medical device companies.

[email protected]

SNOWMASS, COLO. – If ever there was a major chronic disease that’s teed up and ready to be stamped into submission through diligent application of preventive medicine, it’s the epidemic of heart failure.

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

“The best way to treat heart failure is to prevent it in the first place. There will be more than 1 million new cases of heart failure this year, and the vast majority of them could have been prevented,” Gregg C. Fonarow, MD, asserted at the annual Cardiovascular Conference at Snowmass sponsored by the American College of Cardiology.

Using firmly evidence-based, guideline-directed therapies, it’s often possible to prevent patients at high risk for developing heart failure (HF) from actually doing so. Or, in the terminology of the ACC/American Heart Association heart failure guidelines coauthored by Dr. Fonarow, the goal is to keep patients who are stage A – that is, pre-HF but at high risk because of hypertension, coronary artery disease, diabetes, family history of cardiomyopathy, or other reasons – from progressing to stage B, marked by asymptomatic left ventricular dysfunction, a prior MI, or asymptomatic valvular disease; and blocking those who are stage B from then moving on to stage C, the classic symptomatic form of HF; and thence to end-stage stage D disease.

Heart failure is an enormous public health problem, and one of the most expensive of all diseases. The prognostic impact of newly diagnosed HF is profound, with 10-15 years of life lost, compared with the general population. Even today, roughly one in five newly diagnosed patients won’t survive for a year, and the 5-year mortality is about 50%, said Dr. Fonarow, who is professor of cardiovascular medicine and chief of the division of cardiology at the University of California, Los Angeles, and director of the Ahmanson-UCLA Cardiomyopathy Center, also in Los Angeles.

Symptomatic stage C is “the tip of the iceberg,” the cardiologist stressed. Vastly more patients are in stages A and B. In order to keep them from progressing to stage C, it’s first necessary to identify them. That’s why the 2013 guidelines give a class IC recommendation for periodic evaluation for signs and symptoms of HF in patients who are at high risk, and for a noninvasive assessment of left ventricular ejection fraction in those with a strong family history of cardiomyopathy or who are on cardiotoxic drugs (J Am Coll Cardiol. 2013 Oct 15;62[16]:e147-239).

The two biggest risk factors for the development of symptomatic stage C HF are hypertension and atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease. Close to 80% of patients presenting with heart failure have prevalent hypertension, and a history of ischemic heart disease is nearly as common.

Other major modifiable risk factors are diabetes, overweight and obesity, metabolic syndrome, dyslipidemia, smoking, valvular heart disease, and chronic kidney disease.
 

Hypertension

Most patients with high blood pressure believe they’re on antihypertensive medication to prevent MI and stroke, but in reality the largest benefit is what Dr. Fonarow termed the “phenomenal” reduction in the risk of developing HF, which amounted to a 52% relative risk reduction in one meta-analysis of older randomized trials. In the contemporary era, the landmark SPRINT trial of close to 10,000 randomized hypertensive patients showed that more-intensive blood pressure lowering to a target systolic BP of less than 120 mm Hg resulted in a 38% reduction in the risk of new-onset HF, compared with standard treatment to a target of less than 140 mm Hg. That’s why the 2017 focused update of the HF guidelines gives a strong class IB recommendation for a target blood pressure of less than 130/80 mm Hg in hypertensive patients with stage A HF (J Am Coll Cardiol. 2017 Aug 8;70[6]:776-803).

Atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease

Within 6 years after diagnosis of an MI, 22% of men and 46% of women will develop symptomatic heart failure. Intensive statin therapy gets a strong recommendation post MI in the guidelines, not only because in a meta-analysis of four major randomized trials it resulted in a further 64% reduction in the risk of coronary death or recurrent MI, compared with moderate statin therapy, but also because of the 27% relative risk reduction in new-onset HF. ACE inhibitors get a class IA recommendation for prevention of symptomatic HF in patients who are stage A with a history of atherosclerotic disease, diabetes, or hypertension. Angiotensin receptor blockers get a class IC recommendation.

Diabetes

Diabetes markedly increases the risk of developing HF: by two to four times overall and by four to eight times in younger diabetes patients. The two chronic diseases are highly comorbid, with roughly 45% of patients with HF also having diabetes. Moreover, diabetes in HF patients is associated with a substantially worse prognosis, even when standard HF therapies are applied.

Choices regarding glycemic management can markedly affect HF risk and outcomes. Randomized trials show that the peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor agonists double the risk of HF. The glucagonlike peptide–1 receptor agonists are absolutely neutral with regard to HF outcomes. Similarly, the dipeptidyl peptidase–4 inhibitors have no impact on the risks of major adverse cardiovascular events or HF. Intensive glycemic control has no impact on the risk of new-onset HF. Insulin therapy, too, is neutral on this score.

“Depressingly, even lifestyle modification with weight loss, once you have type 2 diabetes, does not lower the risk,” Dr. Fonarow continued.

In contrast, the sodium-glucose transporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors have impressive cardiovascular and renal protective benefits in patients with type 2 diabetes, as demonstrated in a meta-analysis of more than 34,000 participants in the randomized trials of empagliflozin (Jardiance) in EMPA-REG OUTCOME, canagliflozin (Invokana) in CANVAS/CANVAS-R, and dapagliflozin (Farxiga) in DECLARE-TIMI 58. The SGLT2 inhibitors collectively reduced the risk of HF hospitalization by 21% in participants with no baseline history of the disease and by 29% in those with a history of HF. Moreover, the risk of progression of renal disease was reduced by 45% (Lancet. 2019 Jan 5;393[10166]:31-9).

More recently, the landmark DAPA-HF trial established SGLT2 inhibitor therapy as part of standard-of-care, guideline-directed medical therapy for patients with HF with reduced ejection fraction regardless of whether they have comorbid type 2 diabetes (N Engl J Med. 2019 Nov 21;381[21]:1995-2008).

These are remarkable medications, generally very well tolerated, and it’s critical that cardiologists get on board in prescribing them, Dr. Fonarow emphasized. He alerted his colleagues to what he called an “incredibly helpful” review article that provides practical guidance for cardiologists in how to start using the SGLT2 inhibitors (JACC Heart Fail. 2019 Feb;7[2]:169-72).

“It’s pretty straightforward,” according to Dr. Fonarow. “If you’re comfortable enough in using ACE inhibitors, angiotensin receptor blockers, and beta-blockers, I think you’ll find these medications fit similarly when you actually get experience in utilizing them.”

He reported serving as a consultant to 10 pharmaceutical or medical device companies.

[email protected]

The Trump administration on Feb. 10 argued for cutting spending for a federal agency at the forefront of the efforts to combat the coronavirus, while also seeking to slow spending in certain parts of the Medicare and Medicaid programs.

President Donald Trump presented his fiscal 2021 request to Congress for refilling the coffers of federal agencies. In any administration, an annual budget serves only as a political blueprint, as the White House document itself makes no changes in federal spending.

In Mr. Trump’s case, several of his requests for agencies within the Department of Health & Human Services run counter to recent budget trends. Republicans and Democrats in Congress have worked together in recent years to increase budgets for major federal health agencies.

But Mr. Trump asked Congress to cut annual budget authority for the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases by $430 million to $5.446 billion for fiscal 2021. In contrast, Congress has raised the annual budget for NIAID, a key agency in combating the coronavirus, from $5.545 billion in fiscal 2019 to $5.876 billion in fiscal 2020, which began in October, according to an HHS summary of Mr. Trump’s request.

For the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, which is central to the battle against the coronavirus, Mr. Trump proposed a drop in discretionary funding to $5.627 billion. In contrast, Congress raised the CDC budget from $6.544 billion in fiscal 2019 to $6.917 in fiscal 2020.

Mr. Trump also wants to cut $559 million from the budget of the National Cancer Institute, dropping it to $5.881 billion in fiscal 2021. In contrast, Congress raised NCI’s budget from $6.121 billion in fiscal 2019 to $6.440 billion in fiscal 2020.

Mr. Trump requested a $2.6 billion reduction in the National Institutes of Health’s total discretionary budget, seeking to drop it to $37.70 billion. In contrast, Congress raised NIH’s budget from $37.887 in fiscal 2019 to $40.304 billion in fiscal 2020.

Mr. Trump’s budget proposal also includes an estimate of $152 billion in savings over a decade for Medicaid through the implementation of what the administration calls “community engagement” requirements.

The Trump administration has been at odds with Democrats for years about whether work requirements should be attached to Medicaid. “Well-designed community engagement incentives have great potential to improve health and well-being while empowering beneficiaries to rise out of poverty,” HHS said in a budget document.

Yet researchers last year reported that Arkansas’ attempt to attach work requirements to Medicaid caused almost 17,000 adults to lose this health care coverage within the first 6 months, and there was no significant difference in employment.

The researchers say this loss of coverage was partly a result of bureaucratic obstacles and confusion about the new rules. In June 2018, Arkansas became the first state to implement work requirements for Medicaid, Benjamin D. Sommers, MD, PhD, of the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, and colleagues wrote in the New England Journal of Medicine (2019 Sep 12;381[11]:1073-82). 

Budget ‘would thwart’ progress

A few medical groups on Monday quickly criticized Mr. Trump’s proposals.

“In a time where our nation continues to face significant public health challenges — including 2019 novel coronavirus, climate change, gun violence, and costly chronic diseases such as heart disease and cancer – the administration should be investing more resources in better health, not cutting federal health budgets,” said Georges C. Benjamin, MD, executive director of the American Public Health Association, in a statement.

David J. Skorton, MD, chief executive and president of the Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC) also urged increased investment in fighting disease.

“We must continue the bipartisan budget trajectory set forth by Congress over the last several years, not reverse course,” Dr. Skorton said in a statement.

Mr. Trump’s proposed cuts in medical research “would thwart scientific progress on strategies to prevent, diagnose, treat, and cure medical conditions that affect countless patients nationwide,” he said.

In total, the new 2021 appropriations for HHS would fall by $9.46 billion to $85.667 billion under Mr. Trump’s proposal. Appropriations, also called discretionary budget authority, represents the operating budgets for federal agencies. These are decided through annual spending bills.

Congress has separate sets of laws for handling payments the federal government makes through Medicare and Medicaid. These are known as mandatory spending.

‘Untenable cuts’

AAMC’s Dr. Skorton also objected to what he termed Mr. Trump’s bid “to reduce and consolidate Medicare, Medicaid, and children’s hospital graduate medical education into a single grant program.”

This would force teaching hospitals to absorb $52 billion in “untenable cuts,” he said.

“The proposal ignores the intent of the Medicare GME program, which is to ensure an adequate physician workforce to care for Medicare beneficiaries and support the critical patient care missions of America’s teaching hospitals,” Dr. Skorton said.

The budget also seeks cuts to Medicaid, which come in addition to the administration’s “recent proposals to scale back Medicaid coverage,” Dr. Skorton said.

“More than 26% of all Medicaid hospitalizations occur at AAMC-member teaching hospitals, even though these institutions represent only 5% of all hospitals,” Dr. Skorton said. “Each of the administration’s proposals on their own would be devastating for patients – and combined, they would be disastrous.”

Rick Pollack, the chief executive and president of the American Hospital Association, described Mr. Trump’s fiscal 2021 proposal as another bid to undermine medical care in the United States.

“Every year, we adapt to a constantly changing environment, but every year, the administration aims to gut our nation’s health care infrastructure,” Mr. Pollack said in a statement.

In it, he noted that about one in five people in America depend on Medicaid, with children accounting for a large proportion of those covered by the state-federal program.

“The budget’s proposal on Medicaid financing and service delivery would cut hundreds of billions of dollars from the Medicaid program annually,” Mr. Pollack said.

He also objected to “hundreds of billions of proposed reductions to Medicare” endorsed by Mr. Trump.

Medical malpractice overhaul

The Trump administration also offered many suggestions for changing federal laws to reduce health care spending. Among these was a proposed overhaul of the approach to medical malpractice cases.

The president’s budget proposal estimates $40 billion in savings over a decade from steps to limit medical liability, according to a report from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).

“The current medical liability system does not work for patients or providers, nor does it promote high-quality, evidence-based care,” OMB said. “Providers practice with a threat of potentially frivolous lawsuits, and injured patients often do not receive just compensation for their injuries.”

Mr. Trump’s fiscal 2021 budget calls for a cap on noneconomic damage awards of $250,000, which would increase with inflation over time, and a 3-year statute of limitations. Under this plan, courts could also modify attorney’s fee arrangements. HHS could provide guidance to states on how to create expert panels and administrative health care tribunals to review medical liability.

These steps would lead to lower health care spending, with clinicians dropping “defensive medicine practices,” OMB said. That would benefit the Medicare and Medicaid programs as well as lowering costs of health insurance in general.

Mr. Trump’s fiscal 2021 budget also includes a series of proposals for Medicare that it estimates would, in aggregate, save $755.5 billion over a decade.

Site-neutral policy

A large chunk of the estimated Medicare savings in Mr. Trump’s fiscal 2021 health budget would come from lowering payments to hospitals for services provided in their outpatient and physician offices.

In the fiscal 2021 proposal, HHS noted that “Medicare generally pays on-campus hospital outpatient departments substantially more than physician offices for the same services.”

Mr. Trump’s budget proposal seeks a more expansive shift to what’s called a “site-neutral” payment for services delivered in hospital outpatient programs or physician offices. This would bring these payments more in line with those made to independent physician practices.

“This proposal would eliminate the often significant disparity between what Medicare pays in these different settings for the same services,” HHS said in the budget summary.

HHS estimated this change in policy would generate $117.2 billion in savings over a decade. Combined with saving from medical malpractice reforms, the Trump administration estimates these two moves combined could save about $164 billion over a decade.

The site-neutral policy has been a legal battleground, with hospital and physician groups winning a round last year. 

Another Medicare proposal included in Mr. Trump’s fiscal 2021 budget homes in on this issue for cases where a hospital owns a physician office. Medicare now pays most off-campus hospital outpatient departments higher rates than the program’s physician fee schedule dictates for the same services.

Switching to a site-neutral policy for these hospital-owned physician offices would result in $47.2 billion in savings over a decade, HHS said in the budget document.
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The Trump administration on Feb. 10 argued for cutting spending for a federal agency at the forefront of the efforts to combat the coronavirus, while also seeking to slow spending in certain parts of the Medicare and Medicaid programs.

President Donald Trump presented his fiscal 2021 request to Congress for refilling the coffers of federal agencies. In any administration, an annual budget serves only as a political blueprint, as the White House document itself makes no changes in federal spending.

In Mr. Trump’s case, several of his requests for agencies within the Department of Health & Human Services run counter to recent budget trends. Republicans and Democrats in Congress have worked together in recent years to increase budgets for major federal health agencies.

But Mr. Trump asked Congress to cut annual budget authority for the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases by $430 million to $5.446 billion for fiscal 2021. In contrast, Congress has raised the annual budget for NIAID, a key agency in combating the coronavirus, from $5.545 billion in fiscal 2019 to $5.876 billion in fiscal 2020, which began in October, according to an HHS summary of Mr. Trump’s request.

For the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, which is central to the battle against the coronavirus, Mr. Trump proposed a drop in discretionary funding to $5.627 billion. In contrast, Congress raised the CDC budget from $6.544 billion in fiscal 2019 to $6.917 in fiscal 2020.

Mr. Trump also wants to cut $559 million from the budget of the National Cancer Institute, dropping it to $5.881 billion in fiscal 2021. In contrast, Congress raised NCI’s budget from $6.121 billion in fiscal 2019 to $6.440 billion in fiscal 2020.

Mr. Trump requested a $2.6 billion reduction in the National Institutes of Health’s total discretionary budget, seeking to drop it to $37.70 billion. In contrast, Congress raised NIH’s budget from $37.887 in fiscal 2019 to $40.304 billion in fiscal 2020.

Mr. Trump’s budget proposal also includes an estimate of $152 billion in savings over a decade for Medicaid through the implementation of what the administration calls “community engagement” requirements.

The Trump administration has been at odds with Democrats for years about whether work requirements should be attached to Medicaid. “Well-designed community engagement incentives have great potential to improve health and well-being while empowering beneficiaries to rise out of poverty,” HHS said in a budget document.

Yet researchers last year reported that Arkansas’ attempt to attach work requirements to Medicaid caused almost 17,000 adults to lose this health care coverage within the first 6 months, and there was no significant difference in employment.

The researchers say this loss of coverage was partly a result of bureaucratic obstacles and confusion about the new rules. In June 2018, Arkansas became the first state to implement work requirements for Medicaid, Benjamin D. Sommers, MD, PhD, of the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, and colleagues wrote in the New England Journal of Medicine (2019 Sep 12;381[11]:1073-82). 

Budget ‘would thwart’ progress

A few medical groups on Monday quickly criticized Mr. Trump’s proposals.

“In a time where our nation continues to face significant public health challenges — including 2019 novel coronavirus, climate change, gun violence, and costly chronic diseases such as heart disease and cancer – the administration should be investing more resources in better health, not cutting federal health budgets,” said Georges C. Benjamin, MD, executive director of the American Public Health Association, in a statement.

David J. Skorton, MD, chief executive and president of the Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC) also urged increased investment in fighting disease.

“We must continue the bipartisan budget trajectory set forth by Congress over the last several years, not reverse course,” Dr. Skorton said in a statement.

Mr. Trump’s proposed cuts in medical research “would thwart scientific progress on strategies to prevent, diagnose, treat, and cure medical conditions that affect countless patients nationwide,” he said.

In total, the new 2021 appropriations for HHS would fall by $9.46 billion to $85.667 billion under Mr. Trump’s proposal. Appropriations, also called discretionary budget authority, represents the operating budgets for federal agencies. These are decided through annual spending bills.

Congress has separate sets of laws for handling payments the federal government makes through Medicare and Medicaid. These are known as mandatory spending.

‘Untenable cuts’

AAMC’s Dr. Skorton also objected to what he termed Mr. Trump’s bid “to reduce and consolidate Medicare, Medicaid, and children’s hospital graduate medical education into a single grant program.”

This would force teaching hospitals to absorb $52 billion in “untenable cuts,” he said.

“The proposal ignores the intent of the Medicare GME program, which is to ensure an adequate physician workforce to care for Medicare beneficiaries and support the critical patient care missions of America’s teaching hospitals,” Dr. Skorton said.

The budget also seeks cuts to Medicaid, which come in addition to the administration’s “recent proposals to scale back Medicaid coverage,” Dr. Skorton said.

“More than 26% of all Medicaid hospitalizations occur at AAMC-member teaching hospitals, even though these institutions represent only 5% of all hospitals,” Dr. Skorton said. “Each of the administration’s proposals on their own would be devastating for patients – and combined, they would be disastrous.”

Rick Pollack, the chief executive and president of the American Hospital Association, described Mr. Trump’s fiscal 2021 proposal as another bid to undermine medical care in the United States.

“Every year, we adapt to a constantly changing environment, but every year, the administration aims to gut our nation’s health care infrastructure,” Mr. Pollack said in a statement.

In it, he noted that about one in five people in America depend on Medicaid, with children accounting for a large proportion of those covered by the state-federal program.

“The budget’s proposal on Medicaid financing and service delivery would cut hundreds of billions of dollars from the Medicaid program annually,” Mr. Pollack said.

He also objected to “hundreds of billions of proposed reductions to Medicare” endorsed by Mr. Trump.

Medical malpractice overhaul

The Trump administration also offered many suggestions for changing federal laws to reduce health care spending. Among these was a proposed overhaul of the approach to medical malpractice cases.

The president’s budget proposal estimates $40 billion in savings over a decade from steps to limit medical liability, according to a report from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).

“The current medical liability system does not work for patients or providers, nor does it promote high-quality, evidence-based care,” OMB said. “Providers practice with a threat of potentially frivolous lawsuits, and injured patients often do not receive just compensation for their injuries.”

Mr. Trump’s fiscal 2021 budget calls for a cap on noneconomic damage awards of $250,000, which would increase with inflation over time, and a 3-year statute of limitations. Under this plan, courts could also modify attorney’s fee arrangements. HHS could provide guidance to states on how to create expert panels and administrative health care tribunals to review medical liability.

These steps would lead to lower health care spending, with clinicians dropping “defensive medicine practices,” OMB said. That would benefit the Medicare and Medicaid programs as well as lowering costs of health insurance in general.

Mr. Trump’s fiscal 2021 budget also includes a series of proposals for Medicare that it estimates would, in aggregate, save $755.5 billion over a decade.

Site-neutral policy

A large chunk of the estimated Medicare savings in Mr. Trump’s fiscal 2021 health budget would come from lowering payments to hospitals for services provided in their outpatient and physician offices.

In the fiscal 2021 proposal, HHS noted that “Medicare generally pays on-campus hospital outpatient departments substantially more than physician offices for the same services.”

Mr. Trump’s budget proposal seeks a more expansive shift to what’s called a “site-neutral” payment for services delivered in hospital outpatient programs or physician offices. This would bring these payments more in line with those made to independent physician practices.

“This proposal would eliminate the often significant disparity between what Medicare pays in these different settings for the same services,” HHS said in the budget summary.

HHS estimated this change in policy would generate $117.2 billion in savings over a decade. Combined with saving from medical malpractice reforms, the Trump administration estimates these two moves combined could save about $164 billion over a decade.

The site-neutral policy has been a legal battleground, with hospital and physician groups winning a round last year. 

Another Medicare proposal included in Mr. Trump’s fiscal 2021 budget homes in on this issue for cases where a hospital owns a physician office. Medicare now pays most off-campus hospital outpatient departments higher rates than the program’s physician fee schedule dictates for the same services.

Switching to a site-neutral policy for these hospital-owned physician offices would result in $47.2 billion in savings over a decade, HHS said in the budget document.
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The Trump administration on Feb. 10 argued for cutting spending for a federal agency at the forefront of the efforts to combat the coronavirus, while also seeking to slow spending in certain parts of the Medicare and Medicaid programs.

President Donald Trump presented his fiscal 2021 request to Congress for refilling the coffers of federal agencies. In any administration, an annual budget serves only as a political blueprint, as the White House document itself makes no changes in federal spending.

In Mr. Trump’s case, several of his requests for agencies within the Department of Health & Human Services run counter to recent budget trends. Republicans and Democrats in Congress have worked together in recent years to increase budgets for major federal health agencies.

But Mr. Trump asked Congress to cut annual budget authority for the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases by $430 million to $5.446 billion for fiscal 2021. In contrast, Congress has raised the annual budget for NIAID, a key agency in combating the coronavirus, from $5.545 billion in fiscal 2019 to $5.876 billion in fiscal 2020, which began in October, according to an HHS summary of Mr. Trump’s request.

For the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, which is central to the battle against the coronavirus, Mr. Trump proposed a drop in discretionary funding to $5.627 billion. In contrast, Congress raised the CDC budget from $6.544 billion in fiscal 2019 to $6.917 in fiscal 2020.

Mr. Trump also wants to cut $559 million from the budget of the National Cancer Institute, dropping it to $5.881 billion in fiscal 2021. In contrast, Congress raised NCI’s budget from $6.121 billion in fiscal 2019 to $6.440 billion in fiscal 2020.

Mr. Trump requested a $2.6 billion reduction in the National Institutes of Health’s total discretionary budget, seeking to drop it to $37.70 billion. In contrast, Congress raised NIH’s budget from $37.887 in fiscal 2019 to $40.304 billion in fiscal 2020.

Mr. Trump’s budget proposal also includes an estimate of $152 billion in savings over a decade for Medicaid through the implementation of what the administration calls “community engagement” requirements.

The Trump administration has been at odds with Democrats for years about whether work requirements should be attached to Medicaid. “Well-designed community engagement incentives have great potential to improve health and well-being while empowering beneficiaries to rise out of poverty,” HHS said in a budget document.

Yet researchers last year reported that Arkansas’ attempt to attach work requirements to Medicaid caused almost 17,000 adults to lose this health care coverage within the first 6 months, and there was no significant difference in employment.

The researchers say this loss of coverage was partly a result of bureaucratic obstacles and confusion about the new rules. In June 2018, Arkansas became the first state to implement work requirements for Medicaid, Benjamin D. Sommers, MD, PhD, of the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, and colleagues wrote in the New England Journal of Medicine (2019 Sep 12;381[11]:1073-82). 

Budget ‘would thwart’ progress

A few medical groups on Monday quickly criticized Mr. Trump’s proposals.

“In a time where our nation continues to face significant public health challenges — including 2019 novel coronavirus, climate change, gun violence, and costly chronic diseases such as heart disease and cancer – the administration should be investing more resources in better health, not cutting federal health budgets,” said Georges C. Benjamin, MD, executive director of the American Public Health Association, in a statement.

David J. Skorton, MD, chief executive and president of the Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC) also urged increased investment in fighting disease.

“We must continue the bipartisan budget trajectory set forth by Congress over the last several years, not reverse course,” Dr. Skorton said in a statement.

Mr. Trump’s proposed cuts in medical research “would thwart scientific progress on strategies to prevent, diagnose, treat, and cure medical conditions that affect countless patients nationwide,” he said.

In total, the new 2021 appropriations for HHS would fall by $9.46 billion to $85.667 billion under Mr. Trump’s proposal. Appropriations, also called discretionary budget authority, represents the operating budgets for federal agencies. These are decided through annual spending bills.

Congress has separate sets of laws for handling payments the federal government makes through Medicare and Medicaid. These are known as mandatory spending.

‘Untenable cuts’

AAMC’s Dr. Skorton also objected to what he termed Mr. Trump’s bid “to reduce and consolidate Medicare, Medicaid, and children’s hospital graduate medical education into a single grant program.”

This would force teaching hospitals to absorb $52 billion in “untenable cuts,” he said.

“The proposal ignores the intent of the Medicare GME program, which is to ensure an adequate physician workforce to care for Medicare beneficiaries and support the critical patient care missions of America’s teaching hospitals,” Dr. Skorton said.

The budget also seeks cuts to Medicaid, which come in addition to the administration’s “recent proposals to scale back Medicaid coverage,” Dr. Skorton said.

“More than 26% of all Medicaid hospitalizations occur at AAMC-member teaching hospitals, even though these institutions represent only 5% of all hospitals,” Dr. Skorton said. “Each of the administration’s proposals on their own would be devastating for patients – and combined, they would be disastrous.”

Rick Pollack, the chief executive and president of the American Hospital Association, described Mr. Trump’s fiscal 2021 proposal as another bid to undermine medical care in the United States.

“Every year, we adapt to a constantly changing environment, but every year, the administration aims to gut our nation’s health care infrastructure,” Mr. Pollack said in a statement.

In it, he noted that about one in five people in America depend on Medicaid, with children accounting for a large proportion of those covered by the state-federal program.

“The budget’s proposal on Medicaid financing and service delivery would cut hundreds of billions of dollars from the Medicaid program annually,” Mr. Pollack said.

He also objected to “hundreds of billions of proposed reductions to Medicare” endorsed by Mr. Trump.

Medical malpractice overhaul

The Trump administration also offered many suggestions for changing federal laws to reduce health care spending. Among these was a proposed overhaul of the approach to medical malpractice cases.

The president’s budget proposal estimates $40 billion in savings over a decade from steps to limit medical liability, according to a report from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).

“The current medical liability system does not work for patients or providers, nor does it promote high-quality, evidence-based care,” OMB said. “Providers practice with a threat of potentially frivolous lawsuits, and injured patients often do not receive just compensation for their injuries.”

Mr. Trump’s fiscal 2021 budget calls for a cap on noneconomic damage awards of $250,000, which would increase with inflation over time, and a 3-year statute of limitations. Under this plan, courts could also modify attorney’s fee arrangements. HHS could provide guidance to states on how to create expert panels and administrative health care tribunals to review medical liability.

These steps would lead to lower health care spending, with clinicians dropping “defensive medicine practices,” OMB said. That would benefit the Medicare and Medicaid programs as well as lowering costs of health insurance in general.

Mr. Trump’s fiscal 2021 budget also includes a series of proposals for Medicare that it estimates would, in aggregate, save $755.5 billion over a decade.

Site-neutral policy

A large chunk of the estimated Medicare savings in Mr. Trump’s fiscal 2021 health budget would come from lowering payments to hospitals for services provided in their outpatient and physician offices.

In the fiscal 2021 proposal, HHS noted that “Medicare generally pays on-campus hospital outpatient departments substantially more than physician offices for the same services.”

Mr. Trump’s budget proposal seeks a more expansive shift to what’s called a “site-neutral” payment for services delivered in hospital outpatient programs or physician offices. This would bring these payments more in line with those made to independent physician practices.

“This proposal would eliminate the often significant disparity between what Medicare pays in these different settings for the same services,” HHS said in the budget summary.

HHS estimated this change in policy would generate $117.2 billion in savings over a decade. Combined with saving from medical malpractice reforms, the Trump administration estimates these two moves combined could save about $164 billion over a decade.

The site-neutral policy has been a legal battleground, with hospital and physician groups winning a round last year. 

Another Medicare proposal included in Mr. Trump’s fiscal 2021 budget homes in on this issue for cases where a hospital owns a physician office. Medicare now pays most off-campus hospital outpatient departments higher rates than the program’s physician fee schedule dictates for the same services.

Switching to a site-neutral policy for these hospital-owned physician offices would result in $47.2 billion in savings over a decade, HHS said in the budget document.
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Clinical trials supporting Food and Drug Adminstration approval of contemporary cancer therapies frequently failed to capture major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) and, when they did, reported rates 2.6-fold lower than noncancer trials, new research shows.

Overall, 51.3% of trials did not report MACE, with that number reaching 57.6% in trials enrolling patients with baseline cardiovascular disease (CVD).

Nearly 40% of trials did not report any CVD events in follow-up, the authors reported online Feb. 10, 2020, in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology (2020;75:620-8).

“Even in drug classes where there were established or emerging associations with cardiotoxic events, often there were no reported heart events or cardiovascular events across years of follow-up in trials that examined hundreds or even thousands of patients. That was actually pretty surprising,” senior author Daniel Addison, MD, codirector of the cardio-oncology program at the Ohio State University Medical Center, Columbus, said in an interview.

The study was prompted by a series of events that crescendoed when his team was called to the ICU to determine whether a novel targeted agent played a role in the heart decline of a patient with acute myeloid leukemia. “I had a resident ask me a very important question: ‘How do we really know for sure that the trial actually reflects the true risk of heart events?’ to which I told him, ‘it’s difficult to know,’ ” he said.

“I think many of us rely heavily on what we see in the trials, particularly when they make it to the top journals, and quite frankly, we generally take it at face value,” Dr. Addison observed.
 

Lower Rate of Reported Events

The investigators reviewed CV events reported in 97,365 patients (median age, 61 years; 46% female) enrolled in 189 phase 2 and 3 trials supporting FDA approval of 123 anticancer drugs from 1998 to 2018. Biologic, targeted, or immune-based therapies accounted for 72.5% of drug approvals.

Over 148,138 person-years of follow-up (median trial duration, 30 months), there were 1,148 incidents of MACE (375 heart failure, 253 MIs, 180 strokes, 65 atrial fibrillation, 29 coronary revascularizations, and 246 CVD deaths). MACE rates were higher in the intervention group than in the control group (792 vs. 356; P less than .01). Among the 64 trials that excluded patients with baseline CVD, there were 269 incidents of MACE.

To put this finding in context, the researchers examined the reported incidence of MACE among some 6,000 similarly aged participants in the Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis (MESA). The overall weighted-average incidence rate was 1,408 per 100,000 person-years among MESA participants, compared with 542 events per 100,000 person-years among oncology trial participants (716 per 100,000 in the intervention arm). This represents a reported-to-expected ratio of 0.38 – a 2.6-fold lower rate of reported events (P less than .001) – and a risk difference of 866.

Further, MACE reporting was lower by a factor of 1.7 among all cancer trial participants irrespective of baseline CVD status (reported-to-expected ratio, 0.56; risk difference, 613; P less than .001).

There was no significant difference in MACE reporting between independent or industry-sponsored trials, the authors report.
 

No malicious intent

“There are likely some that might lean toward not wanting to attribute blame to a new drug when the drug is in a study, but I really think that the leading factor is lack of awareness,” Dr. Addison said. “I’ve talked with several cancer collaborators around the country who run large clinical trials, and I think often, when an event may be brought to someone’s attention, there is a tendency to just write it off as kind of a generic expected event due to age, or just something that’s not really pertinent to the study. So they don’t really focus on it as much.”

“Closer collaboration between cardiologists and cancer physicians is needed to better determine true cardiac risks among patients treated with these drugs.”

Breast cancer oncologist Marc E. Lippman, MD, of Georgetown University Medical Center and Georgetown Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center, Washington, D.C., isn’t convinced a lack of awareness is the culprit.

“I don’t agree with that at all,” he said in an interview. “I think there are very, very clear rules and guidelines these days for adverse-event reporting. I think that’s not a very likely explanation – that it’s not on the radar.”

Part of the problem may be that some of the toxicities, particularly cardiovascular, may not emerge for years, he said. Participant screening for the trials also likely removed patients with high cardiovascular risk. “It’s very understandable to me – I’m not saying it’s good particularly – but I think it’s very understandable that, if you’re trying to develop a drug, the last thing you’d want to have is a lot of toxicity that you might have avoided by just being restrictive in who you let into the study,” Dr. Lippman said.

The underreported CVD events may also reflect the rapidly changing profile of cardiovascular toxicities associated with novel anticancer therapies.

“Providers, both cancer and noncancer, generally put cardiotoxicity in the box of anthracyclines and radiation, but particularly over the last decade, we’ve begun to understand it’s well beyond any one class of drugs,” Dr. Addison said.

“I agree completely,” Dr. Lippman said. For example, “the checkpoint inhibitors are so unbelievably different in terms of their toxicities that many people simply didn’t even know what they were getting into at first.”
 

One size does not fit all

Javid Moslehi, MD, director of the cardio-oncology program at Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn., said echocardiography – recommended to detect changes in left ventricular function in patients exposed to anthracyclines or targeted agents like trastuzumab (Herceptin) – isn’t enough to address today’s cancer therapy–related CVD events.

Courtesy Joe Howell

“Initial drugs like anthracyclines or Herceptin in cardio-oncology were associated with systolic cardiac dysfunction, whereas the majority of issues we see in the cardio-oncology clinics today are vascular, metabolic, arrhythmogenic, and inflammatory,” he said in an interview. “Echocardiography misses the big and increasingly complex picture.”

His group, for example, has been studying myocarditis associated with immunotherapies, but none of the clinical trials require screening or surveillance for myocarditis with a cardiac biomarker like troponin.

The group also recently identified 303 deaths in patients exposed to ibrutinib, a drug that revolutionized the treatment of several B-cell malignancies but is associated with higher rates of atrial fibrillation, which is also associated with increased bleeding risk. “So there’s a little bit of a double whammy there, given that we often treat atrial fibrillation with anticoagulation and where we can cause complications in patients,” Dr. Moslehi noted.

Although there needs to be closer collaboration between cardiologists and oncologists on individual trials, cardiologists also have to realize that oncology care has become very personalized, he suggested.

“What’s probably relevant for the breast cancer patient may not be relevant for the prostate cancer patient and their respective treatments,” Dr. Moslehi said. “So if we were to say, ‘every person should get an echo,’ that may be less relevant to the prostate cancer patient where treatments can cause vascular and metabolic perturbations or to the patient treated with immunotherapy who may have myocarditis, where many of the echos can be normal. There’s no one-size-fits-all for these things.”

Wearable technologies like smartwatches could play a role in improving the reporting of CVD events with novel therapies but a lot more research needs to be done to validate these tools, Dr. Addison said. “But as we continue on into the 21st century, this is going to expand and may potentially help us,” he added.

In the interim, better standardization is needed of the cardiovascular events reported in oncology trials, particularly the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE), said Dr. Moslehi, who also serves as chair of the American Heart Association’s subcommittee on cardio-oncology.

“Cardiovascular definitions are not exactly uniform and are not consistent with what we in cardiology consider to be important or relevant,” he said. “So I think there needs to be better standardization of these definitions, specifically within the CTCAE, which is what the oncologists use to identify adverse events.”

In a linked editorial (J Am Coll Cardiol. 2020;75:629-31), Dr. Lippman and cardiologist Nanette Bishopric, MD, of the Medstar Heart and Vascular Institute in Washington, D.C., suggested it may also be time to organize a consortium that can carry out “rigorous multicenter clinical investigations to evaluate the cardiotoxicity of emerging cancer treatments,” similar to the Thrombosis in Myocardial Infarction Study Group.

“The success of this consortium in pioneering and targeting multiple generations of drugs for the treatment of MI, involving tens of thousands of patients and thousands of collaborations across multiple national borders, is a model for how to move forward in providing the new hope of cancer cure without the trade-off of years lost to heart disease,” the editorialists concluded.

The study was supported in part by National Institutes of Health grants, including a K12-CA133250 grant to Dr. Addison. Dr. Bishopric reported being on the scientific board of C&C Biopharma. Dr. Lippman reports being on the board of directors of and holding stock in Seattle Genetics. Dr. Moslehi reported having served on advisory boards for Pfizer, Novartis, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Deciphera, Audentes Pharmaceuticals, Nektar, Takeda, Ipsen, Myokardia, AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline, Intrexon, and Regeneron.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Clinical trials supporting Food and Drug Adminstration approval of contemporary cancer therapies frequently failed to capture major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) and, when they did, reported rates 2.6-fold lower than noncancer trials, new research shows.

Overall, 51.3% of trials did not report MACE, with that number reaching 57.6% in trials enrolling patients with baseline cardiovascular disease (CVD).

Nearly 40% of trials did not report any CVD events in follow-up, the authors reported online Feb. 10, 2020, in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology (2020;75:620-8).

“Even in drug classes where there were established or emerging associations with cardiotoxic events, often there were no reported heart events or cardiovascular events across years of follow-up in trials that examined hundreds or even thousands of patients. That was actually pretty surprising,” senior author Daniel Addison, MD, codirector of the cardio-oncology program at the Ohio State University Medical Center, Columbus, said in an interview.

The study was prompted by a series of events that crescendoed when his team was called to the ICU to determine whether a novel targeted agent played a role in the heart decline of a patient with acute myeloid leukemia. “I had a resident ask me a very important question: ‘How do we really know for sure that the trial actually reflects the true risk of heart events?’ to which I told him, ‘it’s difficult to know,’ ” he said.

“I think many of us rely heavily on what we see in the trials, particularly when they make it to the top journals, and quite frankly, we generally take it at face value,” Dr. Addison observed.
 

Lower Rate of Reported Events

The investigators reviewed CV events reported in 97,365 patients (median age, 61 years; 46% female) enrolled in 189 phase 2 and 3 trials supporting FDA approval of 123 anticancer drugs from 1998 to 2018. Biologic, targeted, or immune-based therapies accounted for 72.5% of drug approvals.

Over 148,138 person-years of follow-up (median trial duration, 30 months), there were 1,148 incidents of MACE (375 heart failure, 253 MIs, 180 strokes, 65 atrial fibrillation, 29 coronary revascularizations, and 246 CVD deaths). MACE rates were higher in the intervention group than in the control group (792 vs. 356; P less than .01). Among the 64 trials that excluded patients with baseline CVD, there were 269 incidents of MACE.

To put this finding in context, the researchers examined the reported incidence of MACE among some 6,000 similarly aged participants in the Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis (MESA). The overall weighted-average incidence rate was 1,408 per 100,000 person-years among MESA participants, compared with 542 events per 100,000 person-years among oncology trial participants (716 per 100,000 in the intervention arm). This represents a reported-to-expected ratio of 0.38 – a 2.6-fold lower rate of reported events (P less than .001) – and a risk difference of 866.

Further, MACE reporting was lower by a factor of 1.7 among all cancer trial participants irrespective of baseline CVD status (reported-to-expected ratio, 0.56; risk difference, 613; P less than .001).

There was no significant difference in MACE reporting between independent or industry-sponsored trials, the authors report.
 

No malicious intent

“There are likely some that might lean toward not wanting to attribute blame to a new drug when the drug is in a study, but I really think that the leading factor is lack of awareness,” Dr. Addison said. “I’ve talked with several cancer collaborators around the country who run large clinical trials, and I think often, when an event may be brought to someone’s attention, there is a tendency to just write it off as kind of a generic expected event due to age, or just something that’s not really pertinent to the study. So they don’t really focus on it as much.”

“Closer collaboration between cardiologists and cancer physicians is needed to better determine true cardiac risks among patients treated with these drugs.”

Breast cancer oncologist Marc E. Lippman, MD, of Georgetown University Medical Center and Georgetown Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center, Washington, D.C., isn’t convinced a lack of awareness is the culprit.

“I don’t agree with that at all,” he said in an interview. “I think there are very, very clear rules and guidelines these days for adverse-event reporting. I think that’s not a very likely explanation – that it’s not on the radar.”

Part of the problem may be that some of the toxicities, particularly cardiovascular, may not emerge for years, he said. Participant screening for the trials also likely removed patients with high cardiovascular risk. “It’s very understandable to me – I’m not saying it’s good particularly – but I think it’s very understandable that, if you’re trying to develop a drug, the last thing you’d want to have is a lot of toxicity that you might have avoided by just being restrictive in who you let into the study,” Dr. Lippman said.

The underreported CVD events may also reflect the rapidly changing profile of cardiovascular toxicities associated with novel anticancer therapies.

“Providers, both cancer and noncancer, generally put cardiotoxicity in the box of anthracyclines and radiation, but particularly over the last decade, we’ve begun to understand it’s well beyond any one class of drugs,” Dr. Addison said.

“I agree completely,” Dr. Lippman said. For example, “the checkpoint inhibitors are so unbelievably different in terms of their toxicities that many people simply didn’t even know what they were getting into at first.”
 

One size does not fit all

Javid Moslehi, MD, director of the cardio-oncology program at Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn., said echocardiography – recommended to detect changes in left ventricular function in patients exposed to anthracyclines or targeted agents like trastuzumab (Herceptin) – isn’t enough to address today’s cancer therapy–related CVD events.

Courtesy Joe Howell

“Initial drugs like anthracyclines or Herceptin in cardio-oncology were associated with systolic cardiac dysfunction, whereas the majority of issues we see in the cardio-oncology clinics today are vascular, metabolic, arrhythmogenic, and inflammatory,” he said in an interview. “Echocardiography misses the big and increasingly complex picture.”

His group, for example, has been studying myocarditis associated with immunotherapies, but none of the clinical trials require screening or surveillance for myocarditis with a cardiac biomarker like troponin.

The group also recently identified 303 deaths in patients exposed to ibrutinib, a drug that revolutionized the treatment of several B-cell malignancies but is associated with higher rates of atrial fibrillation, which is also associated with increased bleeding risk. “So there’s a little bit of a double whammy there, given that we often treat atrial fibrillation with anticoagulation and where we can cause complications in patients,” Dr. Moslehi noted.

Although there needs to be closer collaboration between cardiologists and oncologists on individual trials, cardiologists also have to realize that oncology care has become very personalized, he suggested.

“What’s probably relevant for the breast cancer patient may not be relevant for the prostate cancer patient and their respective treatments,” Dr. Moslehi said. “So if we were to say, ‘every person should get an echo,’ that may be less relevant to the prostate cancer patient where treatments can cause vascular and metabolic perturbations or to the patient treated with immunotherapy who may have myocarditis, where many of the echos can be normal. There’s no one-size-fits-all for these things.”

Wearable technologies like smartwatches could play a role in improving the reporting of CVD events with novel therapies but a lot more research needs to be done to validate these tools, Dr. Addison said. “But as we continue on into the 21st century, this is going to expand and may potentially help us,” he added.

In the interim, better standardization is needed of the cardiovascular events reported in oncology trials, particularly the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE), said Dr. Moslehi, who also serves as chair of the American Heart Association’s subcommittee on cardio-oncology.

“Cardiovascular definitions are not exactly uniform and are not consistent with what we in cardiology consider to be important or relevant,” he said. “So I think there needs to be better standardization of these definitions, specifically within the CTCAE, which is what the oncologists use to identify adverse events.”

In a linked editorial (J Am Coll Cardiol. 2020;75:629-31), Dr. Lippman and cardiologist Nanette Bishopric, MD, of the Medstar Heart and Vascular Institute in Washington, D.C., suggested it may also be time to organize a consortium that can carry out “rigorous multicenter clinical investigations to evaluate the cardiotoxicity of emerging cancer treatments,” similar to the Thrombosis in Myocardial Infarction Study Group.

“The success of this consortium in pioneering and targeting multiple generations of drugs for the treatment of MI, involving tens of thousands of patients and thousands of collaborations across multiple national borders, is a model for how to move forward in providing the new hope of cancer cure without the trade-off of years lost to heart disease,” the editorialists concluded.

The study was supported in part by National Institutes of Health grants, including a K12-CA133250 grant to Dr. Addison. Dr. Bishopric reported being on the scientific board of C&C Biopharma. Dr. Lippman reports being on the board of directors of and holding stock in Seattle Genetics. Dr. Moslehi reported having served on advisory boards for Pfizer, Novartis, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Deciphera, Audentes Pharmaceuticals, Nektar, Takeda, Ipsen, Myokardia, AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline, Intrexon, and Regeneron.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Clinical trials supporting Food and Drug Adminstration approval of contemporary cancer therapies frequently failed to capture major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) and, when they did, reported rates 2.6-fold lower than noncancer trials, new research shows.

Overall, 51.3% of trials did not report MACE, with that number reaching 57.6% in trials enrolling patients with baseline cardiovascular disease (CVD).

Nearly 40% of trials did not report any CVD events in follow-up, the authors reported online Feb. 10, 2020, in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology (2020;75:620-8).

“Even in drug classes where there were established or emerging associations with cardiotoxic events, often there were no reported heart events or cardiovascular events across years of follow-up in trials that examined hundreds or even thousands of patients. That was actually pretty surprising,” senior author Daniel Addison, MD, codirector of the cardio-oncology program at the Ohio State University Medical Center, Columbus, said in an interview.

The study was prompted by a series of events that crescendoed when his team was called to the ICU to determine whether a novel targeted agent played a role in the heart decline of a patient with acute myeloid leukemia. “I had a resident ask me a very important question: ‘How do we really know for sure that the trial actually reflects the true risk of heart events?’ to which I told him, ‘it’s difficult to know,’ ” he said.

“I think many of us rely heavily on what we see in the trials, particularly when they make it to the top journals, and quite frankly, we generally take it at face value,” Dr. Addison observed.
 

Lower Rate of Reported Events

The investigators reviewed CV events reported in 97,365 patients (median age, 61 years; 46% female) enrolled in 189 phase 2 and 3 trials supporting FDA approval of 123 anticancer drugs from 1998 to 2018. Biologic, targeted, or immune-based therapies accounted for 72.5% of drug approvals.

Over 148,138 person-years of follow-up (median trial duration, 30 months), there were 1,148 incidents of MACE (375 heart failure, 253 MIs, 180 strokes, 65 atrial fibrillation, 29 coronary revascularizations, and 246 CVD deaths). MACE rates were higher in the intervention group than in the control group (792 vs. 356; P less than .01). Among the 64 trials that excluded patients with baseline CVD, there were 269 incidents of MACE.

To put this finding in context, the researchers examined the reported incidence of MACE among some 6,000 similarly aged participants in the Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis (MESA). The overall weighted-average incidence rate was 1,408 per 100,000 person-years among MESA participants, compared with 542 events per 100,000 person-years among oncology trial participants (716 per 100,000 in the intervention arm). This represents a reported-to-expected ratio of 0.38 – a 2.6-fold lower rate of reported events (P less than .001) – and a risk difference of 866.

Further, MACE reporting was lower by a factor of 1.7 among all cancer trial participants irrespective of baseline CVD status (reported-to-expected ratio, 0.56; risk difference, 613; P less than .001).

There was no significant difference in MACE reporting between independent or industry-sponsored trials, the authors report.
 

No malicious intent

“There are likely some that might lean toward not wanting to attribute blame to a new drug when the drug is in a study, but I really think that the leading factor is lack of awareness,” Dr. Addison said. “I’ve talked with several cancer collaborators around the country who run large clinical trials, and I think often, when an event may be brought to someone’s attention, there is a tendency to just write it off as kind of a generic expected event due to age, or just something that’s not really pertinent to the study. So they don’t really focus on it as much.”

“Closer collaboration between cardiologists and cancer physicians is needed to better determine true cardiac risks among patients treated with these drugs.”

Breast cancer oncologist Marc E. Lippman, MD, of Georgetown University Medical Center and Georgetown Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center, Washington, D.C., isn’t convinced a lack of awareness is the culprit.

“I don’t agree with that at all,” he said in an interview. “I think there are very, very clear rules and guidelines these days for adverse-event reporting. I think that’s not a very likely explanation – that it’s not on the radar.”

Part of the problem may be that some of the toxicities, particularly cardiovascular, may not emerge for years, he said. Participant screening for the trials also likely removed patients with high cardiovascular risk. “It’s very understandable to me – I’m not saying it’s good particularly – but I think it’s very understandable that, if you’re trying to develop a drug, the last thing you’d want to have is a lot of toxicity that you might have avoided by just being restrictive in who you let into the study,” Dr. Lippman said.

The underreported CVD events may also reflect the rapidly changing profile of cardiovascular toxicities associated with novel anticancer therapies.

“Providers, both cancer and noncancer, generally put cardiotoxicity in the box of anthracyclines and radiation, but particularly over the last decade, we’ve begun to understand it’s well beyond any one class of drugs,” Dr. Addison said.

“I agree completely,” Dr. Lippman said. For example, “the checkpoint inhibitors are so unbelievably different in terms of their toxicities that many people simply didn’t even know what they were getting into at first.”
 

One size does not fit all

Javid Moslehi, MD, director of the cardio-oncology program at Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn., said echocardiography – recommended to detect changes in left ventricular function in patients exposed to anthracyclines or targeted agents like trastuzumab (Herceptin) – isn’t enough to address today’s cancer therapy–related CVD events.

Courtesy Joe Howell

“Initial drugs like anthracyclines or Herceptin in cardio-oncology were associated with systolic cardiac dysfunction, whereas the majority of issues we see in the cardio-oncology clinics today are vascular, metabolic, arrhythmogenic, and inflammatory,” he said in an interview. “Echocardiography misses the big and increasingly complex picture.”

His group, for example, has been studying myocarditis associated with immunotherapies, but none of the clinical trials require screening or surveillance for myocarditis with a cardiac biomarker like troponin.

The group also recently identified 303 deaths in patients exposed to ibrutinib, a drug that revolutionized the treatment of several B-cell malignancies but is associated with higher rates of atrial fibrillation, which is also associated with increased bleeding risk. “So there’s a little bit of a double whammy there, given that we often treat atrial fibrillation with anticoagulation and where we can cause complications in patients,” Dr. Moslehi noted.

Although there needs to be closer collaboration between cardiologists and oncologists on individual trials, cardiologists also have to realize that oncology care has become very personalized, he suggested.

“What’s probably relevant for the breast cancer patient may not be relevant for the prostate cancer patient and their respective treatments,” Dr. Moslehi said. “So if we were to say, ‘every person should get an echo,’ that may be less relevant to the prostate cancer patient where treatments can cause vascular and metabolic perturbations or to the patient treated with immunotherapy who may have myocarditis, where many of the echos can be normal. There’s no one-size-fits-all for these things.”

Wearable technologies like smartwatches could play a role in improving the reporting of CVD events with novel therapies but a lot more research needs to be done to validate these tools, Dr. Addison said. “But as we continue on into the 21st century, this is going to expand and may potentially help us,” he added.

In the interim, better standardization is needed of the cardiovascular events reported in oncology trials, particularly the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE), said Dr. Moslehi, who also serves as chair of the American Heart Association’s subcommittee on cardio-oncology.

“Cardiovascular definitions are not exactly uniform and are not consistent with what we in cardiology consider to be important or relevant,” he said. “So I think there needs to be better standardization of these definitions, specifically within the CTCAE, which is what the oncologists use to identify adverse events.”

In a linked editorial (J Am Coll Cardiol. 2020;75:629-31), Dr. Lippman and cardiologist Nanette Bishopric, MD, of the Medstar Heart and Vascular Institute in Washington, D.C., suggested it may also be time to organize a consortium that can carry out “rigorous multicenter clinical investigations to evaluate the cardiotoxicity of emerging cancer treatments,” similar to the Thrombosis in Myocardial Infarction Study Group.

“The success of this consortium in pioneering and targeting multiple generations of drugs for the treatment of MI, involving tens of thousands of patients and thousands of collaborations across multiple national borders, is a model for how to move forward in providing the new hope of cancer cure without the trade-off of years lost to heart disease,” the editorialists concluded.

The study was supported in part by National Institutes of Health grants, including a K12-CA133250 grant to Dr. Addison. Dr. Bishopric reported being on the scientific board of C&C Biopharma. Dr. Lippman reports being on the board of directors of and holding stock in Seattle Genetics. Dr. Moslehi reported having served on advisory boards for Pfizer, Novartis, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Deciphera, Audentes Pharmaceuticals, Nektar, Takeda, Ipsen, Myokardia, AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline, Intrexon, and Regeneron.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention announced the number of confirmed cases of the 2019 Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV) in the United States has reached 13.

Gregory Twachtman/MDedge News

The latest case, announced Feb. 11, 2020, by the CDC, was in a person in California who was previously under federal quarantine because the patient had traveled to Wuhan, China.

The CDC is currently looking into who the patient may have come in contact with to understand the potential for further spread of the coronavirus.

“The contact investigation is ongoing,” CDC principal deputy director Anne Schuchat, MD, said during a Feb. 11 press conference to provide an update on coronavirus containment activities being taken by the CDC.

Dr. Schuchat also addressed issues related to the laboratory test, as the patient in California was initially thought to be negative for the coronavirus.

“With other cases around the country that we are evaluating, we have been doing serial tests to understand whether they are still infectious” and to gather other information about how results change over time, Dr. Schuchat said.

She noted that the CDC does not “have as much information as we would like on the severity of the virus,” noting that there are many cases in China with severe reactions, while the 13 cases in the United States represent a much more mild reaction to the virus so far.

With the latest case in California, she noted that there was “probably a mix-up and the original test wasn’t negative,” although she did not elaborate on what the nature of the mix-up was, stating that was all the information that she had.

In general, Dr. Schuchat touted the actions taken by the CDC and the federal government focused primarily on containing the spread of the virus in the United States, including the implementation of travel advisories, quarantining passengers returning from China, as well as the new test kits that are being distributed by the agency across the nation and around the world. She also mentioned CDC staff are being deployed around the world to monitor the spreading of the disease and highlighted the outreach efforts to keep the public informed.

Dr. Schuchat highlighted the fact that, of the 13 cases in the United States, 11 were with patients that were in Wuhan, and only 2 were because of close contact with a patient, something that she attributed to the actions being taken.

She also noted that cases in the United States have not been as severe as they have been in China, where deaths have been attributed to the coronavirus outbreak. She added that there have been only two deaths outside of mainland China attributed to the coronavirus.

“Some of the steps the CDC has taken have really put us in better shape should widespread transmission occur in the United States,” she said.

Dr. Schuchat also highlighted that the first charter flight of people quarantined after returning from Wuhan have reached the 14-day milestone and should be on their way home beginning today.

[email protected]

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention announced the number of confirmed cases of the 2019 Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV) in the United States has reached 13.

Gregory Twachtman/MDedge News

The latest case, announced Feb. 11, 2020, by the CDC, was in a person in California who was previously under federal quarantine because the patient had traveled to Wuhan, China.

The CDC is currently looking into who the patient may have come in contact with to understand the potential for further spread of the coronavirus.

“The contact investigation is ongoing,” CDC principal deputy director Anne Schuchat, MD, said during a Feb. 11 press conference to provide an update on coronavirus containment activities being taken by the CDC.

Dr. Schuchat also addressed issues related to the laboratory test, as the patient in California was initially thought to be negative for the coronavirus.

“With other cases around the country that we are evaluating, we have been doing serial tests to understand whether they are still infectious” and to gather other information about how results change over time, Dr. Schuchat said.

She noted that the CDC does not “have as much information as we would like on the severity of the virus,” noting that there are many cases in China with severe reactions, while the 13 cases in the United States represent a much more mild reaction to the virus so far.

With the latest case in California, she noted that there was “probably a mix-up and the original test wasn’t negative,” although she did not elaborate on what the nature of the mix-up was, stating that was all the information that she had.

In general, Dr. Schuchat touted the actions taken by the CDC and the federal government focused primarily on containing the spread of the virus in the United States, including the implementation of travel advisories, quarantining passengers returning from China, as well as the new test kits that are being distributed by the agency across the nation and around the world. She also mentioned CDC staff are being deployed around the world to monitor the spreading of the disease and highlighted the outreach efforts to keep the public informed.

Dr. Schuchat highlighted the fact that, of the 13 cases in the United States, 11 were with patients that were in Wuhan, and only 2 were because of close contact with a patient, something that she attributed to the actions being taken.

She also noted that cases in the United States have not been as severe as they have been in China, where deaths have been attributed to the coronavirus outbreak. She added that there have been only two deaths outside of mainland China attributed to the coronavirus.

“Some of the steps the CDC has taken have really put us in better shape should widespread transmission occur in the United States,” she said.

Dr. Schuchat also highlighted that the first charter flight of people quarantined after returning from Wuhan have reached the 14-day milestone and should be on their way home beginning today.

[email protected]

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention announced the number of confirmed cases of the 2019 Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV) in the United States has reached 13.

Gregory Twachtman/MDedge News

The latest case, announced Feb. 11, 2020, by the CDC, was in a person in California who was previously under federal quarantine because the patient had traveled to Wuhan, China.

The CDC is currently looking into who the patient may have come in contact with to understand the potential for further spread of the coronavirus.

“The contact investigation is ongoing,” CDC principal deputy director Anne Schuchat, MD, said during a Feb. 11 press conference to provide an update on coronavirus containment activities being taken by the CDC.

Dr. Schuchat also addressed issues related to the laboratory test, as the patient in California was initially thought to be negative for the coronavirus.

“With other cases around the country that we are evaluating, we have been doing serial tests to understand whether they are still infectious” and to gather other information about how results change over time, Dr. Schuchat said.

She noted that the CDC does not “have as much information as we would like on the severity of the virus,” noting that there are many cases in China with severe reactions, while the 13 cases in the United States represent a much more mild reaction to the virus so far.

With the latest case in California, she noted that there was “probably a mix-up and the original test wasn’t negative,” although she did not elaborate on what the nature of the mix-up was, stating that was all the information that she had.

In general, Dr. Schuchat touted the actions taken by the CDC and the federal government focused primarily on containing the spread of the virus in the United States, including the implementation of travel advisories, quarantining passengers returning from China, as well as the new test kits that are being distributed by the agency across the nation and around the world. She also mentioned CDC staff are being deployed around the world to monitor the spreading of the disease and highlighted the outreach efforts to keep the public informed.

Dr. Schuchat highlighted the fact that, of the 13 cases in the United States, 11 were with patients that were in Wuhan, and only 2 were because of close contact with a patient, something that she attributed to the actions being taken.

She also noted that cases in the United States have not been as severe as they have been in China, where deaths have been attributed to the coronavirus outbreak. She added that there have been only two deaths outside of mainland China attributed to the coronavirus.

“Some of the steps the CDC has taken have really put us in better shape should widespread transmission occur in the United States,” she said.

Dr. Schuchat also highlighted that the first charter flight of people quarantined after returning from Wuhan have reached the 14-day milestone and should be on their way home beginning today.

[email protected]

The CHEST 2020 Scientific Program Committee has been working tirelessly to select the best and most clinically relevant sessions for the upcoming meeting. CHEST would like to extend a heartfelt thank you to all that actively participated in grading, curriculum group calls, the live meeting in February, and all the homework in between. We’re not done, but your work has been instrumental in making the CHEST Annual Meeting 2020 a success.

The CHEST 2020 Scientific Program Committee has been working tirelessly to select the best and most clinically relevant sessions for the upcoming meeting. CHEST would like to extend a heartfelt thank you to all that actively participated in grading, curriculum group calls, the live meeting in February, and all the homework in between. We’re not done, but your work has been instrumental in making the CHEST Annual Meeting 2020 a success.

The CHEST 2020 Scientific Program Committee has been working tirelessly to select the best and most clinically relevant sessions for the upcoming meeting. CHEST would like to extend a heartfelt thank you to all that actively participated in grading, curriculum group calls, the live meeting in February, and all the homework in between. We’re not done, but your work has been instrumental in making the CHEST Annual Meeting 2020 a success.