Cardiology News

Models using novel kidney and cardiac biomarkers were the most effective predictors of 10-year risk for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease in chronic kidney disease patients, in a new study.

Chronic kidney disease (CKD) patients may be at increased risk for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease, but no ASCVD risk prediction models are currently in place to inform clinical care and prevention strategies, Joshua Bundy, PhD, of Tulane University, New Orleans, and colleagues wrote in their paper, published in the Journal of the American Society of Nephrology.

To improve the accuracy of ASCVD risk prediction, the researchers developed several models using data from the Chronic Renal Insufficiency Cohort (CRIC) study. This longitudinal cohort study included more than 2,500 adult CKD patients. The participants’ ages ranged from 21-74 years, with the mean age having been 55.8 years, and 52.0% of the cohort was male.

Kidney function was defined using the glomerular filtration rate; the mean estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) of the study participants was 56.0 mL/min per 1.73m². The primary endpoint for the prediction models was incident ASCVD, defined as a composite of incident fatal or nonfatal stroke or MI.

A total of 252 incident ASCVD events occurred during the first 10 years of follow-up from baseline (1.9 events per 1,000 person-years). Patients with ASCVD events were more likely to be older, Black, and current smokers. They also were more likely than those who did not experience ASCVD events to have less than a college level education, to have a history of diabetes, and to use blood pressure–lowering medications.

“In our study, we created two new prediction tools for patients with CKD: the first is a simple model that includes factors routinely measured by health care providers and the second is an expanded model with additional variables particularly important to patients with CKD, including measures of long-term blood sugar, inflammation, and kidney and heart injury,” he explained. “We found that the new models are better able to classify patients who will or will not have a stroke or heart attack within 10 years, compared with the standard models. The new tools may better assist health care providers and patients with CKD in shared decision-making for prevention of heart disease.”
 

Results

The area under the curve for a prediction model using coefficients estimated within the CRIC sample was 0.736. This represented an accuracy higher than the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Pooled Cohort Equations (PCE), which have shown an AUC of 0.730 (P = .03). The PCE were developed by the ACC and the AHA in 2013 to estimate ASCVD risk in the primary prevention population.

The second CRIC model that was developed using clinically available variables had an AUC of 0.760. However, the third CRIC biomarker-enriched model was even more effective, with an AUC of 0.771 – significantly higher than the clinical model (P = .001).

Model 1 included the ACC/AHA PCE variables with coefficients recalculated in the CRIC study sample. Model 2 (the CRIC Clinical Model) included age, HDL cholesterol, systolic BP, current smoking, urinary albumin-to-creatinine ratio (ACR), hemoglobin A1c, and hemoglobin. Model 3 (the CRIC Enriched Model) included age, total cholesterol, HDL cholesterol, current smoking, urinary ACR, A1c, apolipoprotein B, high-sensitivity C-reactive protein (hsCRP), troponin T, and N-terminal of the prohormone brain natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP).

Both the clinical and biomarker models improved reclassification of non-ASCVD events, compared with the PCEs (6.6% and 10.0%, respectively).

Several factors not included in prior prediction models were important for atherosclerotic CVD prediction among patients with CKD, the researchers noted. These included variables routinely measured in clinical practice as well as biomarkers: measures of long-term glycemia (A1c), inflammation (hsCRP), kidney injury (urinary ACR), and cardiac injury (troponin T and NT-proBNP).

Patients who had an ASCVD event had higher levels of A1c, systolic and diastolic BP, urinary ACR, troponin T, and NT-proBNP; these patients also had lower levels of HDL cholesterol, eGFR, and hemoglobin, compared with those who did not have an event.

The study findings were limited by several factors including the selection of study participants based on a single assessment of kidney function, who had an above average baseline ASCVD risk, the researchers noted. Other limitations included the inability to include imaging variables in the models, and the overestimated risk in the highest predicted probability groups in the CRIC study.

However, the models significantly improve prediction beyond the ACC/AHA PCE in patients with CKD, they concluded.

 

Models may inform shared decision-making

The development of new prediction models is important, because cardiovascular disease is the leading cause of death among U.S. adults and preventing CVD is a major public health challenge, lead author Dr. Bundy said in an interview.

“In an effort to prevent CVD, risk prediction equations can help identify patients who are at high risk for developing CVD and who may benefit from initiation or intensification of preventive and/or therapeutic measures. Simultaneously, chronic kidney disease is prevalent and those with CKD are often considered at high risk for CVD,” he said.

“However, common risk prediction tools were developed for the general population and may not work as well in patients with CKD, who may have different risk factors. Improving risk prediction in patients with CKD may help identify those among this growing population who are truly at high risk, as well as identify those who are at low risk and less likely to benefit from invasive procedures,” Dr. Bundy explained.
 

Glomerular filtration rate was not a strong predictor of atherosclerotic CVD

“One of the surprising findings was that estimated glomerular filtration rate was not a strong predictor and was not included in our final models,” Dr. Bundy said.

“We know that eGFR is a very important measurement in this population, but our results suggest that, at least in our sample, urinary albumin-to-creatinine ratio and cardiac biomarkers like troponin T and NT-proBNP are stronger predictors of atherosclerotic CVD in a population with reduced kidney function,” he said.

“Patient characteristics like age, blood pressure, and cholesterol are used by health care providers to predict whether a person will have a heart attack or stroke. However, most currently available prediction tools were not made for use in patients with CKD, which is a condition that is becoming more common and is likely to be seen by more health care providers in family practice,” said Dr. Bundy. “These people with CKD may have different risk factors for heart disease.”
 

Models are useful for clinical practice

“We are seeing rising numbers of patients with CKD in the population because of increasing age, rising rates of diabetes, and hypertension,” Noel Deep, MD, said in an interview. “The current practice of medicine does not have CKD-specific prediction models for ASCVD development, and current risks are calculated based on prediction models developed for the general population.”

Courtesy Dr. Noel Deep

“Having a prediction model that incorporates criteria/variables associated with CKD improves our ability to accurately identify and address the risk of ASCVD in this particular patient population,” said Dr. Deep, who is a general internist in a multispecialty group practice with Aspirus Antigo (Wisc.) Clinic and the chief medical officer and a staff physician at Aspirus Langlade Hospital, also in Antigo.

“We always knew that CKD does place the individual at higher risk for developing ASCVD, but I was impressed by the significant improvement in the prediction models using CKD specific tools, such as cardiac biomarkers (NT-proBNP), intensity of diabetes control (A1c), tobacco use, urinary albuminuria, in addition to advancing age,” he said. “Many of the laboratory tests listed in this study are commonly available and can be easily incorporated into our evaluation for and management of ASCVD in our patients with CKD.”

“As a practicing primary care physician, I would say that this study emphasizes the importance of identifying and working toward mitigating the associated health risks that our patients with CKD might have coexisting and that significantly contribute to progression of CKD,” said Dr. Deep, who is also assistant clinical professor at the Medical College of Wisconsin, Wausau. “By addressing these risk factors, we can positively impact the health of our patients with CKD and decrease the morbidity and mortality, and health care costs. These predictive models can hopefully help us more accurately identify the risk of ASCVD thereby decreasing unnecessary diagnostic procedures and interventions which carry their own risks and morbidity.”

Looking ahead, “these predictive models should be assessed and validated in large studies in diverse populations and those with different risk factors for ASCVD because CKD can be caused by several different medical conditions each with potential to contribute to ASCVD,” Dr. Deep added.
 

Limitations and next steps

“Although we externally validated our models in two population-based cohort studies, the individuals in these datasets were selected based on only one assessment of kidney function,” Dr. Bundy noted. “Furthermore, the best practices for implementing risk prediction models in the clinic remain to be determined, especially as new models are developed.

“While our models show promising performance for predicting 10-year risk of atherosclerotic CVD, more clinical trials are needed to test implementation of these models for improving patient care and disease prevention.”

The study was supported by the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases. Additional support came from the University of Pennsylvania Clinical and Translational Science Award, Johns Hopkins University, the University of Maryland, Clinical and Translational Science Collaborative of Cleveland, the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences component of the National Institutes of Health and NIH roadmap for Medical Research, Michigan Institute for Clinical and Health Research, University of Illinois at Chicago, Tulane COBRE for Clinical and Translational Research in Cardiometabolic Diseases, Kaiser Permanente, and the University of New Mexico. Lead author Dr. Bundy was supported by the National Institutes of Health/Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Deep had no financial conflicts to disclose.

This article was updated on 2/17/2021.

Models using novel kidney and cardiac biomarkers were the most effective predictors of 10-year risk for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease in chronic kidney disease patients, in a new study.

Chronic kidney disease (CKD) patients may be at increased risk for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease, but no ASCVD risk prediction models are currently in place to inform clinical care and prevention strategies, Joshua Bundy, PhD, of Tulane University, New Orleans, and colleagues wrote in their paper, published in the Journal of the American Society of Nephrology.

To improve the accuracy of ASCVD risk prediction, the researchers developed several models using data from the Chronic Renal Insufficiency Cohort (CRIC) study. This longitudinal cohort study included more than 2,500 adult CKD patients. The participants’ ages ranged from 21-74 years, with the mean age having been 55.8 years, and 52.0% of the cohort was male.

Kidney function was defined using the glomerular filtration rate; the mean estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) of the study participants was 56.0 mL/min per 1.73m². The primary endpoint for the prediction models was incident ASCVD, defined as a composite of incident fatal or nonfatal stroke or MI.

A total of 252 incident ASCVD events occurred during the first 10 years of follow-up from baseline (1.9 events per 1,000 person-years). Patients with ASCVD events were more likely to be older, Black, and current smokers. They also were more likely than those who did not experience ASCVD events to have less than a college level education, to have a history of diabetes, and to use blood pressure–lowering medications.

“In our study, we created two new prediction tools for patients with CKD: the first is a simple model that includes factors routinely measured by health care providers and the second is an expanded model with additional variables particularly important to patients with CKD, including measures of long-term blood sugar, inflammation, and kidney and heart injury,” he explained. “We found that the new models are better able to classify patients who will or will not have a stroke or heart attack within 10 years, compared with the standard models. The new tools may better assist health care providers and patients with CKD in shared decision-making for prevention of heart disease.”
 

Results

The area under the curve for a prediction model using coefficients estimated within the CRIC sample was 0.736. This represented an accuracy higher than the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Pooled Cohort Equations (PCE), which have shown an AUC of 0.730 (P = .03). The PCE were developed by the ACC and the AHA in 2013 to estimate ASCVD risk in the primary prevention population.

The second CRIC model that was developed using clinically available variables had an AUC of 0.760. However, the third CRIC biomarker-enriched model was even more effective, with an AUC of 0.771 – significantly higher than the clinical model (P = .001).

Model 1 included the ACC/AHA PCE variables with coefficients recalculated in the CRIC study sample. Model 2 (the CRIC Clinical Model) included age, HDL cholesterol, systolic BP, current smoking, urinary albumin-to-creatinine ratio (ACR), hemoglobin A1c, and hemoglobin. Model 3 (the CRIC Enriched Model) included age, total cholesterol, HDL cholesterol, current smoking, urinary ACR, A1c, apolipoprotein B, high-sensitivity C-reactive protein (hsCRP), troponin T, and N-terminal of the prohormone brain natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP).

Both the clinical and biomarker models improved reclassification of non-ASCVD events, compared with the PCEs (6.6% and 10.0%, respectively).

Several factors not included in prior prediction models were important for atherosclerotic CVD prediction among patients with CKD, the researchers noted. These included variables routinely measured in clinical practice as well as biomarkers: measures of long-term glycemia (A1c), inflammation (hsCRP), kidney injury (urinary ACR), and cardiac injury (troponin T and NT-proBNP).

Patients who had an ASCVD event had higher levels of A1c, systolic and diastolic BP, urinary ACR, troponin T, and NT-proBNP; these patients also had lower levels of HDL cholesterol, eGFR, and hemoglobin, compared with those who did not have an event.

The study findings were limited by several factors including the selection of study participants based on a single assessment of kidney function, who had an above average baseline ASCVD risk, the researchers noted. Other limitations included the inability to include imaging variables in the models, and the overestimated risk in the highest predicted probability groups in the CRIC study.

However, the models significantly improve prediction beyond the ACC/AHA PCE in patients with CKD, they concluded.

 

Models may inform shared decision-making

The development of new prediction models is important, because cardiovascular disease is the leading cause of death among U.S. adults and preventing CVD is a major public health challenge, lead author Dr. Bundy said in an interview.

“In an effort to prevent CVD, risk prediction equations can help identify patients who are at high risk for developing CVD and who may benefit from initiation or intensification of preventive and/or therapeutic measures. Simultaneously, chronic kidney disease is prevalent and those with CKD are often considered at high risk for CVD,” he said.

“However, common risk prediction tools were developed for the general population and may not work as well in patients with CKD, who may have different risk factors. Improving risk prediction in patients with CKD may help identify those among this growing population who are truly at high risk, as well as identify those who are at low risk and less likely to benefit from invasive procedures,” Dr. Bundy explained.
 

Glomerular filtration rate was not a strong predictor of atherosclerotic CVD

“One of the surprising findings was that estimated glomerular filtration rate was not a strong predictor and was not included in our final models,” Dr. Bundy said.

“We know that eGFR is a very important measurement in this population, but our results suggest that, at least in our sample, urinary albumin-to-creatinine ratio and cardiac biomarkers like troponin T and NT-proBNP are stronger predictors of atherosclerotic CVD in a population with reduced kidney function,” he said.

“Patient characteristics like age, blood pressure, and cholesterol are used by health care providers to predict whether a person will have a heart attack or stroke. However, most currently available prediction tools were not made for use in patients with CKD, which is a condition that is becoming more common and is likely to be seen by more health care providers in family practice,” said Dr. Bundy. “These people with CKD may have different risk factors for heart disease.”
 

Models are useful for clinical practice

“We are seeing rising numbers of patients with CKD in the population because of increasing age, rising rates of diabetes, and hypertension,” Noel Deep, MD, said in an interview. “The current practice of medicine does not have CKD-specific prediction models for ASCVD development, and current risks are calculated based on prediction models developed for the general population.”

Courtesy Dr. Noel Deep

“Having a prediction model that incorporates criteria/variables associated with CKD improves our ability to accurately identify and address the risk of ASCVD in this particular patient population,” said Dr. Deep, who is a general internist in a multispecialty group practice with Aspirus Antigo (Wisc.) Clinic and the chief medical officer and a staff physician at Aspirus Langlade Hospital, also in Antigo.

“We always knew that CKD does place the individual at higher risk for developing ASCVD, but I was impressed by the significant improvement in the prediction models using CKD specific tools, such as cardiac biomarkers (NT-proBNP), intensity of diabetes control (A1c), tobacco use, urinary albuminuria, in addition to advancing age,” he said. “Many of the laboratory tests listed in this study are commonly available and can be easily incorporated into our evaluation for and management of ASCVD in our patients with CKD.”

“As a practicing primary care physician, I would say that this study emphasizes the importance of identifying and working toward mitigating the associated health risks that our patients with CKD might have coexisting and that significantly contribute to progression of CKD,” said Dr. Deep, who is also assistant clinical professor at the Medical College of Wisconsin, Wausau. “By addressing these risk factors, we can positively impact the health of our patients with CKD and decrease the morbidity and mortality, and health care costs. These predictive models can hopefully help us more accurately identify the risk of ASCVD thereby decreasing unnecessary diagnostic procedures and interventions which carry their own risks and morbidity.”

Looking ahead, “these predictive models should be assessed and validated in large studies in diverse populations and those with different risk factors for ASCVD because CKD can be caused by several different medical conditions each with potential to contribute to ASCVD,” Dr. Deep added.
 

Limitations and next steps

“Although we externally validated our models in two population-based cohort studies, the individuals in these datasets were selected based on only one assessment of kidney function,” Dr. Bundy noted. “Furthermore, the best practices for implementing risk prediction models in the clinic remain to be determined, especially as new models are developed.

“While our models show promising performance for predicting 10-year risk of atherosclerotic CVD, more clinical trials are needed to test implementation of these models for improving patient care and disease prevention.”

The study was supported by the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases. Additional support came from the University of Pennsylvania Clinical and Translational Science Award, Johns Hopkins University, the University of Maryland, Clinical and Translational Science Collaborative of Cleveland, the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences component of the National Institutes of Health and NIH roadmap for Medical Research, Michigan Institute for Clinical and Health Research, University of Illinois at Chicago, Tulane COBRE for Clinical and Translational Research in Cardiometabolic Diseases, Kaiser Permanente, and the University of New Mexico. Lead author Dr. Bundy was supported by the National Institutes of Health/Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Deep had no financial conflicts to disclose.

This article was updated on 2/17/2021.

Models using novel kidney and cardiac biomarkers were the most effective predictors of 10-year risk for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease in chronic kidney disease patients, in a new study.

Chronic kidney disease (CKD) patients may be at increased risk for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease, but no ASCVD risk prediction models are currently in place to inform clinical care and prevention strategies, Joshua Bundy, PhD, of Tulane University, New Orleans, and colleagues wrote in their paper, published in the Journal of the American Society of Nephrology.

To improve the accuracy of ASCVD risk prediction, the researchers developed several models using data from the Chronic Renal Insufficiency Cohort (CRIC) study. This longitudinal cohort study included more than 2,500 adult CKD patients. The participants’ ages ranged from 21-74 years, with the mean age having been 55.8 years, and 52.0% of the cohort was male.

Kidney function was defined using the glomerular filtration rate; the mean estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) of the study participants was 56.0 mL/min per 1.73m². The primary endpoint for the prediction models was incident ASCVD, defined as a composite of incident fatal or nonfatal stroke or MI.

A total of 252 incident ASCVD events occurred during the first 10 years of follow-up from baseline (1.9 events per 1,000 person-years). Patients with ASCVD events were more likely to be older, Black, and current smokers. They also were more likely than those who did not experience ASCVD events to have less than a college level education, to have a history of diabetes, and to use blood pressure–lowering medications.

“In our study, we created two new prediction tools for patients with CKD: the first is a simple model that includes factors routinely measured by health care providers and the second is an expanded model with additional variables particularly important to patients with CKD, including measures of long-term blood sugar, inflammation, and kidney and heart injury,” he explained. “We found that the new models are better able to classify patients who will or will not have a stroke or heart attack within 10 years, compared with the standard models. The new tools may better assist health care providers and patients with CKD in shared decision-making for prevention of heart disease.”
 

Results

The area under the curve for a prediction model using coefficients estimated within the CRIC sample was 0.736. This represented an accuracy higher than the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Pooled Cohort Equations (PCE), which have shown an AUC of 0.730 (P = .03). The PCE were developed by the ACC and the AHA in 2013 to estimate ASCVD risk in the primary prevention population.

The second CRIC model that was developed using clinically available variables had an AUC of 0.760. However, the third CRIC biomarker-enriched model was even more effective, with an AUC of 0.771 – significantly higher than the clinical model (P = .001).

Model 1 included the ACC/AHA PCE variables with coefficients recalculated in the CRIC study sample. Model 2 (the CRIC Clinical Model) included age, HDL cholesterol, systolic BP, current smoking, urinary albumin-to-creatinine ratio (ACR), hemoglobin A1c, and hemoglobin. Model 3 (the CRIC Enriched Model) included age, total cholesterol, HDL cholesterol, current smoking, urinary ACR, A1c, apolipoprotein B, high-sensitivity C-reactive protein (hsCRP), troponin T, and N-terminal of the prohormone brain natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP).

Both the clinical and biomarker models improved reclassification of non-ASCVD events, compared with the PCEs (6.6% and 10.0%, respectively).

Several factors not included in prior prediction models were important for atherosclerotic CVD prediction among patients with CKD, the researchers noted. These included variables routinely measured in clinical practice as well as biomarkers: measures of long-term glycemia (A1c), inflammation (hsCRP), kidney injury (urinary ACR), and cardiac injury (troponin T and NT-proBNP).

Patients who had an ASCVD event had higher levels of A1c, systolic and diastolic BP, urinary ACR, troponin T, and NT-proBNP; these patients also had lower levels of HDL cholesterol, eGFR, and hemoglobin, compared with those who did not have an event.

The study findings were limited by several factors including the selection of study participants based on a single assessment of kidney function, who had an above average baseline ASCVD risk, the researchers noted. Other limitations included the inability to include imaging variables in the models, and the overestimated risk in the highest predicted probability groups in the CRIC study.

However, the models significantly improve prediction beyond the ACC/AHA PCE in patients with CKD, they concluded.

 

Models may inform shared decision-making

The development of new prediction models is important, because cardiovascular disease is the leading cause of death among U.S. adults and preventing CVD is a major public health challenge, lead author Dr. Bundy said in an interview.

“In an effort to prevent CVD, risk prediction equations can help identify patients who are at high risk for developing CVD and who may benefit from initiation or intensification of preventive and/or therapeutic measures. Simultaneously, chronic kidney disease is prevalent and those with CKD are often considered at high risk for CVD,” he said.

“However, common risk prediction tools were developed for the general population and may not work as well in patients with CKD, who may have different risk factors. Improving risk prediction in patients with CKD may help identify those among this growing population who are truly at high risk, as well as identify those who are at low risk and less likely to benefit from invasive procedures,” Dr. Bundy explained.
 

Glomerular filtration rate was not a strong predictor of atherosclerotic CVD

“One of the surprising findings was that estimated glomerular filtration rate was not a strong predictor and was not included in our final models,” Dr. Bundy said.

“We know that eGFR is a very important measurement in this population, but our results suggest that, at least in our sample, urinary albumin-to-creatinine ratio and cardiac biomarkers like troponin T and NT-proBNP are stronger predictors of atherosclerotic CVD in a population with reduced kidney function,” he said.

“Patient characteristics like age, blood pressure, and cholesterol are used by health care providers to predict whether a person will have a heart attack or stroke. However, most currently available prediction tools were not made for use in patients with CKD, which is a condition that is becoming more common and is likely to be seen by more health care providers in family practice,” said Dr. Bundy. “These people with CKD may have different risk factors for heart disease.”
 

Models are useful for clinical practice

“We are seeing rising numbers of patients with CKD in the population because of increasing age, rising rates of diabetes, and hypertension,” Noel Deep, MD, said in an interview. “The current practice of medicine does not have CKD-specific prediction models for ASCVD development, and current risks are calculated based on prediction models developed for the general population.”

Courtesy Dr. Noel Deep

“Having a prediction model that incorporates criteria/variables associated with CKD improves our ability to accurately identify and address the risk of ASCVD in this particular patient population,” said Dr. Deep, who is a general internist in a multispecialty group practice with Aspirus Antigo (Wisc.) Clinic and the chief medical officer and a staff physician at Aspirus Langlade Hospital, also in Antigo.

“We always knew that CKD does place the individual at higher risk for developing ASCVD, but I was impressed by the significant improvement in the prediction models using CKD specific tools, such as cardiac biomarkers (NT-proBNP), intensity of diabetes control (A1c), tobacco use, urinary albuminuria, in addition to advancing age,” he said. “Many of the laboratory tests listed in this study are commonly available and can be easily incorporated into our evaluation for and management of ASCVD in our patients with CKD.”

“As a practicing primary care physician, I would say that this study emphasizes the importance of identifying and working toward mitigating the associated health risks that our patients with CKD might have coexisting and that significantly contribute to progression of CKD,” said Dr. Deep, who is also assistant clinical professor at the Medical College of Wisconsin, Wausau. “By addressing these risk factors, we can positively impact the health of our patients with CKD and decrease the morbidity and mortality, and health care costs. These predictive models can hopefully help us more accurately identify the risk of ASCVD thereby decreasing unnecessary diagnostic procedures and interventions which carry their own risks and morbidity.”

Looking ahead, “these predictive models should be assessed and validated in large studies in diverse populations and those with different risk factors for ASCVD because CKD can be caused by several different medical conditions each with potential to contribute to ASCVD,” Dr. Deep added.
 

Limitations and next steps

“Although we externally validated our models in two population-based cohort studies, the individuals in these datasets were selected based on only one assessment of kidney function,” Dr. Bundy noted. “Furthermore, the best practices for implementing risk prediction models in the clinic remain to be determined, especially as new models are developed.

“While our models show promising performance for predicting 10-year risk of atherosclerotic CVD, more clinical trials are needed to test implementation of these models for improving patient care and disease prevention.”

The study was supported by the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases. Additional support came from the University of Pennsylvania Clinical and Translational Science Award, Johns Hopkins University, the University of Maryland, Clinical and Translational Science Collaborative of Cleveland, the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences component of the National Institutes of Health and NIH roadmap for Medical Research, Michigan Institute for Clinical and Health Research, University of Illinois at Chicago, Tulane COBRE for Clinical and Translational Research in Cardiometabolic Diseases, Kaiser Permanente, and the University of New Mexico. Lead author Dr. Bundy was supported by the National Institutes of Health/Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Deep had no financial conflicts to disclose.

This article was updated on 2/17/2021.

The Food and Drug Administration said Feb. 11 it would delay a decision on authorizing the use of the Pfizer vaccine for younger children until data on the effects of three doses is available.

Peter Marks, MD, director of the FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, said the plan for a meeting the week of Feb. 14 of the FDA’s Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee was to “understand if two doses would provide sufficient protection to move forward.”

Pfizer has asked the FDA to authorize the use of its mRNA vaccine for children under the age of 5. But, Dr. Marks said, “in looking through the data we realized now … that at this time it makes sense for us to wait until we have the data of the evaluation of a third dose before taking action.”

The Food and Drug Administration said Feb. 11 it would delay a decision on authorizing the use of the Pfizer vaccine for younger children until data on the effects of three doses is available.

Peter Marks, MD, director of the FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, said the plan for a meeting the week of Feb. 14 of the FDA’s Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee was to “understand if two doses would provide sufficient protection to move forward.”

Pfizer has asked the FDA to authorize the use of its mRNA vaccine for children under the age of 5. But, Dr. Marks said, “in looking through the data we realized now … that at this time it makes sense for us to wait until we have the data of the evaluation of a third dose before taking action.”

The Food and Drug Administration said Feb. 11 it would delay a decision on authorizing the use of the Pfizer vaccine for younger children until data on the effects of three doses is available.

Peter Marks, MD, director of the FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, said the plan for a meeting the week of Feb. 14 of the FDA’s Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee was to “understand if two doses would provide sufficient protection to move forward.”

Pfizer has asked the FDA to authorize the use of its mRNA vaccine for children under the age of 5. But, Dr. Marks said, “in looking through the data we realized now … that at this time it makes sense for us to wait until we have the data of the evaluation of a third dose before taking action.”

Topline results from the phase 1 APOLLO study of SLN360, a short interfering ribonucleic acid (siRNA) targeting lipoprotein(a), showed it significantly reduced Lp(a) in a dose-dependent manner from 46% to up to 98%.

Reductions of up to 81% were maintained out to 150 days, according to a release from the developer of the drug, Silence Therapeutics.

High Lp(a) affects about one in five people worldwide and is a genetic risk factor for cardiovascular disease. There are no approved medications that selectively lower Lp(a), and levels cannot be significantly modified through lifestyle changes or any approved medications.

SLN360 is a siRNA that is designed to lower Lp(a) production by using the body’s natural process of RNA interference to target and silence messenger RNA transcribed from the LPA gene in liver cells.

The first-in-human APOLLO trial evaluated 32 patients with serum Lp(a) concentrations of at least 150 nmol/L and no cardiovascular disease who received a single subcutaneous dose of SLN360 (30 mg, 100 mg, less than or equal to 300 mg, or less than or equal to 600 mg) or placebo and were followed for up to 150 days.

No clinically important safety concerns were identified, although low-grade adverse events at the injection site occurred, most prominently at the highest dose, according to the company.

Study follow-up has been extended to 1 year. Patient enrollment continues in the multiple-ascending dose portion of the phase 1 study in patients with high Lp(a) and a confirmed history of stable atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease, the company statement notes.

Detailed results from APOLLO will be presented in a late-breaking clinical trials session at the American College of Cardiology Annual Scientific Session on April 3 by principal investigator Steven E. Nissen, MD, Cleveland Clinic.

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

Topline results from the phase 1 APOLLO study of SLN360, a short interfering ribonucleic acid (siRNA) targeting lipoprotein(a), showed it significantly reduced Lp(a) in a dose-dependent manner from 46% to up to 98%.

Reductions of up to 81% were maintained out to 150 days, according to a release from the developer of the drug, Silence Therapeutics.

High Lp(a) affects about one in five people worldwide and is a genetic risk factor for cardiovascular disease. There are no approved medications that selectively lower Lp(a), and levels cannot be significantly modified through lifestyle changes or any approved medications.

SLN360 is a siRNA that is designed to lower Lp(a) production by using the body’s natural process of RNA interference to target and silence messenger RNA transcribed from the LPA gene in liver cells.

The first-in-human APOLLO trial evaluated 32 patients with serum Lp(a) concentrations of at least 150 nmol/L and no cardiovascular disease who received a single subcutaneous dose of SLN360 (30 mg, 100 mg, less than or equal to 300 mg, or less than or equal to 600 mg) or placebo and were followed for up to 150 days.

No clinically important safety concerns were identified, although low-grade adverse events at the injection site occurred, most prominently at the highest dose, according to the company.

Study follow-up has been extended to 1 year. Patient enrollment continues in the multiple-ascending dose portion of the phase 1 study in patients with high Lp(a) and a confirmed history of stable atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease, the company statement notes.

Detailed results from APOLLO will be presented in a late-breaking clinical trials session at the American College of Cardiology Annual Scientific Session on April 3 by principal investigator Steven E. Nissen, MD, Cleveland Clinic.

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

Topline results from the phase 1 APOLLO study of SLN360, a short interfering ribonucleic acid (siRNA) targeting lipoprotein(a), showed it significantly reduced Lp(a) in a dose-dependent manner from 46% to up to 98%.

Reductions of up to 81% were maintained out to 150 days, according to a release from the developer of the drug, Silence Therapeutics.

High Lp(a) affects about one in five people worldwide and is a genetic risk factor for cardiovascular disease. There are no approved medications that selectively lower Lp(a), and levels cannot be significantly modified through lifestyle changes or any approved medications.

SLN360 is a siRNA that is designed to lower Lp(a) production by using the body’s natural process of RNA interference to target and silence messenger RNA transcribed from the LPA gene in liver cells.

The first-in-human APOLLO trial evaluated 32 patients with serum Lp(a) concentrations of at least 150 nmol/L and no cardiovascular disease who received a single subcutaneous dose of SLN360 (30 mg, 100 mg, less than or equal to 300 mg, or less than or equal to 600 mg) or placebo and were followed for up to 150 days.

No clinically important safety concerns were identified, although low-grade adverse events at the injection site occurred, most prominently at the highest dose, according to the company.

Study follow-up has been extended to 1 year. Patient enrollment continues in the multiple-ascending dose portion of the phase 1 study in patients with high Lp(a) and a confirmed history of stable atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease, the company statement notes.

Detailed results from APOLLO will be presented in a late-breaking clinical trials session at the American College of Cardiology Annual Scientific Session on April 3 by principal investigator Steven E. Nissen, MD, Cleveland Clinic.

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

The Centers for Disease Controls and Prevention has released a draft update of its current Clinical Practice Guidelines for Prescribing Opioids for pain management and is asking for public comment before moving forward.

The last guidance on this topic was released in 2016 and, among other things, noted that clinicians should be cautious when considering increasing dosage of opioids to 50 or more morphine milligram equivalents (MME)/day and should avoid increasing to a dose of 90 or more MME/day. It also noted that 3 days or less “will often be sufficient” regarding the quantity of lowest effective dose of immediate-release opioids to be prescribed for acute pain – and that more than 7 days “will rarely be needed.”

In the new report from the CDC’s National Center for Injury Prevention and Control (NCIPC), those dose limits have been replaced with the suggestion that clinicians use their best judgement – albeit still urging conservative use and even the possibility of nonopioid treatments.

The updated recommendations are now open for public comment via the Federal Register’s website through April 11.

“This comment period provides another critical opportunity for diverse audiences to offer their perspective on the draft clinical practice guideline,” Christopher M. Jones, PharmD, DrPH, acting director for the NCIPC, said in a release.

“We want to hear many voices from the public, including people living with pain and health care providers who help their patients manage pain,” Dr. Jones added.

Outpatient recommendations

The CDC noted that the updated guidance provides “evidence-based recommendations” for treatment of adults with acute, subacute, or chronic pain. It does not include guidance for managing pain related to sickle cell disease, cancer, or palliative care.

It is aimed at primary care clinicians and others who manage pain in an outpatient setting, including in dental and postsurgical practices and for those discharging patients from emergency departments. It does not apply to inpatient care.

The draft guidance includes 12 recommendations focused on four key areas:

• Helping clinicians determine whether or not to initiate opioid treatment for pain
• Opioid selection and dosage
• Duration of use and follow-up
• Assessing risk and addressing potential harms from use

The overall aim “is to ensure people have access to safe, accessible, and effective pain management that improves their function and quality of life while illuminating and reducing risks associated with prescription opioids and ultimately reducing the consequences of prescription opioid misuse and overdose,” the CDC notes.

In addition, the guidance itself “is intended to be a clinical tool to improve communication between providers and patients and empower them to make informed, patient-centered decisions,” the agency said in a press release.

It added that the new recommendations “are not intended to be applied as inflexible standards of care.” Rather, it is intended as a guide to support health care providers in their clinical decisionmaking as they provide individualized patient care.

Patients, caregivers, and providers are invited to submit comments over the next 60 days through the Federal Register docket.

“It is vitally important to CDC that we receive, process, and understand public feedback during the guideline update process,” the agency noted.

“The ultimate goal of this clinical practice guideline is to help people set and achieve personal goals to reduce their pain and improve their function and quality of life. Getting feedback from the public is essential to achieving this goal,” Dr. Jones said.

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

The Centers for Disease Controls and Prevention has released a draft update of its current Clinical Practice Guidelines for Prescribing Opioids for pain management and is asking for public comment before moving forward.

The last guidance on this topic was released in 2016 and, among other things, noted that clinicians should be cautious when considering increasing dosage of opioids to 50 or more morphine milligram equivalents (MME)/day and should avoid increasing to a dose of 90 or more MME/day. It also noted that 3 days or less “will often be sufficient” regarding the quantity of lowest effective dose of immediate-release opioids to be prescribed for acute pain – and that more than 7 days “will rarely be needed.”

In the new report from the CDC’s National Center for Injury Prevention and Control (NCIPC), those dose limits have been replaced with the suggestion that clinicians use their best judgement – albeit still urging conservative use and even the possibility of nonopioid treatments.

The updated recommendations are now open for public comment via the Federal Register’s website through April 11.

“This comment period provides another critical opportunity for diverse audiences to offer their perspective on the draft clinical practice guideline,” Christopher M. Jones, PharmD, DrPH, acting director for the NCIPC, said in a release.

“We want to hear many voices from the public, including people living with pain and health care providers who help their patients manage pain,” Dr. Jones added.

Outpatient recommendations

The CDC noted that the updated guidance provides “evidence-based recommendations” for treatment of adults with acute, subacute, or chronic pain. It does not include guidance for managing pain related to sickle cell disease, cancer, or palliative care.

It is aimed at primary care clinicians and others who manage pain in an outpatient setting, including in dental and postsurgical practices and for those discharging patients from emergency departments. It does not apply to inpatient care.

The draft guidance includes 12 recommendations focused on four key areas:

• Helping clinicians determine whether or not to initiate opioid treatment for pain
• Opioid selection and dosage
• Duration of use and follow-up
• Assessing risk and addressing potential harms from use

The overall aim “is to ensure people have access to safe, accessible, and effective pain management that improves their function and quality of life while illuminating and reducing risks associated with prescription opioids and ultimately reducing the consequences of prescription opioid misuse and overdose,” the CDC notes.

In addition, the guidance itself “is intended to be a clinical tool to improve communication between providers and patients and empower them to make informed, patient-centered decisions,” the agency said in a press release.

It added that the new recommendations “are not intended to be applied as inflexible standards of care.” Rather, it is intended as a guide to support health care providers in their clinical decisionmaking as they provide individualized patient care.

Patients, caregivers, and providers are invited to submit comments over the next 60 days through the Federal Register docket.

“It is vitally important to CDC that we receive, process, and understand public feedback during the guideline update process,” the agency noted.

“The ultimate goal of this clinical practice guideline is to help people set and achieve personal goals to reduce their pain and improve their function and quality of life. Getting feedback from the public is essential to achieving this goal,” Dr. Jones said.

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

The Centers for Disease Controls and Prevention has released a draft update of its current Clinical Practice Guidelines for Prescribing Opioids for pain management and is asking for public comment before moving forward.

The last guidance on this topic was released in 2016 and, among other things, noted that clinicians should be cautious when considering increasing dosage of opioids to 50 or more morphine milligram equivalents (MME)/day and should avoid increasing to a dose of 90 or more MME/day. It also noted that 3 days or less “will often be sufficient” regarding the quantity of lowest effective dose of immediate-release opioids to be prescribed for acute pain – and that more than 7 days “will rarely be needed.”

In the new report from the CDC’s National Center for Injury Prevention and Control (NCIPC), those dose limits have been replaced with the suggestion that clinicians use their best judgement – albeit still urging conservative use and even the possibility of nonopioid treatments.

The updated recommendations are now open for public comment via the Federal Register’s website through April 11.

“This comment period provides another critical opportunity for diverse audiences to offer their perspective on the draft clinical practice guideline,” Christopher M. Jones, PharmD, DrPH, acting director for the NCIPC, said in a release.

“We want to hear many voices from the public, including people living with pain and health care providers who help their patients manage pain,” Dr. Jones added.

Outpatient recommendations

The CDC noted that the updated guidance provides “evidence-based recommendations” for treatment of adults with acute, subacute, or chronic pain. It does not include guidance for managing pain related to sickle cell disease, cancer, or palliative care.

It is aimed at primary care clinicians and others who manage pain in an outpatient setting, including in dental and postsurgical practices and for those discharging patients from emergency departments. It does not apply to inpatient care.

The draft guidance includes 12 recommendations focused on four key areas:

• Helping clinicians determine whether or not to initiate opioid treatment for pain
• Opioid selection and dosage
• Duration of use and follow-up
• Assessing risk and addressing potential harms from use

The overall aim “is to ensure people have access to safe, accessible, and effective pain management that improves their function and quality of life while illuminating and reducing risks associated with prescription opioids and ultimately reducing the consequences of prescription opioid misuse and overdose,” the CDC notes.

In addition, the guidance itself “is intended to be a clinical tool to improve communication between providers and patients and empower them to make informed, patient-centered decisions,” the agency said in a press release.

It added that the new recommendations “are not intended to be applied as inflexible standards of care.” Rather, it is intended as a guide to support health care providers in their clinical decisionmaking as they provide individualized patient care.

Patients, caregivers, and providers are invited to submit comments over the next 60 days through the Federal Register docket.

“It is vitally important to CDC that we receive, process, and understand public feedback during the guideline update process,” the agency noted.

“The ultimate goal of this clinical practice guideline is to help people set and achieve personal goals to reduce their pain and improve their function and quality of life. Getting feedback from the public is essential to achieving this goal,” Dr. Jones said.

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

With the Omicron variant now accounting for almost 100% of COVID-19 cases in the United States, the 7-day average of daily COVID-related deaths hit 2,600 recently, the highest rate in about a year, the Washington Post reported.

That’s higher than the approximately 2,000 daily deaths in fall 2021 during the Delta surge, but less than the 3,000 daily deaths in January 2021, when COVID vaccines were not widely available, the Post’s data analysis said.

The Omicron variant generally causes less severe disease than other strains of COVID, but because it is so transmissible, Omicron is infecting higher raw numbers of people that previous strains.

“Even if on a per-case basis fewer people develop severe illness and die, when you apply a small percentage to a very large number, you get a substantial number,” Jennifer Nuzzo, DrPH, an epidemiologist at the Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, told the Post.

The unvaccinated, people over 75, and people with underlying medical conditions are the groups most endangered by Omicron, the Post said. About half of the deaths in January 2022 were among people over 75, compared with about a third in September 2021 during the Delta surge.

The age trend is seen in Florida, said Jason Salemi, PhD, an epidemiologist at the University of South Florida, Tampa. He told the Post that seniors accounted for about 85% of deaths in the winter of 2020-2021, about 60% during the Delta surge, and about 80% now during the Omicron surge.

The uptick in senior deaths may have occurred because seniors who got vaccinated in early 2021 didn’t get boosted ahead of the Omicron surge, he said.

“Omicron may be less severe for younger people, but it will still find vulnerable seniors in our community,” Dr. Salemi said. “That vaccination back in February isn’t as effective now if you aren’t boosted.”

CDC data shows that 95% of people in the United States over 65 have gotten at least one dose of vaccine, 88.5% are fully vaccinated, but only 62.5% have gotten a booster dose.

The COVID death rate is highest in the Midwest. During the last 2 months, Chicago reported more than 1,000 COVID deaths, almost as much as the December 2020 peak, The Post said. Minorities have been hit hard. About third of the city’s population is Black but about half the COVID victims are Black, the Post said.

“It’s been challenging because it goes up against the national narrative that omicron is nothing dangerous,” said Allison Arwady, commissioner of the Chicago Department of Public Health.

In a Feb. 9 news briefing at the White House, CDC Director Rochelle Walensky, MD, provided slightly different statistics on COVID-related deaths. She said that the 7-day average of daily deaths was about 2,400, up 3% from the previous week.

The 7-day daily average of cases is about 247,300 cases per day, down 44% from the previous week, she said. Hospital admissions are about 13,000 daily, down 25% from the previous week.

Dr. Walensky said the Omicron variant now accounts for almost 100% of COVID viruses circulating in the United States.

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

With the Omicron variant now accounting for almost 100% of COVID-19 cases in the United States, the 7-day average of daily COVID-related deaths hit 2,600 recently, the highest rate in about a year, the Washington Post reported.

That’s higher than the approximately 2,000 daily deaths in fall 2021 during the Delta surge, but less than the 3,000 daily deaths in January 2021, when COVID vaccines were not widely available, the Post’s data analysis said.

The Omicron variant generally causes less severe disease than other strains of COVID, but because it is so transmissible, Omicron is infecting higher raw numbers of people that previous strains.

“Even if on a per-case basis fewer people develop severe illness and die, when you apply a small percentage to a very large number, you get a substantial number,” Jennifer Nuzzo, DrPH, an epidemiologist at the Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, told the Post.

The unvaccinated, people over 75, and people with underlying medical conditions are the groups most endangered by Omicron, the Post said. About half of the deaths in January 2022 were among people over 75, compared with about a third in September 2021 during the Delta surge.

The age trend is seen in Florida, said Jason Salemi, PhD, an epidemiologist at the University of South Florida, Tampa. He told the Post that seniors accounted for about 85% of deaths in the winter of 2020-2021, about 60% during the Delta surge, and about 80% now during the Omicron surge.

The uptick in senior deaths may have occurred because seniors who got vaccinated in early 2021 didn’t get boosted ahead of the Omicron surge, he said.

“Omicron may be less severe for younger people, but it will still find vulnerable seniors in our community,” Dr. Salemi said. “That vaccination back in February isn’t as effective now if you aren’t boosted.”

CDC data shows that 95% of people in the United States over 65 have gotten at least one dose of vaccine, 88.5% are fully vaccinated, but only 62.5% have gotten a booster dose.

The COVID death rate is highest in the Midwest. During the last 2 months, Chicago reported more than 1,000 COVID deaths, almost as much as the December 2020 peak, The Post said. Minorities have been hit hard. About third of the city’s population is Black but about half the COVID victims are Black, the Post said.

“It’s been challenging because it goes up against the national narrative that omicron is nothing dangerous,” said Allison Arwady, commissioner of the Chicago Department of Public Health.

In a Feb. 9 news briefing at the White House, CDC Director Rochelle Walensky, MD, provided slightly different statistics on COVID-related deaths. She said that the 7-day average of daily deaths was about 2,400, up 3% from the previous week.

The 7-day daily average of cases is about 247,300 cases per day, down 44% from the previous week, she said. Hospital admissions are about 13,000 daily, down 25% from the previous week.

Dr. Walensky said the Omicron variant now accounts for almost 100% of COVID viruses circulating in the United States.

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

With the Omicron variant now accounting for almost 100% of COVID-19 cases in the United States, the 7-day average of daily COVID-related deaths hit 2,600 recently, the highest rate in about a year, the Washington Post reported.

That’s higher than the approximately 2,000 daily deaths in fall 2021 during the Delta surge, but less than the 3,000 daily deaths in January 2021, when COVID vaccines were not widely available, the Post’s data analysis said.

The Omicron variant generally causes less severe disease than other strains of COVID, but because it is so transmissible, Omicron is infecting higher raw numbers of people that previous strains.

“Even if on a per-case basis fewer people develop severe illness and die, when you apply a small percentage to a very large number, you get a substantial number,” Jennifer Nuzzo, DrPH, an epidemiologist at the Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, told the Post.

The unvaccinated, people over 75, and people with underlying medical conditions are the groups most endangered by Omicron, the Post said. About half of the deaths in January 2022 were among people over 75, compared with about a third in September 2021 during the Delta surge.

The age trend is seen in Florida, said Jason Salemi, PhD, an epidemiologist at the University of South Florida, Tampa. He told the Post that seniors accounted for about 85% of deaths in the winter of 2020-2021, about 60% during the Delta surge, and about 80% now during the Omicron surge.

The uptick in senior deaths may have occurred because seniors who got vaccinated in early 2021 didn’t get boosted ahead of the Omicron surge, he said.

“Omicron may be less severe for younger people, but it will still find vulnerable seniors in our community,” Dr. Salemi said. “That vaccination back in February isn’t as effective now if you aren’t boosted.”

CDC data shows that 95% of people in the United States over 65 have gotten at least one dose of vaccine, 88.5% are fully vaccinated, but only 62.5% have gotten a booster dose.

The COVID death rate is highest in the Midwest. During the last 2 months, Chicago reported more than 1,000 COVID deaths, almost as much as the December 2020 peak, The Post said. Minorities have been hit hard. About third of the city’s population is Black but about half the COVID victims are Black, the Post said.

“It’s been challenging because it goes up against the national narrative that omicron is nothing dangerous,” said Allison Arwady, commissioner of the Chicago Department of Public Health.

In a Feb. 9 news briefing at the White House, CDC Director Rochelle Walensky, MD, provided slightly different statistics on COVID-related deaths. She said that the 7-day average of daily deaths was about 2,400, up 3% from the previous week.

The 7-day daily average of cases is about 247,300 cases per day, down 44% from the previous week, she said. Hospital admissions are about 13,000 daily, down 25% from the previous week.

Dr. Walensky said the Omicron variant now accounts for almost 100% of COVID viruses circulating in the United States.

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

Standard dual-antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) with aspirin and a potent P2Y12 inhibitor for 12 months after stenting for an acute coronary syndrome (ACS) is under increasing fire from studies showing that varying the duration and intensity of DAPT can reduce bleeding risk without compromising ischemic protection.

A novel meta-analysis of 29 studies indirectly compares short DAPT and de-escalation in 50,602 patients, providing new insights into the relative safety and efficacy of the two strategies and further challenging current guideline recommendations.

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

Results show no difference in the risk of death between short DAPT with aspirin or P2Y12 inhibitor discontinuation 1-6 months after percutaneous coronary intervention and de-escalation to clopidogrel (Plavix) or lower-dose prasugrel (Effient) or ticagrelor (Brilinta) after the initial high-risk period for ischemic events (risk ratio, 0.98).

“However, there are some differentiating characteristics between the two. De-escalation seems to reduce NACE – net adverse cardiovascular events – likely because of a reduction in major adverse cardiac events, while short DAPT decreases bleeding,” senior author Davide Capodanno, MD, PhD, University of Catania (Italy) told this news organization.

The findings, published in JACC: Cardiovascular Interventions, are clinically plausible because patients remain on two antiplatelet drugs with de-escalation, but are on only one drug at the point of shortening DAPT, he said. “So, of course, if you have only one antiplatelet drug instead of two, you reduce bleeding. On the other hand, having two antiplatelets probably reduces the thrombotic and ischemic events.”

The study failed to show statistically significant differences in ischemic endpoints between strategies, likely because of few events and wide confidence intervals, Dr. Capodanno said. “In fact, when we look at each single component of this NACE, we see a directional difference in favor of de-escalation, which is what you would expect from two drugs.”

All-cause death was also similar among strategies in an alternative five-node analysis that split short DAPT and de-escalation into four groups and included standard DAPT.

Compared with short DAPT with P2Y12 inhibitor discontinuation, both de-escalation to clopidogrel and to half-dose prasugrel or ticagrelor reduced the risk for NACE. De-escalation to half dose also reduced the risk for minor bleeding, compared with short DAPT with aspirin discontinuation.

The overall results were similar in multiple sensitivity analyses and a Bayesian meta-analysis, according to the authors, led by Claudio Laudani, MD, also with the University of Catania.

The Bayesian analysis suggested a greater than 95% probability that de-escalation is the best strategy for NACE, MI, stroke, stent thrombosis, and minor bleeding, whereas short DAPT ranks first for major bleeding with a greater than 95% probability.
 

Guidelines upside down?

In the absence of a head-to-head comparison, the authors say the results warrant a change in current guidelines, which give a class 2a recommendation for short DAPT and a weak class 2b for de-escalation.

“The two strategies have both merits and caveats but, overall, they are very similar; so this is why we believe they should be similar [in status],” Dr. Capodanno said.

In an accompanying editorial, Dean Kereiakes, MD, Christ Hospital Heart and Vascular Center, Cincinnati, and Robert Yeh, MD, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Harvard Medical School, Boston, suggest the guideline recommendations are upside down.

“The class 1 recommendation should be for short DAPT or DAPT de-escalation vs. standard DAPT based on this meta-analysis and, frankly, based on the independent analyses from Bangalore [et al.] and from Shoji [et al.],” Dr. Kereiakes told this news organization.

“When you look at the meta-analyses that have been done, what you see is a reduction of bleeding and either no change or a slight numeric reduction in ischemic events, which magnifies the net clinical benefit, favoring short DAPT or DAPT de-escalation in comparison to standard 12-month, guideline-compliant DAPT,” he said. “So for me, it’s kind of like, game over. When will the guidelines catch up?”

In a comment, Gregg Stone, MD, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, said in an email that “both approaches warrant a class 1 recommendation in patients at high bleeding risk, and both a 2a in non–high bleeding risk patients. With contemporary drug-eluting stents, the prognosis is more strongly determined by bleeding risk and the occurrence of hemorrhagic complications than ischemic risk.”
 

Not all strategies are ‘created equal’

The editorialists caution that, while viable, not all short DAPT or de-escalation strategies are “created equal.” In the five-node analysis, for example, the relative risk of stent thrombosis is highest following a short DAPT regimen with extended aspirin monotherapy (RR, 1.45) and lowest following de-escalation to half-dose prasugrel/ticagrelor (RR, 0.45).

Although not universally observed, the signal of harm with aspirin is consistent with studies such as TWILIGHT, HOST EXAM, and a 2020 meta-analysis, in which stopping aspirin 1-3 months after PCI cut bleeding by 50%, compared with DAPT in patients with ACS, noted Dr. Kereiakes.

He also hinted that more data are forthcoming showing that short DAPT followed by aspirin single-antiplatelet therapy (SAPT) has relatively higher ischemic and bleeding event rates, compared with short DAPT followed by P2Y12 SAPT, with or without an anticoagulant on board.

The key going forward, all agree, is to formally incorporate ischemic/bleeding risk stratification tools into practice guidelines to allow personalized antiplatelet therapy. To that end, Dr. Kereiakes and Dr. Yeh offer a detailed graphic of rank-order recommendations for each strategy by clinical risk strata, with de-escalation generally best for those at greatest ischemic risk and short DAPT best applied to those at greatest bleeding risk.

“The biggest incremental knowledge provided by Davide and Laudani is that they gave us more insight into the granularity of platelet inhibition strategies,” Dr. Kereiakes said. “And it is mechanistically possible to be applied in clinical practice. It’s what I personally see in high-volume clinical practice.”

Before it can be determined which of these strategies is safer and/or more effective, a large, direct head-to-head comparative randomized trial is necessary, Dr. Stone cautioned.

“There are still many variables that were not adjusted for in this excellent study, including the timing of DAPT discontinuation or de-escalation, the specific agent used, etc.,” he added. “Finally, as implied by these results, the optimal regimen may vary based on the balance of ischemic and bleeding risk. Thus, the specific population enrolled in such a randomized trial might importantly affect its outcome.”

As a man “who likes science and statistics,” Dr. Capodanno said he’d also like a large, randomized trial directly comparing the two strategies to confirm these indirect findings. “But it’s very difficult to imagine the power for a trial like that, so it’s not something that’s easy to do.”

Dr. Capodanno reports consulting and speaker fees from Amgen, Arena, Biotronik, Daiichi-Sankyo, and Sanofi outside the present work. Coauthor disclosures are listed in the original article. Dr. Kereiakes reports consulting fees from SINO Medical Sciences Technologies, Svelte Medical Systems, Elixir Medical, and Caliber Therapeutics/Orchestra Biomed. Dr. Yeh reports consulting fees and grant support from Abbott Vascular, AstraZeneca, Boston Scientific, and Medtronic. Dr. Stone reported having no disclosures relevant to the study.

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

Standard dual-antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) with aspirin and a potent P2Y12 inhibitor for 12 months after stenting for an acute coronary syndrome (ACS) is under increasing fire from studies showing that varying the duration and intensity of DAPT can reduce bleeding risk without compromising ischemic protection.

A novel meta-analysis of 29 studies indirectly compares short DAPT and de-escalation in 50,602 patients, providing new insights into the relative safety and efficacy of the two strategies and further challenging current guideline recommendations.

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

Results show no difference in the risk of death between short DAPT with aspirin or P2Y12 inhibitor discontinuation 1-6 months after percutaneous coronary intervention and de-escalation to clopidogrel (Plavix) or lower-dose prasugrel (Effient) or ticagrelor (Brilinta) after the initial high-risk period for ischemic events (risk ratio, 0.98).

“However, there are some differentiating characteristics between the two. De-escalation seems to reduce NACE – net adverse cardiovascular events – likely because of a reduction in major adverse cardiac events, while short DAPT decreases bleeding,” senior author Davide Capodanno, MD, PhD, University of Catania (Italy) told this news organization.

The findings, published in JACC: Cardiovascular Interventions, are clinically plausible because patients remain on two antiplatelet drugs with de-escalation, but are on only one drug at the point of shortening DAPT, he said. “So, of course, if you have only one antiplatelet drug instead of two, you reduce bleeding. On the other hand, having two antiplatelets probably reduces the thrombotic and ischemic events.”

The study failed to show statistically significant differences in ischemic endpoints between strategies, likely because of few events and wide confidence intervals, Dr. Capodanno said. “In fact, when we look at each single component of this NACE, we see a directional difference in favor of de-escalation, which is what you would expect from two drugs.”

All-cause death was also similar among strategies in an alternative five-node analysis that split short DAPT and de-escalation into four groups and included standard DAPT.

Compared with short DAPT with P2Y12 inhibitor discontinuation, both de-escalation to clopidogrel and to half-dose prasugrel or ticagrelor reduced the risk for NACE. De-escalation to half dose also reduced the risk for minor bleeding, compared with short DAPT with aspirin discontinuation.

The overall results were similar in multiple sensitivity analyses and a Bayesian meta-analysis, according to the authors, led by Claudio Laudani, MD, also with the University of Catania.

The Bayesian analysis suggested a greater than 95% probability that de-escalation is the best strategy for NACE, MI, stroke, stent thrombosis, and minor bleeding, whereas short DAPT ranks first for major bleeding with a greater than 95% probability.
 

Guidelines upside down?

In the absence of a head-to-head comparison, the authors say the results warrant a change in current guidelines, which give a class 2a recommendation for short DAPT and a weak class 2b for de-escalation.

“The two strategies have both merits and caveats but, overall, they are very similar; so this is why we believe they should be similar [in status],” Dr. Capodanno said.

In an accompanying editorial, Dean Kereiakes, MD, Christ Hospital Heart and Vascular Center, Cincinnati, and Robert Yeh, MD, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Harvard Medical School, Boston, suggest the guideline recommendations are upside down.

“The class 1 recommendation should be for short DAPT or DAPT de-escalation vs. standard DAPT based on this meta-analysis and, frankly, based on the independent analyses from Bangalore [et al.] and from Shoji [et al.],” Dr. Kereiakes told this news organization.

“When you look at the meta-analyses that have been done, what you see is a reduction of bleeding and either no change or a slight numeric reduction in ischemic events, which magnifies the net clinical benefit, favoring short DAPT or DAPT de-escalation in comparison to standard 12-month, guideline-compliant DAPT,” he said. “So for me, it’s kind of like, game over. When will the guidelines catch up?”

In a comment, Gregg Stone, MD, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, said in an email that “both approaches warrant a class 1 recommendation in patients at high bleeding risk, and both a 2a in non–high bleeding risk patients. With contemporary drug-eluting stents, the prognosis is more strongly determined by bleeding risk and the occurrence of hemorrhagic complications than ischemic risk.”
 

Not all strategies are ‘created equal’

The editorialists caution that, while viable, not all short DAPT or de-escalation strategies are “created equal.” In the five-node analysis, for example, the relative risk of stent thrombosis is highest following a short DAPT regimen with extended aspirin monotherapy (RR, 1.45) and lowest following de-escalation to half-dose prasugrel/ticagrelor (RR, 0.45).

Although not universally observed, the signal of harm with aspirin is consistent with studies such as TWILIGHT, HOST EXAM, and a 2020 meta-analysis, in which stopping aspirin 1-3 months after PCI cut bleeding by 50%, compared with DAPT in patients with ACS, noted Dr. Kereiakes.

He also hinted that more data are forthcoming showing that short DAPT followed by aspirin single-antiplatelet therapy (SAPT) has relatively higher ischemic and bleeding event rates, compared with short DAPT followed by P2Y12 SAPT, with or without an anticoagulant on board.

The key going forward, all agree, is to formally incorporate ischemic/bleeding risk stratification tools into practice guidelines to allow personalized antiplatelet therapy. To that end, Dr. Kereiakes and Dr. Yeh offer a detailed graphic of rank-order recommendations for each strategy by clinical risk strata, with de-escalation generally best for those at greatest ischemic risk and short DAPT best applied to those at greatest bleeding risk.

“The biggest incremental knowledge provided by Davide and Laudani is that they gave us more insight into the granularity of platelet inhibition strategies,” Dr. Kereiakes said. “And it is mechanistically possible to be applied in clinical practice. It’s what I personally see in high-volume clinical practice.”

Before it can be determined which of these strategies is safer and/or more effective, a large, direct head-to-head comparative randomized trial is necessary, Dr. Stone cautioned.

“There are still many variables that were not adjusted for in this excellent study, including the timing of DAPT discontinuation or de-escalation, the specific agent used, etc.,” he added. “Finally, as implied by these results, the optimal regimen may vary based on the balance of ischemic and bleeding risk. Thus, the specific population enrolled in such a randomized trial might importantly affect its outcome.”

As a man “who likes science and statistics,” Dr. Capodanno said he’d also like a large, randomized trial directly comparing the two strategies to confirm these indirect findings. “But it’s very difficult to imagine the power for a trial like that, so it’s not something that’s easy to do.”

Dr. Capodanno reports consulting and speaker fees from Amgen, Arena, Biotronik, Daiichi-Sankyo, and Sanofi outside the present work. Coauthor disclosures are listed in the original article. Dr. Kereiakes reports consulting fees from SINO Medical Sciences Technologies, Svelte Medical Systems, Elixir Medical, and Caliber Therapeutics/Orchestra Biomed. Dr. Yeh reports consulting fees and grant support from Abbott Vascular, AstraZeneca, Boston Scientific, and Medtronic. Dr. Stone reported having no disclosures relevant to the study.

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

Standard dual-antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) with aspirin and a potent P2Y12 inhibitor for 12 months after stenting for an acute coronary syndrome (ACS) is under increasing fire from studies showing that varying the duration and intensity of DAPT can reduce bleeding risk without compromising ischemic protection.

A novel meta-analysis of 29 studies indirectly compares short DAPT and de-escalation in 50,602 patients, providing new insights into the relative safety and efficacy of the two strategies and further challenging current guideline recommendations.

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

Results show no difference in the risk of death between short DAPT with aspirin or P2Y12 inhibitor discontinuation 1-6 months after percutaneous coronary intervention and de-escalation to clopidogrel (Plavix) or lower-dose prasugrel (Effient) or ticagrelor (Brilinta) after the initial high-risk period for ischemic events (risk ratio, 0.98).

“However, there are some differentiating characteristics between the two. De-escalation seems to reduce NACE – net adverse cardiovascular events – likely because of a reduction in major adverse cardiac events, while short DAPT decreases bleeding,” senior author Davide Capodanno, MD, PhD, University of Catania (Italy) told this news organization.

The findings, published in JACC: Cardiovascular Interventions, are clinically plausible because patients remain on two antiplatelet drugs with de-escalation, but are on only one drug at the point of shortening DAPT, he said. “So, of course, if you have only one antiplatelet drug instead of two, you reduce bleeding. On the other hand, having two antiplatelets probably reduces the thrombotic and ischemic events.”

The study failed to show statistically significant differences in ischemic endpoints between strategies, likely because of few events and wide confidence intervals, Dr. Capodanno said. “In fact, when we look at each single component of this NACE, we see a directional difference in favor of de-escalation, which is what you would expect from two drugs.”

All-cause death was also similar among strategies in an alternative five-node analysis that split short DAPT and de-escalation into four groups and included standard DAPT.

Compared with short DAPT with P2Y12 inhibitor discontinuation, both de-escalation to clopidogrel and to half-dose prasugrel or ticagrelor reduced the risk for NACE. De-escalation to half dose also reduced the risk for minor bleeding, compared with short DAPT with aspirin discontinuation.

The overall results were similar in multiple sensitivity analyses and a Bayesian meta-analysis, according to the authors, led by Claudio Laudani, MD, also with the University of Catania.

The Bayesian analysis suggested a greater than 95% probability that de-escalation is the best strategy for NACE, MI, stroke, stent thrombosis, and minor bleeding, whereas short DAPT ranks first for major bleeding with a greater than 95% probability.
 

Guidelines upside down?

In the absence of a head-to-head comparison, the authors say the results warrant a change in current guidelines, which give a class 2a recommendation for short DAPT and a weak class 2b for de-escalation.

“The two strategies have both merits and caveats but, overall, they are very similar; so this is why we believe they should be similar [in status],” Dr. Capodanno said.

In an accompanying editorial, Dean Kereiakes, MD, Christ Hospital Heart and Vascular Center, Cincinnati, and Robert Yeh, MD, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Harvard Medical School, Boston, suggest the guideline recommendations are upside down.

“The class 1 recommendation should be for short DAPT or DAPT de-escalation vs. standard DAPT based on this meta-analysis and, frankly, based on the independent analyses from Bangalore [et al.] and from Shoji [et al.],” Dr. Kereiakes told this news organization.

“When you look at the meta-analyses that have been done, what you see is a reduction of bleeding and either no change or a slight numeric reduction in ischemic events, which magnifies the net clinical benefit, favoring short DAPT or DAPT de-escalation in comparison to standard 12-month, guideline-compliant DAPT,” he said. “So for me, it’s kind of like, game over. When will the guidelines catch up?”

In a comment, Gregg Stone, MD, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, said in an email that “both approaches warrant a class 1 recommendation in patients at high bleeding risk, and both a 2a in non–high bleeding risk patients. With contemporary drug-eluting stents, the prognosis is more strongly determined by bleeding risk and the occurrence of hemorrhagic complications than ischemic risk.”
 

Not all strategies are ‘created equal’

The editorialists caution that, while viable, not all short DAPT or de-escalation strategies are “created equal.” In the five-node analysis, for example, the relative risk of stent thrombosis is highest following a short DAPT regimen with extended aspirin monotherapy (RR, 1.45) and lowest following de-escalation to half-dose prasugrel/ticagrelor (RR, 0.45).

Although not universally observed, the signal of harm with aspirin is consistent with studies such as TWILIGHT, HOST EXAM, and a 2020 meta-analysis, in which stopping aspirin 1-3 months after PCI cut bleeding by 50%, compared with DAPT in patients with ACS, noted Dr. Kereiakes.

He also hinted that more data are forthcoming showing that short DAPT followed by aspirin single-antiplatelet therapy (SAPT) has relatively higher ischemic and bleeding event rates, compared with short DAPT followed by P2Y12 SAPT, with or without an anticoagulant on board.

The key going forward, all agree, is to formally incorporate ischemic/bleeding risk stratification tools into practice guidelines to allow personalized antiplatelet therapy. To that end, Dr. Kereiakes and Dr. Yeh offer a detailed graphic of rank-order recommendations for each strategy by clinical risk strata, with de-escalation generally best for those at greatest ischemic risk and short DAPT best applied to those at greatest bleeding risk.

“The biggest incremental knowledge provided by Davide and Laudani is that they gave us more insight into the granularity of platelet inhibition strategies,” Dr. Kereiakes said. “And it is mechanistically possible to be applied in clinical practice. It’s what I personally see in high-volume clinical practice.”

Before it can be determined which of these strategies is safer and/or more effective, a large, direct head-to-head comparative randomized trial is necessary, Dr. Stone cautioned.

“There are still many variables that were not adjusted for in this excellent study, including the timing of DAPT discontinuation or de-escalation, the specific agent used, etc.,” he added. “Finally, as implied by these results, the optimal regimen may vary based on the balance of ischemic and bleeding risk. Thus, the specific population enrolled in such a randomized trial might importantly affect its outcome.”

As a man “who likes science and statistics,” Dr. Capodanno said he’d also like a large, randomized trial directly comparing the two strategies to confirm these indirect findings. “But it’s very difficult to imagine the power for a trial like that, so it’s not something that’s easy to do.”

Dr. Capodanno reports consulting and speaker fees from Amgen, Arena, Biotronik, Daiichi-Sankyo, and Sanofi outside the present work. Coauthor disclosures are listed in the original article. Dr. Kereiakes reports consulting fees from SINO Medical Sciences Technologies, Svelte Medical Systems, Elixir Medical, and Caliber Therapeutics/Orchestra Biomed. Dr. Yeh reports consulting fees and grant support from Abbott Vascular, AstraZeneca, Boston Scientific, and Medtronic. Dr. Stone reported having no disclosures relevant to the study.

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

The Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions (SCAI) has refined its cardiogenic shock (CS) classification system based on the literature and clinician feedback from real-world experience.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

“In the 2 years since publication in 2019, the initial definition has been broadly accepted and eagerly appreciated, allowing a very intuitive way to stage these patients for better communication, triage, and treatment,” Srihari S. Naidu, MD, professor of medicine, New York Medical College, Valhalla, said in an interview.

“But the initial definition was based on consensus opinion, with a lack of real fundamental data on segregating patients into different stages. Now we have a lot more data utilizing the definition, and it became very clear that there were a couple of limitations in the initial definition,” Dr. Naidu explained.

The refined CS classification system – authored by Dr. Naidu and a multidisciplinary panel of experts from specialties that included cardiac critical care, interventional cardiology, surgery, nursing, emergency medicine, and heart failure – was published online Jan. 31 in the Journal of the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions, with simultaneous publication in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.  

It maintains the five-stage pyramid of CS, starting with “at risk” and moving through “beginning,” “classic,” “deteriorating,” and “extremis” but now includes gradations of severity within each stage and pathways by which patients progress or recover.

“Progression across the SCAI shock stage continuum is a dynamic process, incorporating new information as available, and patient trajectories are important both for communication among clinicians and for decisionmaking regarding the next level of care and therapeutics,” the panel writes.

The second iteration adds a streamlined table incorporating commonly seen variables, based on lessons learned from validation studies and clinician experience.

“While keeping the same initial framework of looking at the three components of staging – the physical exam, the biochemical markers, and hemodynamics – we’ve made it very clear that there are some factors in each of these that are most typically seen. And then there are other factors that are consistent with that stage but don’t necessarily have to be seen, ... are not typically seen in that stage, or [are] not always present at that stage,” Dr. Naidu told this news organization.

The refined CS classification system provides more granularity on cardiac arrest as a risk modifier, which now excludes very brief episodes with rapid response to defibrillation and comprises only those patients who have impaired mental status with unknown neurologic recovery status after cardiopulmonary resuscitation.

Lactate level and thresholds have been highlighted to detect hypoperfusion but may be dissociated from hemodynamics in cases such as chronic heart failure.

In addition, patients may have other manifestations of end-organ hypoperfusion with a normal lactate level, and there are also important causes of an elevated lactate level other than shock.

The revision proposes a three-axis model of CS evaluation and prognostication that integrates shock severity, clinical phenotype, and risk modifiers as distinct elements that should be applied to individualize patient management.

The revision also places more emphasis on the trajectory of the patient with CS through hospitalization, including a “hub and spoke” model for transfer of higher-risk patients, including those with a deteriorating SCAI shock stage.

“It is our desire and belief that the revised SCAI SHOCK stage classification system will enhance both clinical care and CS research trial design,” the panel writes.

This statement has been endorsed by the American College of Cardiology, American College of Emergency Physicians, American Heart Association, European Society of Cardiology Association for Acute Cardiovascular Care, International Society for Heart and Lung Transplantation, Society of Critical Care Medicine, and Society of Thoracic Surgeons.

This research had no commercial funding. Dr. Naidu has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. A complete list of author disclosures is available with the original article.

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

The Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions (SCAI) has refined its cardiogenic shock (CS) classification system based on the literature and clinician feedback from real-world experience.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

“In the 2 years since publication in 2019, the initial definition has been broadly accepted and eagerly appreciated, allowing a very intuitive way to stage these patients for better communication, triage, and treatment,” Srihari S. Naidu, MD, professor of medicine, New York Medical College, Valhalla, said in an interview.

“But the initial definition was based on consensus opinion, with a lack of real fundamental data on segregating patients into different stages. Now we have a lot more data utilizing the definition, and it became very clear that there were a couple of limitations in the initial definition,” Dr. Naidu explained.

The refined CS classification system – authored by Dr. Naidu and a multidisciplinary panel of experts from specialties that included cardiac critical care, interventional cardiology, surgery, nursing, emergency medicine, and heart failure – was published online Jan. 31 in the Journal of the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions, with simultaneous publication in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.  

It maintains the five-stage pyramid of CS, starting with “at risk” and moving through “beginning,” “classic,” “deteriorating,” and “extremis” but now includes gradations of severity within each stage and pathways by which patients progress or recover.

“Progression across the SCAI shock stage continuum is a dynamic process, incorporating new information as available, and patient trajectories are important both for communication among clinicians and for decisionmaking regarding the next level of care and therapeutics,” the panel writes.

The second iteration adds a streamlined table incorporating commonly seen variables, based on lessons learned from validation studies and clinician experience.

“While keeping the same initial framework of looking at the three components of staging – the physical exam, the biochemical markers, and hemodynamics – we’ve made it very clear that there are some factors in each of these that are most typically seen. And then there are other factors that are consistent with that stage but don’t necessarily have to be seen, ... are not typically seen in that stage, or [are] not always present at that stage,” Dr. Naidu told this news organization.

The refined CS classification system provides more granularity on cardiac arrest as a risk modifier, which now excludes very brief episodes with rapid response to defibrillation and comprises only those patients who have impaired mental status with unknown neurologic recovery status after cardiopulmonary resuscitation.

Lactate level and thresholds have been highlighted to detect hypoperfusion but may be dissociated from hemodynamics in cases such as chronic heart failure.

In addition, patients may have other manifestations of end-organ hypoperfusion with a normal lactate level, and there are also important causes of an elevated lactate level other than shock.

The revision proposes a three-axis model of CS evaluation and prognostication that integrates shock severity, clinical phenotype, and risk modifiers as distinct elements that should be applied to individualize patient management.

The revision also places more emphasis on the trajectory of the patient with CS through hospitalization, including a “hub and spoke” model for transfer of higher-risk patients, including those with a deteriorating SCAI shock stage.

“It is our desire and belief that the revised SCAI SHOCK stage classification system will enhance both clinical care and CS research trial design,” the panel writes.

This statement has been endorsed by the American College of Cardiology, American College of Emergency Physicians, American Heart Association, European Society of Cardiology Association for Acute Cardiovascular Care, International Society for Heart and Lung Transplantation, Society of Critical Care Medicine, and Society of Thoracic Surgeons.

This research had no commercial funding. Dr. Naidu has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. A complete list of author disclosures is available with the original article.

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

The Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions (SCAI) has refined its cardiogenic shock (CS) classification system based on the literature and clinician feedback from real-world experience.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

“In the 2 years since publication in 2019, the initial definition has been broadly accepted and eagerly appreciated, allowing a very intuitive way to stage these patients for better communication, triage, and treatment,” Srihari S. Naidu, MD, professor of medicine, New York Medical College, Valhalla, said in an interview.

“But the initial definition was based on consensus opinion, with a lack of real fundamental data on segregating patients into different stages. Now we have a lot more data utilizing the definition, and it became very clear that there were a couple of limitations in the initial definition,” Dr. Naidu explained.

The refined CS classification system – authored by Dr. Naidu and a multidisciplinary panel of experts from specialties that included cardiac critical care, interventional cardiology, surgery, nursing, emergency medicine, and heart failure – was published online Jan. 31 in the Journal of the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions, with simultaneous publication in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.  

It maintains the five-stage pyramid of CS, starting with “at risk” and moving through “beginning,” “classic,” “deteriorating,” and “extremis” but now includes gradations of severity within each stage and pathways by which patients progress or recover.

“Progression across the SCAI shock stage continuum is a dynamic process, incorporating new information as available, and patient trajectories are important both for communication among clinicians and for decisionmaking regarding the next level of care and therapeutics,” the panel writes.

The second iteration adds a streamlined table incorporating commonly seen variables, based on lessons learned from validation studies and clinician experience.

“While keeping the same initial framework of looking at the three components of staging – the physical exam, the biochemical markers, and hemodynamics – we’ve made it very clear that there are some factors in each of these that are most typically seen. And then there are other factors that are consistent with that stage but don’t necessarily have to be seen, ... are not typically seen in that stage, or [are] not always present at that stage,” Dr. Naidu told this news organization.

The refined CS classification system provides more granularity on cardiac arrest as a risk modifier, which now excludes very brief episodes with rapid response to defibrillation and comprises only those patients who have impaired mental status with unknown neurologic recovery status after cardiopulmonary resuscitation.

Lactate level and thresholds have been highlighted to detect hypoperfusion but may be dissociated from hemodynamics in cases such as chronic heart failure.

In addition, patients may have other manifestations of end-organ hypoperfusion with a normal lactate level, and there are also important causes of an elevated lactate level other than shock.

The revision proposes a three-axis model of CS evaluation and prognostication that integrates shock severity, clinical phenotype, and risk modifiers as distinct elements that should be applied to individualize patient management.

The revision also places more emphasis on the trajectory of the patient with CS through hospitalization, including a “hub and spoke” model for transfer of higher-risk patients, including those with a deteriorating SCAI shock stage.

“It is our desire and belief that the revised SCAI SHOCK stage classification system will enhance both clinical care and CS research trial design,” the panel writes.

This statement has been endorsed by the American College of Cardiology, American College of Emergency Physicians, American Heart Association, European Society of Cardiology Association for Acute Cardiovascular Care, International Society for Heart and Lung Transplantation, Society of Critical Care Medicine, and Society of Thoracic Surgeons.

This research had no commercial funding. Dr. Naidu has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. A complete list of author disclosures is available with the original article.

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

People who have had COVID-19 have an increased risk for, and 12-month burden of, cardiovascular disease (CVD) that is substantial and spans an array of cardiovascular disorders, a deep dive into federal data suggests.

“I went into this thinking that this is most likely happening in people to start with who have a higher risk of cardiovascular disorders, smokers, people with high BMI, diabetes, but what we found is something different,” Ziyad Al-Aly, MD, said in an interview. “It’s evident in people at high risk, but it was also as clear as the sun even in people who have no cardiovascular risk whatsoever.”

Rates were increased in younger adults, never smokers, White and Black people, and males and females, he said. “So the risk confirmed by the SARS-CoV-2 virus seems to spare almost no one.”

Although cardiovascular outcomes increased with the severity of the acute infection, the excess risks and burdens were also evident in those who never required hospitalization, a group that represents the majority of people with COVID-19, observed Dr. Al-Aly, who directs the Clinical Epidemiology Center at the Veterans Affairs St. Louis Health Care System.

“This study is very important because it underscores not just the acute cardiovascular risk associated with COVID but the increased risk of chronic cardiovascular outcomes as well,” cardiologist C. Michael Gibson, MD, professor of medicine, Harvard Medical School, Boston, said in an interview. “Given the number of patients in the U.S. who have been infected with COVID, this could represent a significant chronic burden on the health care system, particularly as health care professionals leave the profession.”

For the study, the investigators used national VA databases to build a cohort of 153,760 veterans who were alive 30 days after testing positive for COVID-19 between March 1, 2020, and January 2021. They were compared with a contemporary cohort of 5.6 million veterans with no evidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection and a historical cohort of 5.8 million veterans using the system in 2017 prior to the pandemic. Median follow-up was 347, 348, and 347 days, respectively.

As reported in Nature Medicine, the risk for a major adverse cardiovascular event, a composite of myocardial infarction, stroke, and all-cause mortality, was 4% higher in people who had been infected with COVID-19 than in those who had not.

“People say 4% is small, but actually it’s really, really big if you think about it in the context of the huge number of people who have had COVID-19 in the United States, and also globally,” Dr. Al-Aly said.

Compared with the contemporary control group, people who had COVID-19 had an increased risk (hazard ratio [HR]) and burden per 1,000 people at 1 year for the following cardiovascular outcomes:

• Stroke: HR, 1.52; burden, 4.03
• Transient ischemic attack: HR, 1.49; burden, 1.84
• Dysrhythmias: HR, 1.69; burden, 19.86
• Ischemic heart disease: HR, 1.66; burden, 7.28
• Heart failure: HR, 1.72; burden, 11.61
• Nonischemic cardiomyopathy: HR, 1.62; burden 3.56
• Pulmonary embolism: HR, 2.93; burden, 5.47
• Deep vein thrombosis: HR, 2.09; burden, 4.18
• Pericarditis: HR, 1.85, burden, 0.98
• Myocarditis: HR, 5.38; burden, 0.31

Recent reports have raised concerns about an association between COVID-19 vaccines and myocarditis and pericarditis, particularly in young males. Although very few of the participants were vaccinated prior to becoming infected, as vaccines were not yet widely available, the researchers performed two analyses censoring participants at the time of the first dose of any COVID-19 vaccine and adjusting for vaccination as a time-varying covariate.

The absolute numbers of myocarditis and pericarditis were still higher than the contemporary and historical cohorts. These numbers are much larger than those reported for myocarditis after vaccines, which are generally around 40 cases per 1 million people, observed Dr. Al-Aly.

The overall results were also consistent when compared with the historical control subjects.

“What we’re seeing in our report and others is that SARS-CoV-2 can leave a sort of scar or imprint on people, and some of these conditions are likely chronic conditions,” Dr. Al-Aly said. “So you’re going to have a generation of people who will bear the scar of COVID for their lifetime and I think that requires recognition and attention, so we’re aware of the magnitude of the problem and prepared to deal with it.”

With more than 76 million COVID-19 cases in the United States, that effort will likely have to be at the federal level, similar to President Joe Biden’s recent relaunch of the “Cancer Moonshot,” he added. “We need a greater and broader recognition at the federal level to try and recognize that when you have an earthquake, you don’t just deal with the earthquake when the earth is shaking, but you also need to deal with the aftermath.”

Dr. Gibson pointed out that this was a study of predominantly males and, thus, it’s unclear if the results can be extended to females. Nevertheless, he added, “long COVID may include outcomes beyond the central nervous system and we should educate patients about the risk of late cardiovascular outcomes.”

The authors noted the largely White, male cohort may limit generalizability of the findings. Other limitations include the possibility that some people may have had COVID-19 but were not tested, the datasets lacked information on cause of death, and possible residual confounding not accounted for in the adjusted analyses.

The research was funded by the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs and two American Society of Nephrology and Kidney Cure fellowship awards. The authors declared no competing interests. Dr. Gibson reports having no relevant conflicts of interest.

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

People who have had COVID-19 have an increased risk for, and 12-month burden of, cardiovascular disease (CVD) that is substantial and spans an array of cardiovascular disorders, a deep dive into federal data suggests.

“I went into this thinking that this is most likely happening in people to start with who have a higher risk of cardiovascular disorders, smokers, people with high BMI, diabetes, but what we found is something different,” Ziyad Al-Aly, MD, said in an interview. “It’s evident in people at high risk, but it was also as clear as the sun even in people who have no cardiovascular risk whatsoever.”

Rates were increased in younger adults, never smokers, White and Black people, and males and females, he said. “So the risk confirmed by the SARS-CoV-2 virus seems to spare almost no one.”

Although cardiovascular outcomes increased with the severity of the acute infection, the excess risks and burdens were also evident in those who never required hospitalization, a group that represents the majority of people with COVID-19, observed Dr. Al-Aly, who directs the Clinical Epidemiology Center at the Veterans Affairs St. Louis Health Care System.

“This study is very important because it underscores not just the acute cardiovascular risk associated with COVID but the increased risk of chronic cardiovascular outcomes as well,” cardiologist C. Michael Gibson, MD, professor of medicine, Harvard Medical School, Boston, said in an interview. “Given the number of patients in the U.S. who have been infected with COVID, this could represent a significant chronic burden on the health care system, particularly as health care professionals leave the profession.”

For the study, the investigators used national VA databases to build a cohort of 153,760 veterans who were alive 30 days after testing positive for COVID-19 between March 1, 2020, and January 2021. They were compared with a contemporary cohort of 5.6 million veterans with no evidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection and a historical cohort of 5.8 million veterans using the system in 2017 prior to the pandemic. Median follow-up was 347, 348, and 347 days, respectively.

As reported in Nature Medicine, the risk for a major adverse cardiovascular event, a composite of myocardial infarction, stroke, and all-cause mortality, was 4% higher in people who had been infected with COVID-19 than in those who had not.

“People say 4% is small, but actually it’s really, really big if you think about it in the context of the huge number of people who have had COVID-19 in the United States, and also globally,” Dr. Al-Aly said.

Compared with the contemporary control group, people who had COVID-19 had an increased risk (hazard ratio [HR]) and burden per 1,000 people at 1 year for the following cardiovascular outcomes:

• Stroke: HR, 1.52; burden, 4.03
• Transient ischemic attack: HR, 1.49; burden, 1.84
• Dysrhythmias: HR, 1.69; burden, 19.86
• Ischemic heart disease: HR, 1.66; burden, 7.28
• Heart failure: HR, 1.72; burden, 11.61
• Nonischemic cardiomyopathy: HR, 1.62; burden 3.56
• Pulmonary embolism: HR, 2.93; burden, 5.47
• Deep vein thrombosis: HR, 2.09; burden, 4.18
• Pericarditis: HR, 1.85, burden, 0.98
• Myocarditis: HR, 5.38; burden, 0.31

Recent reports have raised concerns about an association between COVID-19 vaccines and myocarditis and pericarditis, particularly in young males. Although very few of the participants were vaccinated prior to becoming infected, as vaccines were not yet widely available, the researchers performed two analyses censoring participants at the time of the first dose of any COVID-19 vaccine and adjusting for vaccination as a time-varying covariate.

The absolute numbers of myocarditis and pericarditis were still higher than the contemporary and historical cohorts. These numbers are much larger than those reported for myocarditis after vaccines, which are generally around 40 cases per 1 million people, observed Dr. Al-Aly.

The overall results were also consistent when compared with the historical control subjects.

“What we’re seeing in our report and others is that SARS-CoV-2 can leave a sort of scar or imprint on people, and some of these conditions are likely chronic conditions,” Dr. Al-Aly said. “So you’re going to have a generation of people who will bear the scar of COVID for their lifetime and I think that requires recognition and attention, so we’re aware of the magnitude of the problem and prepared to deal with it.”

With more than 76 million COVID-19 cases in the United States, that effort will likely have to be at the federal level, similar to President Joe Biden’s recent relaunch of the “Cancer Moonshot,” he added. “We need a greater and broader recognition at the federal level to try and recognize that when you have an earthquake, you don’t just deal with the earthquake when the earth is shaking, but you also need to deal with the aftermath.”

Dr. Gibson pointed out that this was a study of predominantly males and, thus, it’s unclear if the results can be extended to females. Nevertheless, he added, “long COVID may include outcomes beyond the central nervous system and we should educate patients about the risk of late cardiovascular outcomes.”

The authors noted the largely White, male cohort may limit generalizability of the findings. Other limitations include the possibility that some people may have had COVID-19 but were not tested, the datasets lacked information on cause of death, and possible residual confounding not accounted for in the adjusted analyses.

The research was funded by the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs and two American Society of Nephrology and Kidney Cure fellowship awards. The authors declared no competing interests. Dr. Gibson reports having no relevant conflicts of interest.

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

People who have had COVID-19 have an increased risk for, and 12-month burden of, cardiovascular disease (CVD) that is substantial and spans an array of cardiovascular disorders, a deep dive into federal data suggests.

“I went into this thinking that this is most likely happening in people to start with who have a higher risk of cardiovascular disorders, smokers, people with high BMI, diabetes, but what we found is something different,” Ziyad Al-Aly, MD, said in an interview. “It’s evident in people at high risk, but it was also as clear as the sun even in people who have no cardiovascular risk whatsoever.”

Rates were increased in younger adults, never smokers, White and Black people, and males and females, he said. “So the risk confirmed by the SARS-CoV-2 virus seems to spare almost no one.”

Although cardiovascular outcomes increased with the severity of the acute infection, the excess risks and burdens were also evident in those who never required hospitalization, a group that represents the majority of people with COVID-19, observed Dr. Al-Aly, who directs the Clinical Epidemiology Center at the Veterans Affairs St. Louis Health Care System.

“This study is very important because it underscores not just the acute cardiovascular risk associated with COVID but the increased risk of chronic cardiovascular outcomes as well,” cardiologist C. Michael Gibson, MD, professor of medicine, Harvard Medical School, Boston, said in an interview. “Given the number of patients in the U.S. who have been infected with COVID, this could represent a significant chronic burden on the health care system, particularly as health care professionals leave the profession.”

For the study, the investigators used national VA databases to build a cohort of 153,760 veterans who were alive 30 days after testing positive for COVID-19 between March 1, 2020, and January 2021. They were compared with a contemporary cohort of 5.6 million veterans with no evidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection and a historical cohort of 5.8 million veterans using the system in 2017 prior to the pandemic. Median follow-up was 347, 348, and 347 days, respectively.

As reported in Nature Medicine, the risk for a major adverse cardiovascular event, a composite of myocardial infarction, stroke, and all-cause mortality, was 4% higher in people who had been infected with COVID-19 than in those who had not.

“People say 4% is small, but actually it’s really, really big if you think about it in the context of the huge number of people who have had COVID-19 in the United States, and also globally,” Dr. Al-Aly said.

Compared with the contemporary control group, people who had COVID-19 had an increased risk (hazard ratio [HR]) and burden per 1,000 people at 1 year for the following cardiovascular outcomes:

• Stroke: HR, 1.52; burden, 4.03
• Transient ischemic attack: HR, 1.49; burden, 1.84
• Dysrhythmias: HR, 1.69; burden, 19.86
• Ischemic heart disease: HR, 1.66; burden, 7.28
• Heart failure: HR, 1.72; burden, 11.61
• Nonischemic cardiomyopathy: HR, 1.62; burden 3.56
• Pulmonary embolism: HR, 2.93; burden, 5.47
• Deep vein thrombosis: HR, 2.09; burden, 4.18
• Pericarditis: HR, 1.85, burden, 0.98
• Myocarditis: HR, 5.38; burden, 0.31

Recent reports have raised concerns about an association between COVID-19 vaccines and myocarditis and pericarditis, particularly in young males. Although very few of the participants were vaccinated prior to becoming infected, as vaccines were not yet widely available, the researchers performed two analyses censoring participants at the time of the first dose of any COVID-19 vaccine and adjusting for vaccination as a time-varying covariate.

The absolute numbers of myocarditis and pericarditis were still higher than the contemporary and historical cohorts. These numbers are much larger than those reported for myocarditis after vaccines, which are generally around 40 cases per 1 million people, observed Dr. Al-Aly.

The overall results were also consistent when compared with the historical control subjects.

“What we’re seeing in our report and others is that SARS-CoV-2 can leave a sort of scar or imprint on people, and some of these conditions are likely chronic conditions,” Dr. Al-Aly said. “So you’re going to have a generation of people who will bear the scar of COVID for their lifetime and I think that requires recognition and attention, so we’re aware of the magnitude of the problem and prepared to deal with it.”

With more than 76 million COVID-19 cases in the United States, that effort will likely have to be at the federal level, similar to President Joe Biden’s recent relaunch of the “Cancer Moonshot,” he added. “We need a greater and broader recognition at the federal level to try and recognize that when you have an earthquake, you don’t just deal with the earthquake when the earth is shaking, but you also need to deal with the aftermath.”

Dr. Gibson pointed out that this was a study of predominantly males and, thus, it’s unclear if the results can be extended to females. Nevertheless, he added, “long COVID may include outcomes beyond the central nervous system and we should educate patients about the risk of late cardiovascular outcomes.”

The authors noted the largely White, male cohort may limit generalizability of the findings. Other limitations include the possibility that some people may have had COVID-19 but were not tested, the datasets lacked information on cause of death, and possible residual confounding not accounted for in the adjusted analyses.

The research was funded by the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs and two American Society of Nephrology and Kidney Cure fellowship awards. The authors declared no competing interests. Dr. Gibson reports having no relevant conflicts of interest.

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

People with long-COVID “brain fog” may be able to recover mental abilities that were dulled or stolen from them by the virus through an approach that has improved the effects of stroke, traumatic brain injury, and other post-viral disorders, doctors and scientists say.

For a lucky portion of the population, COVID-19 lasts a handful of days with minor symptoms. But for an estimated 37% who contract the virus, symptoms can linger for weeks, months, or even years. One of the most common symptoms of long COVID is brain fog: a life-altering condition characterized by slow thinking, confusion, difficulty remembering things, and poor concentration.

A type of rehabilitation program that allows the brain to rewire itself has been successful in improving the lives of people with brain fog. The approaches are based on the concept of neuroplasticity: The ability of neural networks in the brain to change, adapt, and strengthen, much like a muscle in the body that has been trained and exercised.

“The brain’s ability to bounce back from injury is what neuroplasticity is, and I’ve worked with people in our rehab clinic who have had brain tumors or suffer the effects of surgery or radiation on the brain, and people who have had West Nile virus, HIV, and meningitis,” said Tom Bergquist, PhD, clinical neuropsychologist at Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn. “There’s not a week that goes by that I don’t see someone recovering from COVID-19.”

One of the approaches used in the clinic is errorless learning, or having a patient with memory problems repeat information a certain number of times without error. The repetition helps rebuild those memory skills that were weakened during infection, Dr. Bergquist says.

People who have experienced brain fog after other viral infections have seen improvements with these approaches. Ben Ahrens, co-founder and CEO of re-origin – a company that offers neuroplasticity therapy – says he had long-term cognitive issues after a Lyme disease infection. Posttreatment Lyme disease syndrome, or chronic Lyme disease, occurs in about 1 in 10 people who are infected.

Mr. Ahrens says he was struck with Lyme 10 years ago and had brain fog, joint pain, and brain lesions detectable on scans for several years after infection.

According to Mr. Ahrens, neuroplasticity-based therapies help combat what researchers have found may be a lingering memory of past infections that lead to a heightened immune response, causing lingering symptoms.

“Essentially, what we believe is happening here, is the brain has learned that these symptoms are life-threatening – because, in fact, they can be,” Mr. Ahrens said. “The brain’s one job is to protect the body, and once it’s learned to associate these symptoms with that potentially very dangerous pathogen, even after it’s gone, things like a normal headache can trigger an immune cascade.”

Studies are underway at the University of Alabama at Birmingham to examine whether constraint-induced therapy – an approach rooted in neuroplasticity and historically used for loss of limb and speech function – is also effective for cognitive impairments like brain fog.

One technique they use is called shaping, which requires a person to repeatedly carry out their personal best function of impaired use – for example, remembering household tasks they have previously forgotten. That is done multiple times over several weeks in the clinic, and patients are given ways to transfer those skills to real-life use.

So far, the results are promising, said Edward Taub, PhD, researcher and professor of psychology at the University of Alabama at Birmingham.

When used in the past for physical impairments, researchers have noted not just clinical improvements, but structural changes. It led to an increase in the brain’s gray matter – which allows individuals to control movement, memory, and emotions – and improved white matter, which helps communication between gray matter areas.

Though results of the cognitive studies have not been published, Dr. Taub said patients with brain fog have shown improvement after just 35 hours of therapy and are nearly 100% improved after 6 months.

“The idea behind this is that the brain is responsive to use,” Dr. Taub said. “The amount of brain territory that’s dedicated to supporting or mediating a given behavioral function depends on the demands placed on the brain.”

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

People with long-COVID “brain fog” may be able to recover mental abilities that were dulled or stolen from them by the virus through an approach that has improved the effects of stroke, traumatic brain injury, and other post-viral disorders, doctors and scientists say.

For a lucky portion of the population, COVID-19 lasts a handful of days with minor symptoms. But for an estimated 37% who contract the virus, symptoms can linger for weeks, months, or even years. One of the most common symptoms of long COVID is brain fog: a life-altering condition characterized by slow thinking, confusion, difficulty remembering things, and poor concentration.

A type of rehabilitation program that allows the brain to rewire itself has been successful in improving the lives of people with brain fog. The approaches are based on the concept of neuroplasticity: The ability of neural networks in the brain to change, adapt, and strengthen, much like a muscle in the body that has been trained and exercised.

“The brain’s ability to bounce back from injury is what neuroplasticity is, and I’ve worked with people in our rehab clinic who have had brain tumors or suffer the effects of surgery or radiation on the brain, and people who have had West Nile virus, HIV, and meningitis,” said Tom Bergquist, PhD, clinical neuropsychologist at Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn. “There’s not a week that goes by that I don’t see someone recovering from COVID-19.”

One of the approaches used in the clinic is errorless learning, or having a patient with memory problems repeat information a certain number of times without error. The repetition helps rebuild those memory skills that were weakened during infection, Dr. Bergquist says.

People who have experienced brain fog after other viral infections have seen improvements with these approaches. Ben Ahrens, co-founder and CEO of re-origin – a company that offers neuroplasticity therapy – says he had long-term cognitive issues after a Lyme disease infection. Posttreatment Lyme disease syndrome, or chronic Lyme disease, occurs in about 1 in 10 people who are infected.

Mr. Ahrens says he was struck with Lyme 10 years ago and had brain fog, joint pain, and brain lesions detectable on scans for several years after infection.

According to Mr. Ahrens, neuroplasticity-based therapies help combat what researchers have found may be a lingering memory of past infections that lead to a heightened immune response, causing lingering symptoms.

“Essentially, what we believe is happening here, is the brain has learned that these symptoms are life-threatening – because, in fact, they can be,” Mr. Ahrens said. “The brain’s one job is to protect the body, and once it’s learned to associate these symptoms with that potentially very dangerous pathogen, even after it’s gone, things like a normal headache can trigger an immune cascade.”

Studies are underway at the University of Alabama at Birmingham to examine whether constraint-induced therapy – an approach rooted in neuroplasticity and historically used for loss of limb and speech function – is also effective for cognitive impairments like brain fog.

One technique they use is called shaping, which requires a person to repeatedly carry out their personal best function of impaired use – for example, remembering household tasks they have previously forgotten. That is done multiple times over several weeks in the clinic, and patients are given ways to transfer those skills to real-life use.

So far, the results are promising, said Edward Taub, PhD, researcher and professor of psychology at the University of Alabama at Birmingham.

When used in the past for physical impairments, researchers have noted not just clinical improvements, but structural changes. It led to an increase in the brain’s gray matter – which allows individuals to control movement, memory, and emotions – and improved white matter, which helps communication between gray matter areas.

Though results of the cognitive studies have not been published, Dr. Taub said patients with brain fog have shown improvement after just 35 hours of therapy and are nearly 100% improved after 6 months.

“The idea behind this is that the brain is responsive to use,” Dr. Taub said. “The amount of brain territory that’s dedicated to supporting or mediating a given behavioral function depends on the demands placed on the brain.”

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

People with long-COVID “brain fog” may be able to recover mental abilities that were dulled or stolen from them by the virus through an approach that has improved the effects of stroke, traumatic brain injury, and other post-viral disorders, doctors and scientists say.

For a lucky portion of the population, COVID-19 lasts a handful of days with minor symptoms. But for an estimated 37% who contract the virus, symptoms can linger for weeks, months, or even years. One of the most common symptoms of long COVID is brain fog: a life-altering condition characterized by slow thinking, confusion, difficulty remembering things, and poor concentration.

A type of rehabilitation program that allows the brain to rewire itself has been successful in improving the lives of people with brain fog. The approaches are based on the concept of neuroplasticity: The ability of neural networks in the brain to change, adapt, and strengthen, much like a muscle in the body that has been trained and exercised.

“The brain’s ability to bounce back from injury is what neuroplasticity is, and I’ve worked with people in our rehab clinic who have had brain tumors or suffer the effects of surgery or radiation on the brain, and people who have had West Nile virus, HIV, and meningitis,” said Tom Bergquist, PhD, clinical neuropsychologist at Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn. “There’s not a week that goes by that I don’t see someone recovering from COVID-19.”

One of the approaches used in the clinic is errorless learning, or having a patient with memory problems repeat information a certain number of times without error. The repetition helps rebuild those memory skills that were weakened during infection, Dr. Bergquist says.

People who have experienced brain fog after other viral infections have seen improvements with these approaches. Ben Ahrens, co-founder and CEO of re-origin – a company that offers neuroplasticity therapy – says he had long-term cognitive issues after a Lyme disease infection. Posttreatment Lyme disease syndrome, or chronic Lyme disease, occurs in about 1 in 10 people who are infected.

Mr. Ahrens says he was struck with Lyme 10 years ago and had brain fog, joint pain, and brain lesions detectable on scans for several years after infection.

According to Mr. Ahrens, neuroplasticity-based therapies help combat what researchers have found may be a lingering memory of past infections that lead to a heightened immune response, causing lingering symptoms.

“Essentially, what we believe is happening here, is the brain has learned that these symptoms are life-threatening – because, in fact, they can be,” Mr. Ahrens said. “The brain’s one job is to protect the body, and once it’s learned to associate these symptoms with that potentially very dangerous pathogen, even after it’s gone, things like a normal headache can trigger an immune cascade.”

Studies are underway at the University of Alabama at Birmingham to examine whether constraint-induced therapy – an approach rooted in neuroplasticity and historically used for loss of limb and speech function – is also effective for cognitive impairments like brain fog.

One technique they use is called shaping, which requires a person to repeatedly carry out their personal best function of impaired use – for example, remembering household tasks they have previously forgotten. That is done multiple times over several weeks in the clinic, and patients are given ways to transfer those skills to real-life use.

So far, the results are promising, said Edward Taub, PhD, researcher and professor of psychology at the University of Alabama at Birmingham.

When used in the past for physical impairments, researchers have noted not just clinical improvements, but structural changes. It led to an increase in the brain’s gray matter – which allows individuals to control movement, memory, and emotions – and improved white matter, which helps communication between gray matter areas.

Though results of the cognitive studies have not been published, Dr. Taub said patients with brain fog have shown improvement after just 35 hours of therapy and are nearly 100% improved after 6 months.

“The idea behind this is that the brain is responsive to use,” Dr. Taub said. “The amount of brain territory that’s dedicated to supporting or mediating a given behavioral function depends on the demands placed on the brain.”

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

While endovascular therapy is now well established to be of benefit in patients with occlusion of a large cerebral vessel and a small or moderate infarct area of the brain, a new study suggests that this treatment could also be effective for patients with strokes that have caused a larger area of ischemic damage.

The RESCUE-JAPAN LIMIT trial was presented at the International Stroke Conference by Shinichi Yoshimura, MD, Hyogo College of Medicine, Nishinomiya, Japan. The study was also published online in the New England Journal of Medicine to coincide with its presentation at the ISC meeting.

The trial showed that among patients with acute stroke and a large ischemic brain region, functional outcomes at 90 days were better with endovascular therapy and medical care than with medical care alone.

Patients who received endovascular therapy were more than twice as likely to have a good functional outcome, defined as a modified Rankin scale (mRS) score of 0-3 at 90 days, than those who received medical care alone.

While the rate of intracranial hemorrhage increased with endovascular therapy, authors of the study and outside commentators suggested that the benefit appeared to outweigh the risk. “Our results provide strong evidence that endovascular therapy improves patient outcomes when the infarct area is large,” Dr. Yoshimura concluded at the meeting, presented by the American Stroke Association, a division of the American Heart Association.

Commenting on the study at an ISC press conference, Tudor Jovin, MD, chair of neurology at Cooper University Hospital, Cherry Hill, New Jersey, said: “The question of strokes with a large core stroke being an exclusion criteria for endovascular therapy is arguably one of the hottest topics the field is facing at this time. There are several randomized trials ongoing aiming to answer this question.”

“The RESCUE-JAPAN trial is the first of these trials to report and shed some light on this issue,” Dr. Jovin added. “The results appear to show that these patients with large core infarcts have just as much benefit from endovascular therapy as patients with smaller infarcts.”

Dr. Jovin described these findings as encouraging but also surprising. “When these large core randomized trials were planned, there was a belief that there would be benefit at some level. But what is surprising to me is that in this trial the benefit was similar to that seen in trials in patients with moderate or small core infarcts. This begs the question of whether we should care about the size of the infarct when we are considering taking these patients for thrombectomy,” he said.

Confirmation needed

On whether this will change practice, Dr. Jovin cautioned that this was just one study with a relatively small number of patients. “I think it is important that all the other randomized trials ongoing should continue so that we have a definitive answer to this question,” he said.

In his presentation, Dr. Yoshimura explained that current guidelines recommended endovascular therapy for patients with large cerebral vessel occlusion and a small or moderate infarct size – an ASPECTS score (Alberta Stroke Program Early Computed Tomographic Score) of 6 or higher. The ASPECTS score has a scale of 1-10, with lower values indicating larger infarction.

The RESCUE-JAPAN LIMIT study included 203 patients with occlusion of large cerebral vessels and sizable strokes on imaging, as indicated by an ASPECTS score of 3 to 5.

Patients were randomly assigned to receive endovascular therapy with medical care (endovascular-therapy group) or medical therapy alone (medical-care group) within 6 hours after they were last known to be well or within 24 hours if there was no early change on fluid-attenuated inversion recovery images indicating that the infarction was recent.

The percentage of patients with a good outcome as defined by an mRS score of 0 to 3 at 90 days, the primary outcome, was 31.0% in the endovascular-therapy group and 12.7% in the medical-care group (relative risk, 2.43; 95% confidence interval, 1.35 to 4.37; P = .002).

Secondary outcomes were mRS scores of 0 to 2 and 0 to 1, an ordinal shift across the range of mRS scores toward a better outcome at 90 days, and an improvement of at least 8 points in the National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS) score (range, 0 to 42, with higher scores indicating greater deficit) at 48 hours.

An mRS score of 0 to 2 was seen in 14% of patients in the endovascular-therapy group and 6.9% in the medical-care group (RR, 2.04; 95% CI, 0.86 to 4.84), and an mRS score of 0 to 1 was reported in 5% of the endovascular group versus 2.9% of the medical group (RR, 1.70; 95% CI, 0.42 to 6.93).

The ordinal shift across the range of mRS scores also favored endovascular therapy (common odds ratio, 2.42; 95% CI, 1.46 to 4.01).

An improvement of at least 8 points on the NIHSS score at 48 hours was observed in 31.0% of the patients in the endovascular-therapy group and 8.8% of those in the medical-care group (RR, 3.51; 95% CI, 1.76 to 7.00).

In terms of safety, any intracranial hemorrhage occurred in 58.0% of patients in the endovascular group and 31.4% of those in the medical therapy group (RR, 1.85; 95% CI, 1.33 to 2.58; P < .001).

There was also a trend toward an increase in symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage in the endovascular group (9% vs. 4.9%), but this did not reach significance (RR, 1.84; 95% CI, 0.64 to 5.29; P = .25).

In the NEJM paper, the authors pointed out that the ASPECTS value in most of the patients in this study was determined with the use of diffusion-weighted MRI, as MRI is widely used in Japan for the diagnosis of acute ischemic stroke. They noted that differences between ASPECTS values based on CT results and those based on diffusion-weighted MRI results should be considered in the interpretation of the results and that previous studies have suggested that an ASPECTS value determined with the use of diffusion-weighted MRI may be one level lower than that determined with the use of CT.

They also noted that there was a relatively low use of thrombolysis in the trial (27% to 29%), which may have altered the outcomes in both groups and disadvantaged the medical-care group. However, they add that most guidelines recommend against the use of thrombolysis when there is extensive ischemic change on imaging.
 

Risk/benefit trade-off

Commenting on the trade-off between benefits and risks in the study, Dr. Jovin said the increase in intracranial hemorrhage seen in the endovascular group was similar to that seen in other situations.

“This is not really any different from what is seen when giving tPA [tissue plasminogen activator] to stroke patients or when performing thrombectomy in small or moderate core strokes – we know that intracranial hemorrhage is the price to pay,” he stated.

“While the increase in symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage was nonsignificant, the trend is very clear, and I believe it is real,” Dr. Jovin said. “But I think what matters – and what matters to patients – is that there is a much higher chance of having a good outcome with endovascular therapy. I think most patients will accept the extra risk of intracranial hemorrhage if there is an even higher chance of having a better neurological outcome. This is no different to the approach that we take when we treat patients with IV tPA.”

Dr. Jovin pointed out that the RESCUE-JAPAN study did not include the largest core infarcts (ASPECTS score 0-1), but he added that these very large core infarcts are quite rare – especially in patients in the early time window.

He concluded that the study provided important information but cautioned that, with just 200 patients, the findings needed confirmation from other randomized trials that are ongoing.

Also speaking at the ISC press conference, Mitchell Elkind, MD, immediate past president of the American Heart Association/American Stroke Association, and professor of neurology at Columbia University, New York, said previous trials had established endovascular therapy for patients with large cerebral artery occlusions who have primarily preserved brain tissue and small infarct cores.

“We have picked off the low-lying fruit – the patients with small areas of infarcted brain. But perhaps most patients do not fit into this category and now we are seeing trials addressing these groups,” he said. “This initial study suggests that these patients with larger core infarcts can indeed still benefit from this therapy tremendously.”

The RESCUE-JAPAN LIMIT study was supported in part by the Mihara Cerebrovascular Disorder Research Promotion Fund and the Japanese Society for Neuroendovascular Therapy. There was no industry involvement. Dr. Yoshimura reported research grants from Stryker, Siemens Healthineers, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Sanofi, Eisai, Daiichi Sankyo, Teijin Pharma, Chugai Pharmaceutical, HEALIOS, Asahi Kasei Medical, Kowa, and CSL Behring; and lecturer fees from Stryker, Medtronic, Johnson & Johnson, Kaneka, Terumo, Biomedical Solutions, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Daiichi Sankyo, Bayer, and Bristol-Meyers Squibb.

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

While endovascular therapy is now well established to be of benefit in patients with occlusion of a large cerebral vessel and a small or moderate infarct area of the brain, a new study suggests that this treatment could also be effective for patients with strokes that have caused a larger area of ischemic damage.

The RESCUE-JAPAN LIMIT trial was presented at the International Stroke Conference by Shinichi Yoshimura, MD, Hyogo College of Medicine, Nishinomiya, Japan. The study was also published online in the New England Journal of Medicine to coincide with its presentation at the ISC meeting.

The trial showed that among patients with acute stroke and a large ischemic brain region, functional outcomes at 90 days were better with endovascular therapy and medical care than with medical care alone.

Patients who received endovascular therapy were more than twice as likely to have a good functional outcome, defined as a modified Rankin scale (mRS) score of 0-3 at 90 days, than those who received medical care alone.

While the rate of intracranial hemorrhage increased with endovascular therapy, authors of the study and outside commentators suggested that the benefit appeared to outweigh the risk. “Our results provide strong evidence that endovascular therapy improves patient outcomes when the infarct area is large,” Dr. Yoshimura concluded at the meeting, presented by the American Stroke Association, a division of the American Heart Association.

Commenting on the study at an ISC press conference, Tudor Jovin, MD, chair of neurology at Cooper University Hospital, Cherry Hill, New Jersey, said: “The question of strokes with a large core stroke being an exclusion criteria for endovascular therapy is arguably one of the hottest topics the field is facing at this time. There are several randomized trials ongoing aiming to answer this question.”

“The RESCUE-JAPAN trial is the first of these trials to report and shed some light on this issue,” Dr. Jovin added. “The results appear to show that these patients with large core infarcts have just as much benefit from endovascular therapy as patients with smaller infarcts.”

Dr. Jovin described these findings as encouraging but also surprising. “When these large core randomized trials were planned, there was a belief that there would be benefit at some level. But what is surprising to me is that in this trial the benefit was similar to that seen in trials in patients with moderate or small core infarcts. This begs the question of whether we should care about the size of the infarct when we are considering taking these patients for thrombectomy,” he said.

Confirmation needed

On whether this will change practice, Dr. Jovin cautioned that this was just one study with a relatively small number of patients. “I think it is important that all the other randomized trials ongoing should continue so that we have a definitive answer to this question,” he said.

In his presentation, Dr. Yoshimura explained that current guidelines recommended endovascular therapy for patients with large cerebral vessel occlusion and a small or moderate infarct size – an ASPECTS score (Alberta Stroke Program Early Computed Tomographic Score) of 6 or higher. The ASPECTS score has a scale of 1-10, with lower values indicating larger infarction.

The RESCUE-JAPAN LIMIT study included 203 patients with occlusion of large cerebral vessels and sizable strokes on imaging, as indicated by an ASPECTS score of 3 to 5.

Patients were randomly assigned to receive endovascular therapy with medical care (endovascular-therapy group) or medical therapy alone (medical-care group) within 6 hours after they were last known to be well or within 24 hours if there was no early change on fluid-attenuated inversion recovery images indicating that the infarction was recent.

The percentage of patients with a good outcome as defined by an mRS score of 0 to 3 at 90 days, the primary outcome, was 31.0% in the endovascular-therapy group and 12.7% in the medical-care group (relative risk, 2.43; 95% confidence interval, 1.35 to 4.37; P = .002).

Secondary outcomes were mRS scores of 0 to 2 and 0 to 1, an ordinal shift across the range of mRS scores toward a better outcome at 90 days, and an improvement of at least 8 points in the National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS) score (range, 0 to 42, with higher scores indicating greater deficit) at 48 hours.

An mRS score of 0 to 2 was seen in 14% of patients in the endovascular-therapy group and 6.9% in the medical-care group (RR, 2.04; 95% CI, 0.86 to 4.84), and an mRS score of 0 to 1 was reported in 5% of the endovascular group versus 2.9% of the medical group (RR, 1.70; 95% CI, 0.42 to 6.93).

The ordinal shift across the range of mRS scores also favored endovascular therapy (common odds ratio, 2.42; 95% CI, 1.46 to 4.01).

An improvement of at least 8 points on the NIHSS score at 48 hours was observed in 31.0% of the patients in the endovascular-therapy group and 8.8% of those in the medical-care group (RR, 3.51; 95% CI, 1.76 to 7.00).

In terms of safety, any intracranial hemorrhage occurred in 58.0% of patients in the endovascular group and 31.4% of those in the medical therapy group (RR, 1.85; 95% CI, 1.33 to 2.58; P < .001).

There was also a trend toward an increase in symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage in the endovascular group (9% vs. 4.9%), but this did not reach significance (RR, 1.84; 95% CI, 0.64 to 5.29; P = .25).

In the NEJM paper, the authors pointed out that the ASPECTS value in most of the patients in this study was determined with the use of diffusion-weighted MRI, as MRI is widely used in Japan for the diagnosis of acute ischemic stroke. They noted that differences between ASPECTS values based on CT results and those based on diffusion-weighted MRI results should be considered in the interpretation of the results and that previous studies have suggested that an ASPECTS value determined with the use of diffusion-weighted MRI may be one level lower than that determined with the use of CT.

They also noted that there was a relatively low use of thrombolysis in the trial (27% to 29%), which may have altered the outcomes in both groups and disadvantaged the medical-care group. However, they add that most guidelines recommend against the use of thrombolysis when there is extensive ischemic change on imaging.
 

Risk/benefit trade-off

Commenting on the trade-off between benefits and risks in the study, Dr. Jovin said the increase in intracranial hemorrhage seen in the endovascular group was similar to that seen in other situations.

“This is not really any different from what is seen when giving tPA [tissue plasminogen activator] to stroke patients or when performing thrombectomy in small or moderate core strokes – we know that intracranial hemorrhage is the price to pay,” he stated.

“While the increase in symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage was nonsignificant, the trend is very clear, and I believe it is real,” Dr. Jovin said. “But I think what matters – and what matters to patients – is that there is a much higher chance of having a good outcome with endovascular therapy. I think most patients will accept the extra risk of intracranial hemorrhage if there is an even higher chance of having a better neurological outcome. This is no different to the approach that we take when we treat patients with IV tPA.”

Dr. Jovin pointed out that the RESCUE-JAPAN study did not include the largest core infarcts (ASPECTS score 0-1), but he added that these very large core infarcts are quite rare – especially in patients in the early time window.

He concluded that the study provided important information but cautioned that, with just 200 patients, the findings needed confirmation from other randomized trials that are ongoing.

Also speaking at the ISC press conference, Mitchell Elkind, MD, immediate past president of the American Heart Association/American Stroke Association, and professor of neurology at Columbia University, New York, said previous trials had established endovascular therapy for patients with large cerebral artery occlusions who have primarily preserved brain tissue and small infarct cores.

“We have picked off the low-lying fruit – the patients with small areas of infarcted brain. But perhaps most patients do not fit into this category and now we are seeing trials addressing these groups,” he said. “This initial study suggests that these patients with larger core infarcts can indeed still benefit from this therapy tremendously.”

The RESCUE-JAPAN LIMIT study was supported in part by the Mihara Cerebrovascular Disorder Research Promotion Fund and the Japanese Society for Neuroendovascular Therapy. There was no industry involvement. Dr. Yoshimura reported research grants from Stryker, Siemens Healthineers, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Sanofi, Eisai, Daiichi Sankyo, Teijin Pharma, Chugai Pharmaceutical, HEALIOS, Asahi Kasei Medical, Kowa, and CSL Behring; and lecturer fees from Stryker, Medtronic, Johnson & Johnson, Kaneka, Terumo, Biomedical Solutions, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Daiichi Sankyo, Bayer, and Bristol-Meyers Squibb.

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

While endovascular therapy is now well established to be of benefit in patients with occlusion of a large cerebral vessel and a small or moderate infarct area of the brain, a new study suggests that this treatment could also be effective for patients with strokes that have caused a larger area of ischemic damage.

The RESCUE-JAPAN LIMIT trial was presented at the International Stroke Conference by Shinichi Yoshimura, MD, Hyogo College of Medicine, Nishinomiya, Japan. The study was also published online in the New England Journal of Medicine to coincide with its presentation at the ISC meeting.

The trial showed that among patients with acute stroke and a large ischemic brain region, functional outcomes at 90 days were better with endovascular therapy and medical care than with medical care alone.

Patients who received endovascular therapy were more than twice as likely to have a good functional outcome, defined as a modified Rankin scale (mRS) score of 0-3 at 90 days, than those who received medical care alone.

While the rate of intracranial hemorrhage increased with endovascular therapy, authors of the study and outside commentators suggested that the benefit appeared to outweigh the risk. “Our results provide strong evidence that endovascular therapy improves patient outcomes when the infarct area is large,” Dr. Yoshimura concluded at the meeting, presented by the American Stroke Association, a division of the American Heart Association.

Commenting on the study at an ISC press conference, Tudor Jovin, MD, chair of neurology at Cooper University Hospital, Cherry Hill, New Jersey, said: “The question of strokes with a large core stroke being an exclusion criteria for endovascular therapy is arguably one of the hottest topics the field is facing at this time. There are several randomized trials ongoing aiming to answer this question.”

“The RESCUE-JAPAN trial is the first of these trials to report and shed some light on this issue,” Dr. Jovin added. “The results appear to show that these patients with large core infarcts have just as much benefit from endovascular therapy as patients with smaller infarcts.”

Dr. Jovin described these findings as encouraging but also surprising. “When these large core randomized trials were planned, there was a belief that there would be benefit at some level. But what is surprising to me is that in this trial the benefit was similar to that seen in trials in patients with moderate or small core infarcts. This begs the question of whether we should care about the size of the infarct when we are considering taking these patients for thrombectomy,” he said.

Confirmation needed

On whether this will change practice, Dr. Jovin cautioned that this was just one study with a relatively small number of patients. “I think it is important that all the other randomized trials ongoing should continue so that we have a definitive answer to this question,” he said.

In his presentation, Dr. Yoshimura explained that current guidelines recommended endovascular therapy for patients with large cerebral vessel occlusion and a small or moderate infarct size – an ASPECTS score (Alberta Stroke Program Early Computed Tomographic Score) of 6 or higher. The ASPECTS score has a scale of 1-10, with lower values indicating larger infarction.

The RESCUE-JAPAN LIMIT study included 203 patients with occlusion of large cerebral vessels and sizable strokes on imaging, as indicated by an ASPECTS score of 3 to 5.

Patients were randomly assigned to receive endovascular therapy with medical care (endovascular-therapy group) or medical therapy alone (medical-care group) within 6 hours after they were last known to be well or within 24 hours if there was no early change on fluid-attenuated inversion recovery images indicating that the infarction was recent.

The percentage of patients with a good outcome as defined by an mRS score of 0 to 3 at 90 days, the primary outcome, was 31.0% in the endovascular-therapy group and 12.7% in the medical-care group (relative risk, 2.43; 95% confidence interval, 1.35 to 4.37; P = .002).

Secondary outcomes were mRS scores of 0 to 2 and 0 to 1, an ordinal shift across the range of mRS scores toward a better outcome at 90 days, and an improvement of at least 8 points in the National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS) score (range, 0 to 42, with higher scores indicating greater deficit) at 48 hours.

An mRS score of 0 to 2 was seen in 14% of patients in the endovascular-therapy group and 6.9% in the medical-care group (RR, 2.04; 95% CI, 0.86 to 4.84), and an mRS score of 0 to 1 was reported in 5% of the endovascular group versus 2.9% of the medical group (RR, 1.70; 95% CI, 0.42 to 6.93).

The ordinal shift across the range of mRS scores also favored endovascular therapy (common odds ratio, 2.42; 95% CI, 1.46 to 4.01).

An improvement of at least 8 points on the NIHSS score at 48 hours was observed in 31.0% of the patients in the endovascular-therapy group and 8.8% of those in the medical-care group (RR, 3.51; 95% CI, 1.76 to 7.00).

In terms of safety, any intracranial hemorrhage occurred in 58.0% of patients in the endovascular group and 31.4% of those in the medical therapy group (RR, 1.85; 95% CI, 1.33 to 2.58; P < .001).

There was also a trend toward an increase in symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage in the endovascular group (9% vs. 4.9%), but this did not reach significance (RR, 1.84; 95% CI, 0.64 to 5.29; P = .25).

In the NEJM paper, the authors pointed out that the ASPECTS value in most of the patients in this study was determined with the use of diffusion-weighted MRI, as MRI is widely used in Japan for the diagnosis of acute ischemic stroke. They noted that differences between ASPECTS values based on CT results and those based on diffusion-weighted MRI results should be considered in the interpretation of the results and that previous studies have suggested that an ASPECTS value determined with the use of diffusion-weighted MRI may be one level lower than that determined with the use of CT.

They also noted that there was a relatively low use of thrombolysis in the trial (27% to 29%), which may have altered the outcomes in both groups and disadvantaged the medical-care group. However, they add that most guidelines recommend against the use of thrombolysis when there is extensive ischemic change on imaging.
 

Risk/benefit trade-off

Commenting on the trade-off between benefits and risks in the study, Dr. Jovin said the increase in intracranial hemorrhage seen in the endovascular group was similar to that seen in other situations.

“This is not really any different from what is seen when giving tPA [tissue plasminogen activator] to stroke patients or when performing thrombectomy in small or moderate core strokes – we know that intracranial hemorrhage is the price to pay,” he stated.

“While the increase in symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage was nonsignificant, the trend is very clear, and I believe it is real,” Dr. Jovin said. “But I think what matters – and what matters to patients – is that there is a much higher chance of having a good outcome with endovascular therapy. I think most patients will accept the extra risk of intracranial hemorrhage if there is an even higher chance of having a better neurological outcome. This is no different to the approach that we take when we treat patients with IV tPA.”

Dr. Jovin pointed out that the RESCUE-JAPAN study did not include the largest core infarcts (ASPECTS score 0-1), but he added that these very large core infarcts are quite rare – especially in patients in the early time window.

He concluded that the study provided important information but cautioned that, with just 200 patients, the findings needed confirmation from other randomized trials that are ongoing.

Also speaking at the ISC press conference, Mitchell Elkind, MD, immediate past president of the American Heart Association/American Stroke Association, and professor of neurology at Columbia University, New York, said previous trials had established endovascular therapy for patients with large cerebral artery occlusions who have primarily preserved brain tissue and small infarct cores.

“We have picked off the low-lying fruit – the patients with small areas of infarcted brain. But perhaps most patients do not fit into this category and now we are seeing trials addressing these groups,” he said. “This initial study suggests that these patients with larger core infarcts can indeed still benefit from this therapy tremendously.”

The RESCUE-JAPAN LIMIT study was supported in part by the Mihara Cerebrovascular Disorder Research Promotion Fund and the Japanese Society for Neuroendovascular Therapy. There was no industry involvement. Dr. Yoshimura reported research grants from Stryker, Siemens Healthineers, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Sanofi, Eisai, Daiichi Sankyo, Teijin Pharma, Chugai Pharmaceutical, HEALIOS, Asahi Kasei Medical, Kowa, and CSL Behring; and lecturer fees from Stryker, Medtronic, Johnson & Johnson, Kaneka, Terumo, Biomedical Solutions, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Daiichi Sankyo, Bayer, and Bristol-Meyers Squibb.

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