Cardiology News

An international autopsy study of 21 patients who died from COVID-19 has shown the presence of multifocal lymphocytic myocarditis in three patients (14%). In an additional six patients, focally increased interstitial T-lymphocytes within the myocardium were noted, with only focal or no myocyte injury.

However, increased interstitial macrophage infiltration, possibly related to cytokine infiltration, was seen in 86% of patients.

“One way to think about this is that, if these patients were having biopsies and not autopsies, there would be myocardial injury in the patients with myocarditis, even after they recovered. But with interstitial macrophages, there may or may not be any injury,” said cardiovascular pathologist James R. Stone, MD, PhD, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston.

Dr. Stone and colleagues from Mass General, two hospitals in Italy, the University of Amsterdam, and the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., conducted the autopsies in March and April. The results were published in the October 14 issue of the European Heart Journal.

Their technique was rigorous: a median of 20 full-thickness blocks of myocardium were examined histologically (range, 5-29 blocks).

The presence of myocarditis, defined by the presence of multiple foci of inflammation with associated myocyte injury, was determined, and the inflammatory cell composition analyzed by immunohistochemistry.

“I think one of the take-homes from this study is that you have to do a thorough sampling of the heart in order to exclude myocardial injury. You cannot exclude myocarditis with just a biopsy or two,” said Dr. Stone in an interview.

“We looked at multiple different sections of tissue preserved in paraffin for every case and found only 14% had myocarditis. The vast majority of autopsies done on patients dying from COVID-19 have short-changed the autopsy and not been done in a way to exclude myocarditis,” he added.

For all patients, COVID-19 was the underlying cause of death, but the mechanisms of death were acute respiratory distress syndrome in 15, viral pneumonia in 4, cardiogenic shock in 1, and cardiac arrest in 1. Seven patients had a history of cardiovascular disease, including atrial fibrillation in four, coronary artery disease in three, left ventricular hypertrophy in one, and previous valve replacement in one. A total of 16 had hypertension, 7 had diabetes mellitus, and 1 had chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. In four cases, mild pericarditis was present. Acute myocyte injury in the right ventricle, most probably from strain or overload, was also present in four cases.

A nonsignificant trend was seen toward higher serum troponin levels in the patients with myocarditis compared with those without myocarditis. There were no reports of disrupted coronary artery plaques, coronary artery aneurysms, or large pulmonary emboli.

Macrophage infiltration rather than myocarditis, myocardial injury?

The study sheds more light on previous cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) imaging findings that have suggested that many patients who recover from COVID-19 show signs suggestive of myocarditis. These earlier studies include a recent one in competitive athletes and the earlier Puntmann and colleagues study of relatively young COVID-19 patients, which showed ongoing myocardial involvement in a majority of patients.

“It would not surprise me if some or all of the cardiac MR changes seen in some of these recent imaging studies are due to the macrophages,” said Dr. Stone.

“What we saw was not a routine pathology by any means. It was a huge amount of macrophages, higher that what we saw in SARS and more similar to a study published in 2007 that looked at patients with bacterial sepsis,” said Dr. Stone.

In an older study of SARS patients, 35% had the virus detected in myocardial tissue by polymerase chain reaction. In that subset, the degree of myocardial macrophage infiltrate was comparable to that seen in 86% of the COVID-19 cases described in this series.

Another possibility is that the macrophage infiltration reflects underlying disease rather than COVID-19. All but one of the patients had known underlying medical conditions associated with cardiac remodeling, said Nikolaos G. Frangogiannis, MD, a cardiologist who studies the mechanisms of cardiac injury, repair, and remodeling.

Frangogiannis, from Albert Einstein College of Medicine, New York, wrote an editorial that accompanied the autopsy study.

“The problem with this finding of increased macrophage infiltration is that it’s very hard to interpret because as we age, and especially in a less healthy population, the numbers and the density of macrophages in the heart increase, so it’s impossible to interpret as an effect of the infection itself unless you have an appropriate control population that matches the same characteristics, which is almost impossible to ask for,” he said.

“I’ve observed since the beginning of the pandemic that there seemed to be some people who wanted every single case to be myocarditis and others who had a bias toward not wanting COVID-19 to be a cause of myocarditis. I think what we’re seeing is it’s not either/or for anything with this virus, it’s a bit of everything,” said Dr. Stone.

Dr. Stone and Dr. Frangogiannis reported no conflict of interest.
 

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

An international autopsy study of 21 patients who died from COVID-19 has shown the presence of multifocal lymphocytic myocarditis in three patients (14%). In an additional six patients, focally increased interstitial T-lymphocytes within the myocardium were noted, with only focal or no myocyte injury.

However, increased interstitial macrophage infiltration, possibly related to cytokine infiltration, was seen in 86% of patients.

“One way to think about this is that, if these patients were having biopsies and not autopsies, there would be myocardial injury in the patients with myocarditis, even after they recovered. But with interstitial macrophages, there may or may not be any injury,” said cardiovascular pathologist James R. Stone, MD, PhD, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston.

Dr. Stone and colleagues from Mass General, two hospitals in Italy, the University of Amsterdam, and the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., conducted the autopsies in March and April. The results were published in the October 14 issue of the European Heart Journal.

Their technique was rigorous: a median of 20 full-thickness blocks of myocardium were examined histologically (range, 5-29 blocks).

The presence of myocarditis, defined by the presence of multiple foci of inflammation with associated myocyte injury, was determined, and the inflammatory cell composition analyzed by immunohistochemistry.

“I think one of the take-homes from this study is that you have to do a thorough sampling of the heart in order to exclude myocardial injury. You cannot exclude myocarditis with just a biopsy or two,” said Dr. Stone in an interview.

“We looked at multiple different sections of tissue preserved in paraffin for every case and found only 14% had myocarditis. The vast majority of autopsies done on patients dying from COVID-19 have short-changed the autopsy and not been done in a way to exclude myocarditis,” he added.

For all patients, COVID-19 was the underlying cause of death, but the mechanisms of death were acute respiratory distress syndrome in 15, viral pneumonia in 4, cardiogenic shock in 1, and cardiac arrest in 1. Seven patients had a history of cardiovascular disease, including atrial fibrillation in four, coronary artery disease in three, left ventricular hypertrophy in one, and previous valve replacement in one. A total of 16 had hypertension, 7 had diabetes mellitus, and 1 had chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. In four cases, mild pericarditis was present. Acute myocyte injury in the right ventricle, most probably from strain or overload, was also present in four cases.

A nonsignificant trend was seen toward higher serum troponin levels in the patients with myocarditis compared with those without myocarditis. There were no reports of disrupted coronary artery plaques, coronary artery aneurysms, or large pulmonary emboli.

Macrophage infiltration rather than myocarditis, myocardial injury?

The study sheds more light on previous cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) imaging findings that have suggested that many patients who recover from COVID-19 show signs suggestive of myocarditis. These earlier studies include a recent one in competitive athletes and the earlier Puntmann and colleagues study of relatively young COVID-19 patients, which showed ongoing myocardial involvement in a majority of patients.

“It would not surprise me if some or all of the cardiac MR changes seen in some of these recent imaging studies are due to the macrophages,” said Dr. Stone.

“What we saw was not a routine pathology by any means. It was a huge amount of macrophages, higher that what we saw in SARS and more similar to a study published in 2007 that looked at patients with bacterial sepsis,” said Dr. Stone.

In an older study of SARS patients, 35% had the virus detected in myocardial tissue by polymerase chain reaction. In that subset, the degree of myocardial macrophage infiltrate was comparable to that seen in 86% of the COVID-19 cases described in this series.

Another possibility is that the macrophage infiltration reflects underlying disease rather than COVID-19. All but one of the patients had known underlying medical conditions associated with cardiac remodeling, said Nikolaos G. Frangogiannis, MD, a cardiologist who studies the mechanisms of cardiac injury, repair, and remodeling.

Frangogiannis, from Albert Einstein College of Medicine, New York, wrote an editorial that accompanied the autopsy study.

“The problem with this finding of increased macrophage infiltration is that it’s very hard to interpret because as we age, and especially in a less healthy population, the numbers and the density of macrophages in the heart increase, so it’s impossible to interpret as an effect of the infection itself unless you have an appropriate control population that matches the same characteristics, which is almost impossible to ask for,” he said.

“I’ve observed since the beginning of the pandemic that there seemed to be some people who wanted every single case to be myocarditis and others who had a bias toward not wanting COVID-19 to be a cause of myocarditis. I think what we’re seeing is it’s not either/or for anything with this virus, it’s a bit of everything,” said Dr. Stone.

Dr. Stone and Dr. Frangogiannis reported no conflict of interest.
 

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

An international autopsy study of 21 patients who died from COVID-19 has shown the presence of multifocal lymphocytic myocarditis in three patients (14%). In an additional six patients, focally increased interstitial T-lymphocytes within the myocardium were noted, with only focal or no myocyte injury.

However, increased interstitial macrophage infiltration, possibly related to cytokine infiltration, was seen in 86% of patients.

“One way to think about this is that, if these patients were having biopsies and not autopsies, there would be myocardial injury in the patients with myocarditis, even after they recovered. But with interstitial macrophages, there may or may not be any injury,” said cardiovascular pathologist James R. Stone, MD, PhD, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston.

Dr. Stone and colleagues from Mass General, two hospitals in Italy, the University of Amsterdam, and the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., conducted the autopsies in March and April. The results were published in the October 14 issue of the European Heart Journal.

Their technique was rigorous: a median of 20 full-thickness blocks of myocardium were examined histologically (range, 5-29 blocks).

The presence of myocarditis, defined by the presence of multiple foci of inflammation with associated myocyte injury, was determined, and the inflammatory cell composition analyzed by immunohistochemistry.

“I think one of the take-homes from this study is that you have to do a thorough sampling of the heart in order to exclude myocardial injury. You cannot exclude myocarditis with just a biopsy or two,” said Dr. Stone in an interview.

“We looked at multiple different sections of tissue preserved in paraffin for every case and found only 14% had myocarditis. The vast majority of autopsies done on patients dying from COVID-19 have short-changed the autopsy and not been done in a way to exclude myocarditis,” he added.

For all patients, COVID-19 was the underlying cause of death, but the mechanisms of death were acute respiratory distress syndrome in 15, viral pneumonia in 4, cardiogenic shock in 1, and cardiac arrest in 1. Seven patients had a history of cardiovascular disease, including atrial fibrillation in four, coronary artery disease in three, left ventricular hypertrophy in one, and previous valve replacement in one. A total of 16 had hypertension, 7 had diabetes mellitus, and 1 had chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. In four cases, mild pericarditis was present. Acute myocyte injury in the right ventricle, most probably from strain or overload, was also present in four cases.

A nonsignificant trend was seen toward higher serum troponin levels in the patients with myocarditis compared with those without myocarditis. There were no reports of disrupted coronary artery plaques, coronary artery aneurysms, or large pulmonary emboli.

Macrophage infiltration rather than myocarditis, myocardial injury?

The study sheds more light on previous cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) imaging findings that have suggested that many patients who recover from COVID-19 show signs suggestive of myocarditis. These earlier studies include a recent one in competitive athletes and the earlier Puntmann and colleagues study of relatively young COVID-19 patients, which showed ongoing myocardial involvement in a majority of patients.

“It would not surprise me if some or all of the cardiac MR changes seen in some of these recent imaging studies are due to the macrophages,” said Dr. Stone.

“What we saw was not a routine pathology by any means. It was a huge amount of macrophages, higher that what we saw in SARS and more similar to a study published in 2007 that looked at patients with bacterial sepsis,” said Dr. Stone.

In an older study of SARS patients, 35% had the virus detected in myocardial tissue by polymerase chain reaction. In that subset, the degree of myocardial macrophage infiltrate was comparable to that seen in 86% of the COVID-19 cases described in this series.

Another possibility is that the macrophage infiltration reflects underlying disease rather than COVID-19. All but one of the patients had known underlying medical conditions associated with cardiac remodeling, said Nikolaos G. Frangogiannis, MD, a cardiologist who studies the mechanisms of cardiac injury, repair, and remodeling.

Frangogiannis, from Albert Einstein College of Medicine, New York, wrote an editorial that accompanied the autopsy study.

“The problem with this finding of increased macrophage infiltration is that it’s very hard to interpret because as we age, and especially in a less healthy population, the numbers and the density of macrophages in the heart increase, so it’s impossible to interpret as an effect of the infection itself unless you have an appropriate control population that matches the same characteristics, which is almost impossible to ask for,” he said.

“I’ve observed since the beginning of the pandemic that there seemed to be some people who wanted every single case to be myocarditis and others who had a bias toward not wanting COVID-19 to be a cause of myocarditis. I think what we’re seeing is it’s not either/or for anything with this virus, it’s a bit of everything,” said Dr. Stone.

Dr. Stone and Dr. Frangogiannis reported no conflict of interest.
 

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

Much has changed in the 10 years since Medscape’s first survey on what physicians would do when faced with painful choices in patient care.

A new report, Ethics 2020: Life, Death, and Painful Dilemmas, shows that physicians’ value judgments have shifted in many respects, sometimes as a result of increased regulations and fears of litigation.
 

 End-of-life decisions

Several of the questions in the survey revolved around end-of-life decisions, and in some cases, the differences seen in just a decade were striking. One example concerned life support decisions in the context of a family’s choices.

Age also seemed to play a role in the 2020 answers to that question: Physicians younger than 45 were more likely (28%) to answer “yes” (that they would withdraw life support in that instance) than were those 45 and older (16%).

A critical care physician said, “If the family appears to have an underlying motivation that may not be in the patient’s best interest, I might be inclined to pursue a legal decision prior to withdrawing support.”

A cardiologist had a more pointed response to the question: “To me, that would be murder.”

Another example of how perspectives have changed over the past 10 years concerns whether physician-aided dying should be legal for terminally ill patients. The practice is now mandated by law in eight states and the District of Columbia, and it is mandated by court ruling in two additional states.

In 2010, 41% said “no.” That number dropped to 28% in 2020.

On legalization, a psychiatrist said, “Yes, when there is truly no hope and the quality of remaining life is too poor. We show more compassion to our sick animals than we do to our human population.”

Conversely, a neurologist answered, “No, I see younger physicians already becoming comfortable with the idea of deciding ASAP whether there is a reasonable chance of survival and then pressing for the right code status. This change would make things worse.”
 

Assisted death and incurable suffering

Far fewer physicians supported physician-assisted death for those who had years to live but faced incurable suffering: Thirty-seven percent said “yes,” 34% said “no,” and 29% said “it depends.”

However, support was significantly higher than it was just 2 years ago, in 2018, when only 27% supported the concept, the report authors noted.

“The shift reflects movements by many states to legalize assisted dying for the terminally ill,” Arthur Caplan, PhD, director of the division of medical ethics, New York University, said in the report. “Legalization has not been abused, so some doctors are more willing to press further beyond terminal illness as a trigger to suffering.”

Conversely, many more physicians (44% vs. 24% a decade ago) said they would provide life-sustaining therapy if the family requested it, even if the physician thought it was futile.

“Concerns over a malpractice lawsuit and potential negative patient/family online reviews are factors that play into this change,” the survey authors wrote.

Shared decision making also increased in the past decade.
 

Would you undertreat pain?

Primary care physicians fear the consequences of what they consider adequate pain management more than specialists do (24% vs. 17%), the survey authors noted.

Ten years ago, Medscape asked physicians whether they would undertreat a patient’s pain because of fear of repercussions or the patient’s becoming addicted: Eighty-four percent said “no,” and 6% said “yes.” The rest said “it depends.”

In 2020, the question was asked slightly differently: “Would you undertreat a patient’s pain for fear of addiction or Drug Enforcement Administration or medical board scrutiny?” This year, three times as many said “yes” (18%); 63% said “no.”

“Respondents this year talked about investigations and reprimands by medical boards, and how much they wanted to avoid that,” the survey authors wrote.
 

Should physicians be required to treat COVID-19 patients?

Some questions were new this year, including one on whether physicians should be required to treat COVID-19 patients. Fewer than half (47%) answered “yes,” 24% said “no,” and 29% answered “it depends.”

Doctors’ answers to this question differed slightly by gender: Fifty percent of men and 43% of women said “yes.” In their responses, many physicians said consideration should be given to risk factors, such as age, underlying conditions, risk of family members, and availability of personal protective equipment (PPE).

Another pandemic-related question asked whether physicians felt they should correct physicians who post misinformation about the pandemic on social media. Half (50%) said “yes,” 19% said “no,” and 31% said “it depends.”
 

Speaking out against the workplace

This year, many physicians have felt betrayed when they didn’t have adequate PPE during the pandemic.

Asked, “Is it right to speak out against your hospital or workplace when they don’t give you what you need?” 53% of physicians said “yes,” 8% said “no,” and 40% said “it depends.”

A cardiologist made the value judgment this way: “Speaking out just because you had an argument with your boss is inappropriate. Bringing to the public repeated failures to correct situations that have been brought through the proper channels is necessary to incite change.”
 

Random drug testing for physicians?

Another question in the survey asked whether physicians should be subjected to random drug testing for alcohol and drug abuse. About one-third (34%) said yes, 43% said no, and 23% said “it depends.” A study found that between 10% and 15% of physicians have abused a substance at some point in their careers.

The subject continues to hit a nerve in medicine.

A family physician wrote, “This should not be done unless a particular physician had a problem with drug or alcohol abuse and shows signs of impairment.”

An internist took a different view, saying, “Military service men and women, police, firefighters, airline pilots, and other professions that have responsibilities affecting people’s lives are subject to testing; why not physicians?”
 

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

Much has changed in the 10 years since Medscape’s first survey on what physicians would do when faced with painful choices in patient care.

A new report, Ethics 2020: Life, Death, and Painful Dilemmas, shows that physicians’ value judgments have shifted in many respects, sometimes as a result of increased regulations and fears of litigation.
 

 End-of-life decisions

Several of the questions in the survey revolved around end-of-life decisions, and in some cases, the differences seen in just a decade were striking. One example concerned life support decisions in the context of a family’s choices.

Age also seemed to play a role in the 2020 answers to that question: Physicians younger than 45 were more likely (28%) to answer “yes” (that they would withdraw life support in that instance) than were those 45 and older (16%).

A critical care physician said, “If the family appears to have an underlying motivation that may not be in the patient’s best interest, I might be inclined to pursue a legal decision prior to withdrawing support.”

A cardiologist had a more pointed response to the question: “To me, that would be murder.”

Another example of how perspectives have changed over the past 10 years concerns whether physician-aided dying should be legal for terminally ill patients. The practice is now mandated by law in eight states and the District of Columbia, and it is mandated by court ruling in two additional states.

In 2010, 41% said “no.” That number dropped to 28% in 2020.

On legalization, a psychiatrist said, “Yes, when there is truly no hope and the quality of remaining life is too poor. We show more compassion to our sick animals than we do to our human population.”

Conversely, a neurologist answered, “No, I see younger physicians already becoming comfortable with the idea of deciding ASAP whether there is a reasonable chance of survival and then pressing for the right code status. This change would make things worse.”
 

Assisted death and incurable suffering

Far fewer physicians supported physician-assisted death for those who had years to live but faced incurable suffering: Thirty-seven percent said “yes,” 34% said “no,” and 29% said “it depends.”

However, support was significantly higher than it was just 2 years ago, in 2018, when only 27% supported the concept, the report authors noted.

“The shift reflects movements by many states to legalize assisted dying for the terminally ill,” Arthur Caplan, PhD, director of the division of medical ethics, New York University, said in the report. “Legalization has not been abused, so some doctors are more willing to press further beyond terminal illness as a trigger to suffering.”

Conversely, many more physicians (44% vs. 24% a decade ago) said they would provide life-sustaining therapy if the family requested it, even if the physician thought it was futile.

“Concerns over a malpractice lawsuit and potential negative patient/family online reviews are factors that play into this change,” the survey authors wrote.

Shared decision making also increased in the past decade.
 

Would you undertreat pain?

Primary care physicians fear the consequences of what they consider adequate pain management more than specialists do (24% vs. 17%), the survey authors noted.

Ten years ago, Medscape asked physicians whether they would undertreat a patient’s pain because of fear of repercussions or the patient’s becoming addicted: Eighty-four percent said “no,” and 6% said “yes.” The rest said “it depends.”

In 2020, the question was asked slightly differently: “Would you undertreat a patient’s pain for fear of addiction or Drug Enforcement Administration or medical board scrutiny?” This year, three times as many said “yes” (18%); 63% said “no.”

“Respondents this year talked about investigations and reprimands by medical boards, and how much they wanted to avoid that,” the survey authors wrote.
 

Should physicians be required to treat COVID-19 patients?

Some questions were new this year, including one on whether physicians should be required to treat COVID-19 patients. Fewer than half (47%) answered “yes,” 24% said “no,” and 29% answered “it depends.”

Doctors’ answers to this question differed slightly by gender: Fifty percent of men and 43% of women said “yes.” In their responses, many physicians said consideration should be given to risk factors, such as age, underlying conditions, risk of family members, and availability of personal protective equipment (PPE).

Another pandemic-related question asked whether physicians felt they should correct physicians who post misinformation about the pandemic on social media. Half (50%) said “yes,” 19% said “no,” and 31% said “it depends.”
 

Speaking out against the workplace

This year, many physicians have felt betrayed when they didn’t have adequate PPE during the pandemic.

Asked, “Is it right to speak out against your hospital or workplace when they don’t give you what you need?” 53% of physicians said “yes,” 8% said “no,” and 40% said “it depends.”

A cardiologist made the value judgment this way: “Speaking out just because you had an argument with your boss is inappropriate. Bringing to the public repeated failures to correct situations that have been brought through the proper channels is necessary to incite change.”
 

Random drug testing for physicians?

Another question in the survey asked whether physicians should be subjected to random drug testing for alcohol and drug abuse. About one-third (34%) said yes, 43% said no, and 23% said “it depends.” A study found that between 10% and 15% of physicians have abused a substance at some point in their careers.

The subject continues to hit a nerve in medicine.

A family physician wrote, “This should not be done unless a particular physician had a problem with drug or alcohol abuse and shows signs of impairment.”

An internist took a different view, saying, “Military service men and women, police, firefighters, airline pilots, and other professions that have responsibilities affecting people’s lives are subject to testing; why not physicians?”
 

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

Much has changed in the 10 years since Medscape’s first survey on what physicians would do when faced with painful choices in patient care.

A new report, Ethics 2020: Life, Death, and Painful Dilemmas, shows that physicians’ value judgments have shifted in many respects, sometimes as a result of increased regulations and fears of litigation.
 

 End-of-life decisions

Several of the questions in the survey revolved around end-of-life decisions, and in some cases, the differences seen in just a decade were striking. One example concerned life support decisions in the context of a family’s choices.

Age also seemed to play a role in the 2020 answers to that question: Physicians younger than 45 were more likely (28%) to answer “yes” (that they would withdraw life support in that instance) than were those 45 and older (16%).

A critical care physician said, “If the family appears to have an underlying motivation that may not be in the patient’s best interest, I might be inclined to pursue a legal decision prior to withdrawing support.”

A cardiologist had a more pointed response to the question: “To me, that would be murder.”

Another example of how perspectives have changed over the past 10 years concerns whether physician-aided dying should be legal for terminally ill patients. The practice is now mandated by law in eight states and the District of Columbia, and it is mandated by court ruling in two additional states.

In 2010, 41% said “no.” That number dropped to 28% in 2020.

On legalization, a psychiatrist said, “Yes, when there is truly no hope and the quality of remaining life is too poor. We show more compassion to our sick animals than we do to our human population.”

Conversely, a neurologist answered, “No, I see younger physicians already becoming comfortable with the idea of deciding ASAP whether there is a reasonable chance of survival and then pressing for the right code status. This change would make things worse.”
 

Assisted death and incurable suffering

Far fewer physicians supported physician-assisted death for those who had years to live but faced incurable suffering: Thirty-seven percent said “yes,” 34% said “no,” and 29% said “it depends.”

However, support was significantly higher than it was just 2 years ago, in 2018, when only 27% supported the concept, the report authors noted.

“The shift reflects movements by many states to legalize assisted dying for the terminally ill,” Arthur Caplan, PhD, director of the division of medical ethics, New York University, said in the report. “Legalization has not been abused, so some doctors are more willing to press further beyond terminal illness as a trigger to suffering.”

Conversely, many more physicians (44% vs. 24% a decade ago) said they would provide life-sustaining therapy if the family requested it, even if the physician thought it was futile.

“Concerns over a malpractice lawsuit and potential negative patient/family online reviews are factors that play into this change,” the survey authors wrote.

Shared decision making also increased in the past decade.
 

Would you undertreat pain?

Primary care physicians fear the consequences of what they consider adequate pain management more than specialists do (24% vs. 17%), the survey authors noted.

Ten years ago, Medscape asked physicians whether they would undertreat a patient’s pain because of fear of repercussions or the patient’s becoming addicted: Eighty-four percent said “no,” and 6% said “yes.” The rest said “it depends.”

In 2020, the question was asked slightly differently: “Would you undertreat a patient’s pain for fear of addiction or Drug Enforcement Administration or medical board scrutiny?” This year, three times as many said “yes” (18%); 63% said “no.”

“Respondents this year talked about investigations and reprimands by medical boards, and how much they wanted to avoid that,” the survey authors wrote.
 

Should physicians be required to treat COVID-19 patients?

Some questions were new this year, including one on whether physicians should be required to treat COVID-19 patients. Fewer than half (47%) answered “yes,” 24% said “no,” and 29% answered “it depends.”

Doctors’ answers to this question differed slightly by gender: Fifty percent of men and 43% of women said “yes.” In their responses, many physicians said consideration should be given to risk factors, such as age, underlying conditions, risk of family members, and availability of personal protective equipment (PPE).

Another pandemic-related question asked whether physicians felt they should correct physicians who post misinformation about the pandemic on social media. Half (50%) said “yes,” 19% said “no,” and 31% said “it depends.”
 

Speaking out against the workplace

This year, many physicians have felt betrayed when they didn’t have adequate PPE during the pandemic.

Asked, “Is it right to speak out against your hospital or workplace when they don’t give you what you need?” 53% of physicians said “yes,” 8% said “no,” and 40% said “it depends.”

A cardiologist made the value judgment this way: “Speaking out just because you had an argument with your boss is inappropriate. Bringing to the public repeated failures to correct situations that have been brought through the proper channels is necessary to incite change.”
 

Random drug testing for physicians?

Another question in the survey asked whether physicians should be subjected to random drug testing for alcohol and drug abuse. About one-third (34%) said yes, 43% said no, and 23% said “it depends.” A study found that between 10% and 15% of physicians have abused a substance at some point in their careers.

The subject continues to hit a nerve in medicine.

A family physician wrote, “This should not be done unless a particular physician had a problem with drug or alcohol abuse and shows signs of impairment.”

An internist took a different view, saying, “Military service men and women, police, firefighters, airline pilots, and other professions that have responsibilities affecting people’s lives are subject to testing; why not physicians?”
 

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

There is a link between liver injury and a tendency toward excessive clotting in patients with COVID-19, and the organ’s own blood vessels could be responsible, new research shows.

Cells that line the liver’s blood vessels produce high levels of factor VIII, a coagulation factor, when they are exposed to interleukin-6, an inflammatory molecule associated with COVID-19.

These findings “center the liver in global coagulopathy of COVID-19 and define a mechanism for increased coagulation factor levels that may be treatment targets,” said investigator Matthew McConnell, MD, from the Yale University, New Haven, Conn.

The effect of IL-6 on the liver sinusoidal endothelial cells lining the liver blood vessels creates a prothrombotic environment that includes the release of factor VIII, said Dr. McConnell, who presented the results at the virtual annual meeting of the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases.

These associations offer insights into why COVID-19 patients with underlying liver disease can experience “devastating complications” related to improper blood vessel function in the organ, he added.

For their study, Dr. McConnell and colleagues analyzed data on ALT and hypercoagulability from 68 adults treated at the Yale–New Haven Hospital. The liver and coagulation tests were administered within 5 days of each other.

The team set the ALT cutoff for liver injury at three times the upper limit of normal. Patients with two or more parameters indicating excessive clotting were considered to have a hypercoagulable profile, which Dr. McConnell called “a signature clinical finding of COVID-19 infection.”

Patients with high levels of ALT also experienced elevations in clotting-related factors, such as fibrinogen levels and the activity of factor VIII and factor II. Furthermore, liver injury was significantly associated with hypercoagulability (P < .05).

Because COVID-19 is linked to the proinflammatory IL-6, the investigators examined how this cytokine and its receptor affect human liver sinusoidal cells. Cells exposed to IL-6 and its receptor pumped out factor VIII at levels that were significantly higher than in unexposed cells (P < .01). Exposed cells also produced significantly more von Willebrand factor (P < .05), another prothrombotic molecule, and showed increased expression of genes that induce the expression of factor VIII.

“As we learn more about COVID-19, we find that it is as much a coagulatory as a respiratory disease,” said Tien Dong, MD, PhD, from the University of California, Los Angeles, who was not involved in the study.

These findings are in line with a lot of other COVID-19-related research that suggests a link between hepatocyte injury and clotting disorders, he added.

One important factor is existing liver disease, said Dr. Dong. “If you have COVID-19 on top of that, you’re probably at risk of developing acute liver injury from the infection itself.”

That said, it’s still a good idea to check liver function in patients with COVID-19 and no known liver disease, he advised. Staying on top of these measures will keep the odds of long-term problems “a lot lower.”

There is utility in the findings beyond COVID-19, said Dr. McConnell. They provide “insights into complications of critical illness, in general, in the liver blood vessels” of patients with underlying liver disease.

Dr. McConnell and Dr. Dong have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

There is a link between liver injury and a tendency toward excessive clotting in patients with COVID-19, and the organ’s own blood vessels could be responsible, new research shows.

Cells that line the liver’s blood vessels produce high levels of factor VIII, a coagulation factor, when they are exposed to interleukin-6, an inflammatory molecule associated with COVID-19.

These findings “center the liver in global coagulopathy of COVID-19 and define a mechanism for increased coagulation factor levels that may be treatment targets,” said investigator Matthew McConnell, MD, from the Yale University, New Haven, Conn.

The effect of IL-6 on the liver sinusoidal endothelial cells lining the liver blood vessels creates a prothrombotic environment that includes the release of factor VIII, said Dr. McConnell, who presented the results at the virtual annual meeting of the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases.

These associations offer insights into why COVID-19 patients with underlying liver disease can experience “devastating complications” related to improper blood vessel function in the organ, he added.

For their study, Dr. McConnell and colleagues analyzed data on ALT and hypercoagulability from 68 adults treated at the Yale–New Haven Hospital. The liver and coagulation tests were administered within 5 days of each other.

The team set the ALT cutoff for liver injury at three times the upper limit of normal. Patients with two or more parameters indicating excessive clotting were considered to have a hypercoagulable profile, which Dr. McConnell called “a signature clinical finding of COVID-19 infection.”

Patients with high levels of ALT also experienced elevations in clotting-related factors, such as fibrinogen levels and the activity of factor VIII and factor II. Furthermore, liver injury was significantly associated with hypercoagulability (P < .05).

Because COVID-19 is linked to the proinflammatory IL-6, the investigators examined how this cytokine and its receptor affect human liver sinusoidal cells. Cells exposed to IL-6 and its receptor pumped out factor VIII at levels that were significantly higher than in unexposed cells (P < .01). Exposed cells also produced significantly more von Willebrand factor (P < .05), another prothrombotic molecule, and showed increased expression of genes that induce the expression of factor VIII.

“As we learn more about COVID-19, we find that it is as much a coagulatory as a respiratory disease,” said Tien Dong, MD, PhD, from the University of California, Los Angeles, who was not involved in the study.

These findings are in line with a lot of other COVID-19-related research that suggests a link between hepatocyte injury and clotting disorders, he added.

One important factor is existing liver disease, said Dr. Dong. “If you have COVID-19 on top of that, you’re probably at risk of developing acute liver injury from the infection itself.”

That said, it’s still a good idea to check liver function in patients with COVID-19 and no known liver disease, he advised. Staying on top of these measures will keep the odds of long-term problems “a lot lower.”

There is utility in the findings beyond COVID-19, said Dr. McConnell. They provide “insights into complications of critical illness, in general, in the liver blood vessels” of patients with underlying liver disease.

Dr. McConnell and Dr. Dong have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

There is a link between liver injury and a tendency toward excessive clotting in patients with COVID-19, and the organ’s own blood vessels could be responsible, new research shows.

Cells that line the liver’s blood vessels produce high levels of factor VIII, a coagulation factor, when they are exposed to interleukin-6, an inflammatory molecule associated with COVID-19.

These findings “center the liver in global coagulopathy of COVID-19 and define a mechanism for increased coagulation factor levels that may be treatment targets,” said investigator Matthew McConnell, MD, from the Yale University, New Haven, Conn.

The effect of IL-6 on the liver sinusoidal endothelial cells lining the liver blood vessels creates a prothrombotic environment that includes the release of factor VIII, said Dr. McConnell, who presented the results at the virtual annual meeting of the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases.

These associations offer insights into why COVID-19 patients with underlying liver disease can experience “devastating complications” related to improper blood vessel function in the organ, he added.

For their study, Dr. McConnell and colleagues analyzed data on ALT and hypercoagulability from 68 adults treated at the Yale–New Haven Hospital. The liver and coagulation tests were administered within 5 days of each other.

The team set the ALT cutoff for liver injury at three times the upper limit of normal. Patients with two or more parameters indicating excessive clotting were considered to have a hypercoagulable profile, which Dr. McConnell called “a signature clinical finding of COVID-19 infection.”

Patients with high levels of ALT also experienced elevations in clotting-related factors, such as fibrinogen levels and the activity of factor VIII and factor II. Furthermore, liver injury was significantly associated with hypercoagulability (P < .05).

Because COVID-19 is linked to the proinflammatory IL-6, the investigators examined how this cytokine and its receptor affect human liver sinusoidal cells. Cells exposed to IL-6 and its receptor pumped out factor VIII at levels that were significantly higher than in unexposed cells (P < .01). Exposed cells also produced significantly more von Willebrand factor (P < .05), another prothrombotic molecule, and showed increased expression of genes that induce the expression of factor VIII.

“As we learn more about COVID-19, we find that it is as much a coagulatory as a respiratory disease,” said Tien Dong, MD, PhD, from the University of California, Los Angeles, who was not involved in the study.

These findings are in line with a lot of other COVID-19-related research that suggests a link between hepatocyte injury and clotting disorders, he added.

One important factor is existing liver disease, said Dr. Dong. “If you have COVID-19 on top of that, you’re probably at risk of developing acute liver injury from the infection itself.”

That said, it’s still a good idea to check liver function in patients with COVID-19 and no known liver disease, he advised. Staying on top of these measures will keep the odds of long-term problems “a lot lower.”

There is utility in the findings beyond COVID-19, said Dr. McConnell. They provide “insights into complications of critical illness, in general, in the liver blood vessels” of patients with underlying liver disease.

Dr. McConnell and Dr. Dong have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

More patients are surviving critical illnesses requiring ICU care but many emerge with physical debility that may or may not eventually resolve.

Over the past decade, functional status deterioration after critical illness has become more common and of greater magnitude, despite concurrent efforts to reduce post–intensive care syndrome, based on a retrospective analysis of more than 100,000 patients.

Almost one-third of patients who survived nonsurgical ICU admission had evidence of functional status decline, reported lead author Nicholas E. Ingraham, MD, of the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, and colleagues.

“Increasing capacity and decreasing mortality have created an evolving and diverse population of ICU survivors,” the investigators wrote in Critical Care Medicine. “Today’s survivors of critical illness are increasingly burdened by extensive physical and psychological comorbidities, often resulting in reduced quality of life.”

To determine trends in post–intensive care syndrome from 2008 to 2016, Dr. Ingraham and colleagues analyzed data from the Cerner Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation outcomes database, a national prospective cohort. Out of 202,786 adult patients admitted to the ICU, 129,917 were eligible for the study. Patients were excluded because of surgical admission, death, lack of functional status documentation, or inadequate hospital size or duration of participation. The final dataset had a median age of 63 years, with a slight predominance of male patients (54.0%). Most patients (80.9%) were White.

The primary outcome was defined as presence or absence of functional status deterioration, based on functional status at admission versus time of discharge. The secondary outcome was magnitude of deterioration over time.

The analysis, which controlled for age and severity of illness, revealed concerning trends for both outcomes.

Across the entire cohort 38,116 patients (29.3%) had functional status deterioration, with a 15% increase in prevalence over the course of the decade that spanned all disease categories (prevalence rate ratio, 1.15; 95% confidence interval, 1.13-1.17; P < .001). The magnitude of functional status decline also increased by 4% (odds ratio, 1.04; P < .001), with all but nonsurgical trauma patients showing greater deterioration over time.

“However, despite the decreasing magnitude of functional status deterioration in nonsurgical trauma, many admission diagnoses in this category remain in the top quartile of higher risk for functional status deterioration,” the investigators noted.

Functional status decline was most common among patients with head and polytrauma (OR, 3.39), followed closely by chest and spine trauma (OR, 3.38), and spine trauma (OR, 3.19). The top quartile of categories for prevalence of deterioration included nonsurgical trauma, neurologic, pulmonary, and gastrointestinal diseases.

Functional status decline was least common among patients diagnosed with diabetic ketoacidosis (OR, 0.27) or asthma (OR, 0.35).

“We believe our study provides important information that can be used in beginning to identify patients at high risk of functional status decline,” the investigators concluded. “Improving the identification of these patients and targeting appropriate interventions to mitigate this decline will be important directions for future studies in this area.”

According to David L. Bowton, MD, FCCP, professor emeritus, section on critical care, Wake Forest Baptist Health, Winston-Salem, N.C., the findings show just how common functional decline is after critical illness, and may actually underestimate prevalence.

“Because the authors employed a course evaluation tool employing only three categories of ability/disability and abstracted the level of disability from the medical record, they likely underestimated the frequency of clinically important, though not detected, disability at the time of hospital discharge,” Dr. Bowton said. “The study did not address cognitive impairment which can be detected in half of patients at 3 months following critical illness, and which significantly affects patients’ quality of life (Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2020;202[2]:193-201).”

Dr. Bowton suggested that evidence-based methods of preventing post–intensive care syndrome are limited.

“Current efforts to improve post-ICU functional and cognitive outcomes suffer from the lack of proven effective interventions (Crit Care Med. 2019;47[11]:1607-18),” he said. “Observational data indicates that compliance with the ABCDEF bundle decreases the duration and incidence of delirium, ICU length of stay, duration of mechanical ventilation, and mortality (Crit Care Med. 2019;47[1]:3-14). However, the implications of these improvements on postdischarge functional outcomes are unknown as area the relative importance of individual elements of the bundle. Early mobility and patient and family diaries appear to improve functional status at discharge and postdischarge anxiety and depression, though the evidence supporting this is thin.”

Appropriate intervention may be especially challenging during the COVID-19 pandemic, he added.

“The impact of COVID on ICU staffing adequacy and stress is significant and the impact on quality bundle compliance and the availability of support services is currently not clear, but likely to be detrimental, especially to support services such as physical therapy that are already commonly understaffed,” Dr. Bowton said.

The study was supported by grants from the University of Minnesota’s Critical Care Research and Programmatic Development Program; the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; and the University of Minnesota Clinical and Translational Science via the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences. The investigators reported financial relationships with no other relevant organizations. Dr. Bowton reported no conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Ingraham NE et al. Crit Care Med. 2020 Nov. doi: 10.1097/CCM.0000000000004524.

More patients are surviving critical illnesses requiring ICU care but many emerge with physical debility that may or may not eventually resolve.

Over the past decade, functional status deterioration after critical illness has become more common and of greater magnitude, despite concurrent efforts to reduce post–intensive care syndrome, based on a retrospective analysis of more than 100,000 patients.

Almost one-third of patients who survived nonsurgical ICU admission had evidence of functional status decline, reported lead author Nicholas E. Ingraham, MD, of the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, and colleagues.

“Increasing capacity and decreasing mortality have created an evolving and diverse population of ICU survivors,” the investigators wrote in Critical Care Medicine. “Today’s survivors of critical illness are increasingly burdened by extensive physical and psychological comorbidities, often resulting in reduced quality of life.”

To determine trends in post–intensive care syndrome from 2008 to 2016, Dr. Ingraham and colleagues analyzed data from the Cerner Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation outcomes database, a national prospective cohort. Out of 202,786 adult patients admitted to the ICU, 129,917 were eligible for the study. Patients were excluded because of surgical admission, death, lack of functional status documentation, or inadequate hospital size or duration of participation. The final dataset had a median age of 63 years, with a slight predominance of male patients (54.0%). Most patients (80.9%) were White.

The primary outcome was defined as presence or absence of functional status deterioration, based on functional status at admission versus time of discharge. The secondary outcome was magnitude of deterioration over time.

The analysis, which controlled for age and severity of illness, revealed concerning trends for both outcomes.

Across the entire cohort 38,116 patients (29.3%) had functional status deterioration, with a 15% increase in prevalence over the course of the decade that spanned all disease categories (prevalence rate ratio, 1.15; 95% confidence interval, 1.13-1.17; P < .001). The magnitude of functional status decline also increased by 4% (odds ratio, 1.04; P < .001), with all but nonsurgical trauma patients showing greater deterioration over time.

“However, despite the decreasing magnitude of functional status deterioration in nonsurgical trauma, many admission diagnoses in this category remain in the top quartile of higher risk for functional status deterioration,” the investigators noted.

Functional status decline was most common among patients with head and polytrauma (OR, 3.39), followed closely by chest and spine trauma (OR, 3.38), and spine trauma (OR, 3.19). The top quartile of categories for prevalence of deterioration included nonsurgical trauma, neurologic, pulmonary, and gastrointestinal diseases.

Functional status decline was least common among patients diagnosed with diabetic ketoacidosis (OR, 0.27) or asthma (OR, 0.35).

“We believe our study provides important information that can be used in beginning to identify patients at high risk of functional status decline,” the investigators concluded. “Improving the identification of these patients and targeting appropriate interventions to mitigate this decline will be important directions for future studies in this area.”

According to David L. Bowton, MD, FCCP, professor emeritus, section on critical care, Wake Forest Baptist Health, Winston-Salem, N.C., the findings show just how common functional decline is after critical illness, and may actually underestimate prevalence.

“Because the authors employed a course evaluation tool employing only three categories of ability/disability and abstracted the level of disability from the medical record, they likely underestimated the frequency of clinically important, though not detected, disability at the time of hospital discharge,” Dr. Bowton said. “The study did not address cognitive impairment which can be detected in half of patients at 3 months following critical illness, and which significantly affects patients’ quality of life (Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2020;202[2]:193-201).”

Dr. Bowton suggested that evidence-based methods of preventing post–intensive care syndrome are limited.

“Current efforts to improve post-ICU functional and cognitive outcomes suffer from the lack of proven effective interventions (Crit Care Med. 2019;47[11]:1607-18),” he said. “Observational data indicates that compliance with the ABCDEF bundle decreases the duration and incidence of delirium, ICU length of stay, duration of mechanical ventilation, and mortality (Crit Care Med. 2019;47[1]:3-14). However, the implications of these improvements on postdischarge functional outcomes are unknown as area the relative importance of individual elements of the bundle. Early mobility and patient and family diaries appear to improve functional status at discharge and postdischarge anxiety and depression, though the evidence supporting this is thin.”

Appropriate intervention may be especially challenging during the COVID-19 pandemic, he added.

“The impact of COVID on ICU staffing adequacy and stress is significant and the impact on quality bundle compliance and the availability of support services is currently not clear, but likely to be detrimental, especially to support services such as physical therapy that are already commonly understaffed,” Dr. Bowton said.

The study was supported by grants from the University of Minnesota’s Critical Care Research and Programmatic Development Program; the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; and the University of Minnesota Clinical and Translational Science via the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences. The investigators reported financial relationships with no other relevant organizations. Dr. Bowton reported no conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Ingraham NE et al. Crit Care Med. 2020 Nov. doi: 10.1097/CCM.0000000000004524.

More patients are surviving critical illnesses requiring ICU care but many emerge with physical debility that may or may not eventually resolve.

Over the past decade, functional status deterioration after critical illness has become more common and of greater magnitude, despite concurrent efforts to reduce post–intensive care syndrome, based on a retrospective analysis of more than 100,000 patients.

Almost one-third of patients who survived nonsurgical ICU admission had evidence of functional status decline, reported lead author Nicholas E. Ingraham, MD, of the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, and colleagues.

“Increasing capacity and decreasing mortality have created an evolving and diverse population of ICU survivors,” the investigators wrote in Critical Care Medicine. “Today’s survivors of critical illness are increasingly burdened by extensive physical and psychological comorbidities, often resulting in reduced quality of life.”

To determine trends in post–intensive care syndrome from 2008 to 2016, Dr. Ingraham and colleagues analyzed data from the Cerner Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation outcomes database, a national prospective cohort. Out of 202,786 adult patients admitted to the ICU, 129,917 were eligible for the study. Patients were excluded because of surgical admission, death, lack of functional status documentation, or inadequate hospital size or duration of participation. The final dataset had a median age of 63 years, with a slight predominance of male patients (54.0%). Most patients (80.9%) were White.

The primary outcome was defined as presence or absence of functional status deterioration, based on functional status at admission versus time of discharge. The secondary outcome was magnitude of deterioration over time.

The analysis, which controlled for age and severity of illness, revealed concerning trends for both outcomes.

Across the entire cohort 38,116 patients (29.3%) had functional status deterioration, with a 15% increase in prevalence over the course of the decade that spanned all disease categories (prevalence rate ratio, 1.15; 95% confidence interval, 1.13-1.17; P < .001). The magnitude of functional status decline also increased by 4% (odds ratio, 1.04; P < .001), with all but nonsurgical trauma patients showing greater deterioration over time.

“However, despite the decreasing magnitude of functional status deterioration in nonsurgical trauma, many admission diagnoses in this category remain in the top quartile of higher risk for functional status deterioration,” the investigators noted.

Functional status decline was most common among patients with head and polytrauma (OR, 3.39), followed closely by chest and spine trauma (OR, 3.38), and spine trauma (OR, 3.19). The top quartile of categories for prevalence of deterioration included nonsurgical trauma, neurologic, pulmonary, and gastrointestinal diseases.

Functional status decline was least common among patients diagnosed with diabetic ketoacidosis (OR, 0.27) or asthma (OR, 0.35).

“We believe our study provides important information that can be used in beginning to identify patients at high risk of functional status decline,” the investigators concluded. “Improving the identification of these patients and targeting appropriate interventions to mitigate this decline will be important directions for future studies in this area.”

According to David L. Bowton, MD, FCCP, professor emeritus, section on critical care, Wake Forest Baptist Health, Winston-Salem, N.C., the findings show just how common functional decline is after critical illness, and may actually underestimate prevalence.

“Because the authors employed a course evaluation tool employing only three categories of ability/disability and abstracted the level of disability from the medical record, they likely underestimated the frequency of clinically important, though not detected, disability at the time of hospital discharge,” Dr. Bowton said. “The study did not address cognitive impairment which can be detected in half of patients at 3 months following critical illness, and which significantly affects patients’ quality of life (Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2020;202[2]:193-201).”

Dr. Bowton suggested that evidence-based methods of preventing post–intensive care syndrome are limited.

“Current efforts to improve post-ICU functional and cognitive outcomes suffer from the lack of proven effective interventions (Crit Care Med. 2019;47[11]:1607-18),” he said. “Observational data indicates that compliance with the ABCDEF bundle decreases the duration and incidence of delirium, ICU length of stay, duration of mechanical ventilation, and mortality (Crit Care Med. 2019;47[1]:3-14). However, the implications of these improvements on postdischarge functional outcomes are unknown as area the relative importance of individual elements of the bundle. Early mobility and patient and family diaries appear to improve functional status at discharge and postdischarge anxiety and depression, though the evidence supporting this is thin.”

Appropriate intervention may be especially challenging during the COVID-19 pandemic, he added.

“The impact of COVID on ICU staffing adequacy and stress is significant and the impact on quality bundle compliance and the availability of support services is currently not clear, but likely to be detrimental, especially to support services such as physical therapy that are already commonly understaffed,” Dr. Bowton said.

The study was supported by grants from the University of Minnesota’s Critical Care Research and Programmatic Development Program; the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; and the University of Minnesota Clinical and Translational Science via the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences. The investigators reported financial relationships with no other relevant organizations. Dr. Bowton reported no conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Ingraham NE et al. Crit Care Med. 2020 Nov. doi: 10.1097/CCM.0000000000004524.

Boston Scientific said it is voluntarily recalling all unused inventory of the Lotus Edge transcatheter aortic valve replacement system effective immediately.

In making the announcement today, Boston Scientific chair and CEO Mike Mahoney said the company has been increasingly challenged by the intricacies of the delivery system required to allow physicians to fully reposition and recapture the valve – key features of the system.

“The complexity of the delivery system, manufacturing challenges, the continued need for further technical enhancements, and current market adoption rates led us to the difficult decision to stop investing in the Lotus Edge platform,” Mr. Mahoney said.

Instead, the company will focus on the ACURATE neo2 aortic valve system, the Sentinel cerebral embolic protection device, and other high-growth areas, he noted.

The decision is expected to result in a $225 million to $300 million pretax charge, with $100 million to $150 million of these charges to impact the company’s adjusted results.

The Lotus device was approved in the United States in April 2019 for use in patients with severe aortic stenosis at high surgical risk based on the REPRISE 3 trial.

The Lotus Edge valve was approved in Europe in 2016, but final testing and rollout of the valve in the United States were delayed following a 2017 global recall of all Lotus valves because of reports of premature release of a pin connecting the valve to the delivery system.

Issues with the delivery system led to other Lotus valve recalls in both 2016 and 2014.

“Given the additional time and investment required to develop and reintroduce an enhanced delivery system, the company has chosen to retire the entire Lotus product platform immediately. All related commercial, clinical, research & development and manufacturing activities will also cease,” the statement said.

There is no safety issue for patients who currently have an implanted Lotus Edge valve, the company said.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Boston Scientific said it is voluntarily recalling all unused inventory of the Lotus Edge transcatheter aortic valve replacement system effective immediately.

In making the announcement today, Boston Scientific chair and CEO Mike Mahoney said the company has been increasingly challenged by the intricacies of the delivery system required to allow physicians to fully reposition and recapture the valve – key features of the system.

“The complexity of the delivery system, manufacturing challenges, the continued need for further technical enhancements, and current market adoption rates led us to the difficult decision to stop investing in the Lotus Edge platform,” Mr. Mahoney said.

Instead, the company will focus on the ACURATE neo2 aortic valve system, the Sentinel cerebral embolic protection device, and other high-growth areas, he noted.

The decision is expected to result in a $225 million to $300 million pretax charge, with $100 million to $150 million of these charges to impact the company’s adjusted results.

The Lotus device was approved in the United States in April 2019 for use in patients with severe aortic stenosis at high surgical risk based on the REPRISE 3 trial.

The Lotus Edge valve was approved in Europe in 2016, but final testing and rollout of the valve in the United States were delayed following a 2017 global recall of all Lotus valves because of reports of premature release of a pin connecting the valve to the delivery system.

Issues with the delivery system led to other Lotus valve recalls in both 2016 and 2014.

“Given the additional time and investment required to develop and reintroduce an enhanced delivery system, the company has chosen to retire the entire Lotus product platform immediately. All related commercial, clinical, research & development and manufacturing activities will also cease,” the statement said.

There is no safety issue for patients who currently have an implanted Lotus Edge valve, the company said.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Boston Scientific said it is voluntarily recalling all unused inventory of the Lotus Edge transcatheter aortic valve replacement system effective immediately.

In making the announcement today, Boston Scientific chair and CEO Mike Mahoney said the company has been increasingly challenged by the intricacies of the delivery system required to allow physicians to fully reposition and recapture the valve – key features of the system.

“The complexity of the delivery system, manufacturing challenges, the continued need for further technical enhancements, and current market adoption rates led us to the difficult decision to stop investing in the Lotus Edge platform,” Mr. Mahoney said.

Instead, the company will focus on the ACURATE neo2 aortic valve system, the Sentinel cerebral embolic protection device, and other high-growth areas, he noted.

The decision is expected to result in a $225 million to $300 million pretax charge, with $100 million to $150 million of these charges to impact the company’s adjusted results.

The Lotus device was approved in the United States in April 2019 for use in patients with severe aortic stenosis at high surgical risk based on the REPRISE 3 trial.

The Lotus Edge valve was approved in Europe in 2016, but final testing and rollout of the valve in the United States were delayed following a 2017 global recall of all Lotus valves because of reports of premature release of a pin connecting the valve to the delivery system.

Issues with the delivery system led to other Lotus valve recalls in both 2016 and 2014.

“Given the additional time and investment required to develop and reintroduce an enhanced delivery system, the company has chosen to retire the entire Lotus product platform immediately. All related commercial, clinical, research & development and manufacturing activities will also cease,” the statement said.

There is no safety issue for patients who currently have an implanted Lotus Edge valve, the company said.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

COVID-19 patients who survive their hospitalization don’t leave the disease behind upon discharge, as a significant percentage died within 60 days of discharge, with an ICU admission heightening the risk, according to an observational study of 38 Michigan hospitals. What’s more, many of them were burdened with health and emotional challenges ranging from hospital readmission to job loss and financial problems.

“These data confirm that the toll of COVID-19 extends well beyond hospitalization, a finding consistent with long-term sequelae from sepsis and other severe respiratory viral illnesses,” wrote lead author Vineet Chopra, MBBS, of the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, and colleagues (Ann Intern Med. 2020 Nov 11: doi: 10.7326/M20-5661)

The researchers found that 29.2% of all patients hospitalized for COVID-19 from March 16 to July 1 died. The observational cohort study included 1,648 COVID-19 patients hospitalized at 38 Michigan hospitals participating in a statewide collaborative.

The bulk of those deaths occurred during hospitalization: 24.2% of patients (n = 398). Of the 1,250 patients discharged, 78% (n = 975) went home and 12.6% (n = 158) went to a skilled nursing facility, with the remainder unaccounted for. Within 60 days of discharge, 6.7% (n = 84) of hospitalized survivors had died and 15.2% (n = 189) were readmitted. The researchers gathered 60-day postdischarge data via a telephone survey, contacting 41.8% (n = 488) of discharged patients.

Outcomes were even worse for discharged patients who spent time in the ICU. The death rate among this group was 10.4% (17 of 165) after discharge. That resulted in an overall study death rate of 63.5% (n = 257) for the 405 patients who were in the ICU.

While the study data were in the first wave of the novel coronavirus, the findings have relevance today, said Mary Jo Farmer, MD, PhD, FCCP, directory of pulmonary hypertension services at Baystate Health in Springfield, Mass.

“This is the best information we have to date,” she said. “We have to continue to have an open mind and expect that this information may change as the virus possibly mutates as it spreads, and we should continue doing these types of outcomes studies at 90 days, 120 days, etc.”

The median age of study patients was 62, with a range of 50-72. The three leading comorbidities among discharged patients were hypertension (n = 800, 64%), diabetes (34.9%, n = 436), and cardiovascular disease (24.1%, n = 301).

Poor postdischarge outcomes weren’t limited to mortality and readmission. Almost 19% (n = 92) reported new or worsening cardiopulmonary symptoms such as cough and dyspnea, 13.3% had a persistent loss of taste or smell, and 12% (n = 58) reported more difficulty with daily living tasks.

The after-effects were not only physical. Nearly half of discharged patients (48.7%, n = 238) reported emotional effects and almost 6% (n = 28) sought mental health care. Among the 40% (n = 195) employed before they were hospitalized, 36% (n = 78) couldn’t return to work because of health issues or layoffs. Sixty percent (n = 117) of the pre-employed discharged patients did return to work, but 25% (n = 30) did so with reduced hours or modified job duties because of health problems.

Financial problems were also a burden. More than a third, 36.7% (n = 179), reported some financial impact from their hospitalization. About 10% (n = 47) said they used most or all of their savings, and 7% (n = 35) said they resorted to rationing necessities such as food or medications.

The researchers noted that one in five patients had no primary care follow-up at 2 months post discharge. “Collectively, these findings suggest that better models to support COVID-19 survivors are necessary,” said Dr. Chopra and colleagues.

The postdischarge course for patients involves two humps, said Sachin Gupta, MD, FCCP a pulmonary and critical care specialist at Alameda Health System in Oakland, Calif.: Getting over the hospitalization itself and the recovery phase. “As you look at the median age of the survivors, elderly patients who survive a hospital stay are still going to have a period of recovery, and like any viral illness that leads to someone being hospitalized, when you have an elderly patient with comorbidities, not all of them can make it over that final hump.”

SOURCE: Chopra V et al. Ann Intern Med. 2020 Nov 11. doi: 10.7326/M20-5661.

COVID-19 patients who survive their hospitalization don’t leave the disease behind upon discharge, as a significant percentage died within 60 days of discharge, with an ICU admission heightening the risk, according to an observational study of 38 Michigan hospitals. What’s more, many of them were burdened with health and emotional challenges ranging from hospital readmission to job loss and financial problems.

“These data confirm that the toll of COVID-19 extends well beyond hospitalization, a finding consistent with long-term sequelae from sepsis and other severe respiratory viral illnesses,” wrote lead author Vineet Chopra, MBBS, of the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, and colleagues (Ann Intern Med. 2020 Nov 11: doi: 10.7326/M20-5661)

The researchers found that 29.2% of all patients hospitalized for COVID-19 from March 16 to July 1 died. The observational cohort study included 1,648 COVID-19 patients hospitalized at 38 Michigan hospitals participating in a statewide collaborative.

The bulk of those deaths occurred during hospitalization: 24.2% of patients (n = 398). Of the 1,250 patients discharged, 78% (n = 975) went home and 12.6% (n = 158) went to a skilled nursing facility, with the remainder unaccounted for. Within 60 days of discharge, 6.7% (n = 84) of hospitalized survivors had died and 15.2% (n = 189) were readmitted. The researchers gathered 60-day postdischarge data via a telephone survey, contacting 41.8% (n = 488) of discharged patients.

Outcomes were even worse for discharged patients who spent time in the ICU. The death rate among this group was 10.4% (17 of 165) after discharge. That resulted in an overall study death rate of 63.5% (n = 257) for the 405 patients who were in the ICU.

While the study data were in the first wave of the novel coronavirus, the findings have relevance today, said Mary Jo Farmer, MD, PhD, FCCP, directory of pulmonary hypertension services at Baystate Health in Springfield, Mass.

“This is the best information we have to date,” she said. “We have to continue to have an open mind and expect that this information may change as the virus possibly mutates as it spreads, and we should continue doing these types of outcomes studies at 90 days, 120 days, etc.”

The median age of study patients was 62, with a range of 50-72. The three leading comorbidities among discharged patients were hypertension (n = 800, 64%), diabetes (34.9%, n = 436), and cardiovascular disease (24.1%, n = 301).

Poor postdischarge outcomes weren’t limited to mortality and readmission. Almost 19% (n = 92) reported new or worsening cardiopulmonary symptoms such as cough and dyspnea, 13.3% had a persistent loss of taste or smell, and 12% (n = 58) reported more difficulty with daily living tasks.

The after-effects were not only physical. Nearly half of discharged patients (48.7%, n = 238) reported emotional effects and almost 6% (n = 28) sought mental health care. Among the 40% (n = 195) employed before they were hospitalized, 36% (n = 78) couldn’t return to work because of health issues or layoffs. Sixty percent (n = 117) of the pre-employed discharged patients did return to work, but 25% (n = 30) did so with reduced hours or modified job duties because of health problems.

Financial problems were also a burden. More than a third, 36.7% (n = 179), reported some financial impact from their hospitalization. About 10% (n = 47) said they used most or all of their savings, and 7% (n = 35) said they resorted to rationing necessities such as food or medications.

The researchers noted that one in five patients had no primary care follow-up at 2 months post discharge. “Collectively, these findings suggest that better models to support COVID-19 survivors are necessary,” said Dr. Chopra and colleagues.

The postdischarge course for patients involves two humps, said Sachin Gupta, MD, FCCP a pulmonary and critical care specialist at Alameda Health System in Oakland, Calif.: Getting over the hospitalization itself and the recovery phase. “As you look at the median age of the survivors, elderly patients who survive a hospital stay are still going to have a period of recovery, and like any viral illness that leads to someone being hospitalized, when you have an elderly patient with comorbidities, not all of them can make it over that final hump.”

SOURCE: Chopra V et al. Ann Intern Med. 2020 Nov 11. doi: 10.7326/M20-5661.

COVID-19 patients who survive their hospitalization don’t leave the disease behind upon discharge, as a significant percentage died within 60 days of discharge, with an ICU admission heightening the risk, according to an observational study of 38 Michigan hospitals. What’s more, many of them were burdened with health and emotional challenges ranging from hospital readmission to job loss and financial problems.

“These data confirm that the toll of COVID-19 extends well beyond hospitalization, a finding consistent with long-term sequelae from sepsis and other severe respiratory viral illnesses,” wrote lead author Vineet Chopra, MBBS, of the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, and colleagues (Ann Intern Med. 2020 Nov 11: doi: 10.7326/M20-5661)

The researchers found that 29.2% of all patients hospitalized for COVID-19 from March 16 to July 1 died. The observational cohort study included 1,648 COVID-19 patients hospitalized at 38 Michigan hospitals participating in a statewide collaborative.

The bulk of those deaths occurred during hospitalization: 24.2% of patients (n = 398). Of the 1,250 patients discharged, 78% (n = 975) went home and 12.6% (n = 158) went to a skilled nursing facility, with the remainder unaccounted for. Within 60 days of discharge, 6.7% (n = 84) of hospitalized survivors had died and 15.2% (n = 189) were readmitted. The researchers gathered 60-day postdischarge data via a telephone survey, contacting 41.8% (n = 488) of discharged patients.

Outcomes were even worse for discharged patients who spent time in the ICU. The death rate among this group was 10.4% (17 of 165) after discharge. That resulted in an overall study death rate of 63.5% (n = 257) for the 405 patients who were in the ICU.

While the study data were in the first wave of the novel coronavirus, the findings have relevance today, said Mary Jo Farmer, MD, PhD, FCCP, directory of pulmonary hypertension services at Baystate Health in Springfield, Mass.

“This is the best information we have to date,” she said. “We have to continue to have an open mind and expect that this information may change as the virus possibly mutates as it spreads, and we should continue doing these types of outcomes studies at 90 days, 120 days, etc.”

The median age of study patients was 62, with a range of 50-72. The three leading comorbidities among discharged patients were hypertension (n = 800, 64%), diabetes (34.9%, n = 436), and cardiovascular disease (24.1%, n = 301).

Poor postdischarge outcomes weren’t limited to mortality and readmission. Almost 19% (n = 92) reported new or worsening cardiopulmonary symptoms such as cough and dyspnea, 13.3% had a persistent loss of taste or smell, and 12% (n = 58) reported more difficulty with daily living tasks.

The after-effects were not only physical. Nearly half of discharged patients (48.7%, n = 238) reported emotional effects and almost 6% (n = 28) sought mental health care. Among the 40% (n = 195) employed before they were hospitalized, 36% (n = 78) couldn’t return to work because of health issues or layoffs. Sixty percent (n = 117) of the pre-employed discharged patients did return to work, but 25% (n = 30) did so with reduced hours or modified job duties because of health problems.

Financial problems were also a burden. More than a third, 36.7% (n = 179), reported some financial impact from their hospitalization. About 10% (n = 47) said they used most or all of their savings, and 7% (n = 35) said they resorted to rationing necessities such as food or medications.

The researchers noted that one in five patients had no primary care follow-up at 2 months post discharge. “Collectively, these findings suggest that better models to support COVID-19 survivors are necessary,” said Dr. Chopra and colleagues.

The postdischarge course for patients involves two humps, said Sachin Gupta, MD, FCCP a pulmonary and critical care specialist at Alameda Health System in Oakland, Calif.: Getting over the hospitalization itself and the recovery phase. “As you look at the median age of the survivors, elderly patients who survive a hospital stay are still going to have a period of recovery, and like any viral illness that leads to someone being hospitalized, when you have an elderly patient with comorbidities, not all of them can make it over that final hump.”

SOURCE: Chopra V et al. Ann Intern Med. 2020 Nov 11. doi: 10.7326/M20-5661.

Sotagliflozin, a novel type of sodium-glucose cotransporter inhibitor, showed the diverse benefits this drug class provides along some new twists in a pair of international pivotal trials that together enrolled nearly 12,000 patients with type 2 diabetes.

Unprecedented benefits were seen for the first time with a drug, sotagliflozin (Zynquista) that produces both sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibition as well as SGLT1 inhibition.

They included a big reduction in both MIs and strokes; an ability to meaningfully reduce hyperglycemia in patients with severe renal dysfunction with an estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) of 25-29 mL/min per 1.73 m²; an ability to safely and effectively start in patients still hospitalized (but stable) for an acute heart failure episode; and a striking 37% relative risk reduction in cardiovascular death, heart failure hospitalizations, or an urgent outpatient visit for heart failure in 739 of the patients enrolled in both trials who had heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF).

These studies produced for the first time evidence from controlled, prospective, randomized trials that a drug could improve the outcome of HFpEF patients.

All these novel outcomes came on top of the usual benefits clinicians have generally seen across the SGLT2 inhibitors already on the U.S. market: reductions in cardiovascular death and heart failure hospitalizations among all patients with type 2 diabetes, preservation of renal function, and hemoglobin A1c lowering among T2D patients with eGFR levels of at least 30 mL/min per 1.73 m².

“The data look spectacular,” summed up Deepak L. Bhatt, MD, who presented the results from the two trials, SOLOIST-WHF and SCORED, in talks at the virtual scientific sessions of the American Heart Association.

“I think sotagliflozin has the potential to be the best in class” based on the several added attributes shown in the two trials, he said in an interview. “We’ve shown that it is very safe, well tolerated, and effective.”

The primary results were a significant 33% relative risk reduction with sotagliflozin treatment, compared with placebo in the rate of total cardiovascular deaths, hospitalizations for heart failure, or urgent outpatient visits for heart failure during just over 9 months of median follow-up among patients with T2D recently hospitalized for heart failure in SOLOIST-WFH. And a significant 26% relative risk reduction with sotagliflozin for the same endpoint after a median follow-up of just over 14 months in SCORED, which enrolled patients with T2D and chronic kidney disease.

“Sotagliflozin adds to the SGLT2 inhibitor story,” and the SOLOIST-WHF results “may shift our focus to vulnerable, acute heart failure patients with an opportunity to treat during the transition phase,” when these patients leave the hospital, commented Jane E. Wilcox, MD, the study’s designated discussant and a heart failure cardiologist at Northwestern Medicine in Chicago.
 

A dual SGLT inhibitor

What sets sotagliflozin apart from the SGLT2 inhibitors is that it not only inhibits that protein but also SGTL1, which primarily resides in the gastrointestinal tract and is the main route for gut absorption of glucose. Dr. Bhatt said that he was unaware of any other SGLT1/2 inhibitors currently in advanced clinical testing.

The activity of sotagliflozin against the SGLT1 protein likely explains its ability to cut A1c levels in patients with severe renal dysfunction, a condition that stymies glucose lowering by SGLT2 inhibitors. In SCORED, which randomized 10,584 patients with T2D at 750 study sites in 44 countries, 813 patients (8%) had an eGFR of 25-29 mL/min per 1.73 m² at enrollment. Sotagliflozin treatment led to an average 0.6% cut in A1c in this subgroup, and by the same average amount among the patients with GFRs of 30-60 mL/min per 1.73 m2.

“This is a huge finding for endocrinologists and primary care physicians” who treat patients with T2D who have severe renal dysfunction, said Dr. Bhatt, a professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School in Boston. “It’s a good enough reason by itself to approve this drug.”

The same mechanism may also be behind another unexpected finding in SCORED. Treatment with sotagliflozin cut the rate of total episodes of cardiovascular death, nonfatal MI, or nonfatal stroke by an absolute 1.6%, compared with placebo, and by a relative 23%. This benefit was largely driven by a 32% relative risk reduction total in MIs, and a 34% relative risk reduction in total stroke, both significant differences.

“No SGLT2 inhibitor has shown a reduction in stroke, and the MI signals have been mixed. The sizable MI and stroke effects are unique to sotagliflozin,” compared with the SGLT2 inhibitors, and likely reflect one or more mechanisms that result from blocked gut SGLT1 and a cut in GI glucose uptake, said Dr. Bhatt. “Probably some novel mechanism we don’t fully understand.”
 

First-ever HFpEF benefit

In contrast to these two benefits that are probably unique to drugs that inhibit the SGLT1 protein, sotagliflozin showed two other notable and unprecedented benefits that are likely generalizable to the SGLT2 inhibitors.

First is the striking benefit for HFpEF. Neither SOLOIST, which enrolled 1,222 patients with T2D and just hospitalized for worsening heart failure, nor SCORED, which enrolled patients with T2D and chronic kidney disease based exclusively on an eGFR of 25-60 mL/min per 1.73 m², excluded patients with HFpEF, defined as heart failure patients with a left ventricular ejection fraction of at least 50%. The two studies together included a total of 739 of these patients, and they split fairly evenly between treatment with sotagliflozin or placebo.

The combined analysis showed that the incidence rate for the primary endpoint in both SOLOIST and SCORED was 59% with placebo and 39% with sotagliflozin, an absolute event reduction of 11.6 events/100 patient-years, and a significant 37% relative risk reduction, with a number needed to treat to prevent 1 event per year event of 9.

Although this observation comes from a nonprespecified combined analysis, “to me this result seems real, and I think it’s a class effect that I’m willing to extrapolate to the SGLT2 inhibitors,” Dr. Bhatt said. “It will change my practice,” he added, by spurring him to more aggressively prescribe an SGLT2 inhibitor to a patient with T2D and HFpEF.

“I think there has been some hesitation to use SGLT2 inhibitors in T2D patients with HFpEF” because of the paucity of data in this population, even though labeling and society recommendations do not rule it out. “I hope this finding will move that needle, and also generally improve SGLT2 inhibitor uptake, which has been low,” he said.
 

Also safe soon after acute heart failure decompensation

The other finding likely generalizable to SGLT2 inhibitors stems from the design of SOLOIST-WHF, which tested the efficacy and safety of starting sotagliflozin in patients with T2D as soon as they were stable after hospitalization for acute heart failure decompensation.

“Showing safety and efficacy when started in the hospital is pretty meaningful, because its tells patients that this drug is important and they should stay on it,” which should improve adherence, predicted Dr. Bhatt, who is also executive director of Interventional Cardiovascular Programs at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston. “That’s the ultimate treatment path to prevent patients from falling through the cracks” and failing to receive an SGLT2 inhibitor.

SOLOIST-WHF enrolled patients hospitalized for worsening heart failure who also required intravenous diuretic treatment but had become stable enough to transition to an oral diuretic and come off oxygen. During a median follow-up of just over 9 months (both SOLOIST-WHF and SCORED ended sooner than planned because of a change in drug company sponsorship), treatment with sotagliflozin cut the primary endpoint by a relative 33%, compared with placebo, and with an absolute reduction of 25 events per 100 patient-years for a number needed to treat of 4. Sotagliflozin produced a strikingly high level of treatment efficiency driven by the high event rate in these recently decompensated patients. The benefit also appeared quickly, with a significant cut in events discernible within 28 days.

Extrapolating this finding to the SGLT2 inhibitors is “not a huge leap of faith,” Dr. Bhatt said.

“There is a role for sotagliflozin in acute heart failure. It showed benefit in these high-risk, transition-phase patients,” said Dr. Wilcox.

Simultaneously with Dr. Bhatt’s presentation, results of SOLOIST-WHF and SCORED were published online in the New England Journal of Medicine.

The trials were sponsored initially by Sanofi, and more recently by Lexicon. Dr. Bhatt has received research funding from both companies, and also from several other companies. He also is an adviser to several companies. Dr. Wilcox has been a consultant to Boehringer Ingelheim and Medtronic.

[email protected]

Sotagliflozin, a novel type of sodium-glucose cotransporter inhibitor, showed the diverse benefits this drug class provides along some new twists in a pair of international pivotal trials that together enrolled nearly 12,000 patients with type 2 diabetes.

Unprecedented benefits were seen for the first time with a drug, sotagliflozin (Zynquista) that produces both sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibition as well as SGLT1 inhibition.

They included a big reduction in both MIs and strokes; an ability to meaningfully reduce hyperglycemia in patients with severe renal dysfunction with an estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) of 25-29 mL/min per 1.73 m²; an ability to safely and effectively start in patients still hospitalized (but stable) for an acute heart failure episode; and a striking 37% relative risk reduction in cardiovascular death, heart failure hospitalizations, or an urgent outpatient visit for heart failure in 739 of the patients enrolled in both trials who had heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF).

These studies produced for the first time evidence from controlled, prospective, randomized trials that a drug could improve the outcome of HFpEF patients.

All these novel outcomes came on top of the usual benefits clinicians have generally seen across the SGLT2 inhibitors already on the U.S. market: reductions in cardiovascular death and heart failure hospitalizations among all patients with type 2 diabetes, preservation of renal function, and hemoglobin A1c lowering among T2D patients with eGFR levels of at least 30 mL/min per 1.73 m².

“The data look spectacular,” summed up Deepak L. Bhatt, MD, who presented the results from the two trials, SOLOIST-WHF and SCORED, in talks at the virtual scientific sessions of the American Heart Association.

“I think sotagliflozin has the potential to be the best in class” based on the several added attributes shown in the two trials, he said in an interview. “We’ve shown that it is very safe, well tolerated, and effective.”

The primary results were a significant 33% relative risk reduction with sotagliflozin treatment, compared with placebo in the rate of total cardiovascular deaths, hospitalizations for heart failure, or urgent outpatient visits for heart failure during just over 9 months of median follow-up among patients with T2D recently hospitalized for heart failure in SOLOIST-WFH. And a significant 26% relative risk reduction with sotagliflozin for the same endpoint after a median follow-up of just over 14 months in SCORED, which enrolled patients with T2D and chronic kidney disease.

“Sotagliflozin adds to the SGLT2 inhibitor story,” and the SOLOIST-WHF results “may shift our focus to vulnerable, acute heart failure patients with an opportunity to treat during the transition phase,” when these patients leave the hospital, commented Jane E. Wilcox, MD, the study’s designated discussant and a heart failure cardiologist at Northwestern Medicine in Chicago.
 

A dual SGLT inhibitor

What sets sotagliflozin apart from the SGLT2 inhibitors is that it not only inhibits that protein but also SGTL1, which primarily resides in the gastrointestinal tract and is the main route for gut absorption of glucose. Dr. Bhatt said that he was unaware of any other SGLT1/2 inhibitors currently in advanced clinical testing.

The activity of sotagliflozin against the SGLT1 protein likely explains its ability to cut A1c levels in patients with severe renal dysfunction, a condition that stymies glucose lowering by SGLT2 inhibitors. In SCORED, which randomized 10,584 patients with T2D at 750 study sites in 44 countries, 813 patients (8%) had an eGFR of 25-29 mL/min per 1.73 m² at enrollment. Sotagliflozin treatment led to an average 0.6% cut in A1c in this subgroup, and by the same average amount among the patients with GFRs of 30-60 mL/min per 1.73 m2.

“This is a huge finding for endocrinologists and primary care physicians” who treat patients with T2D who have severe renal dysfunction, said Dr. Bhatt, a professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School in Boston. “It’s a good enough reason by itself to approve this drug.”

The same mechanism may also be behind another unexpected finding in SCORED. Treatment with sotagliflozin cut the rate of total episodes of cardiovascular death, nonfatal MI, or nonfatal stroke by an absolute 1.6%, compared with placebo, and by a relative 23%. This benefit was largely driven by a 32% relative risk reduction total in MIs, and a 34% relative risk reduction in total stroke, both significant differences.

“No SGLT2 inhibitor has shown a reduction in stroke, and the MI signals have been mixed. The sizable MI and stroke effects are unique to sotagliflozin,” compared with the SGLT2 inhibitors, and likely reflect one or more mechanisms that result from blocked gut SGLT1 and a cut in GI glucose uptake, said Dr. Bhatt. “Probably some novel mechanism we don’t fully understand.”
 

First-ever HFpEF benefit

In contrast to these two benefits that are probably unique to drugs that inhibit the SGLT1 protein, sotagliflozin showed two other notable and unprecedented benefits that are likely generalizable to the SGLT2 inhibitors.

First is the striking benefit for HFpEF. Neither SOLOIST, which enrolled 1,222 patients with T2D and just hospitalized for worsening heart failure, nor SCORED, which enrolled patients with T2D and chronic kidney disease based exclusively on an eGFR of 25-60 mL/min per 1.73 m², excluded patients with HFpEF, defined as heart failure patients with a left ventricular ejection fraction of at least 50%. The two studies together included a total of 739 of these patients, and they split fairly evenly between treatment with sotagliflozin or placebo.

The combined analysis showed that the incidence rate for the primary endpoint in both SOLOIST and SCORED was 59% with placebo and 39% with sotagliflozin, an absolute event reduction of 11.6 events/100 patient-years, and a significant 37% relative risk reduction, with a number needed to treat to prevent 1 event per year event of 9.

Although this observation comes from a nonprespecified combined analysis, “to me this result seems real, and I think it’s a class effect that I’m willing to extrapolate to the SGLT2 inhibitors,” Dr. Bhatt said. “It will change my practice,” he added, by spurring him to more aggressively prescribe an SGLT2 inhibitor to a patient with T2D and HFpEF.

“I think there has been some hesitation to use SGLT2 inhibitors in T2D patients with HFpEF” because of the paucity of data in this population, even though labeling and society recommendations do not rule it out. “I hope this finding will move that needle, and also generally improve SGLT2 inhibitor uptake, which has been low,” he said.
 

Also safe soon after acute heart failure decompensation

The other finding likely generalizable to SGLT2 inhibitors stems from the design of SOLOIST-WHF, which tested the efficacy and safety of starting sotagliflozin in patients with T2D as soon as they were stable after hospitalization for acute heart failure decompensation.

“Showing safety and efficacy when started in the hospital is pretty meaningful, because its tells patients that this drug is important and they should stay on it,” which should improve adherence, predicted Dr. Bhatt, who is also executive director of Interventional Cardiovascular Programs at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston. “That’s the ultimate treatment path to prevent patients from falling through the cracks” and failing to receive an SGLT2 inhibitor.

SOLOIST-WHF enrolled patients hospitalized for worsening heart failure who also required intravenous diuretic treatment but had become stable enough to transition to an oral diuretic and come off oxygen. During a median follow-up of just over 9 months (both SOLOIST-WHF and SCORED ended sooner than planned because of a change in drug company sponsorship), treatment with sotagliflozin cut the primary endpoint by a relative 33%, compared with placebo, and with an absolute reduction of 25 events per 100 patient-years for a number needed to treat of 4. Sotagliflozin produced a strikingly high level of treatment efficiency driven by the high event rate in these recently decompensated patients. The benefit also appeared quickly, with a significant cut in events discernible within 28 days.

Extrapolating this finding to the SGLT2 inhibitors is “not a huge leap of faith,” Dr. Bhatt said.

“There is a role for sotagliflozin in acute heart failure. It showed benefit in these high-risk, transition-phase patients,” said Dr. Wilcox.

Simultaneously with Dr. Bhatt’s presentation, results of SOLOIST-WHF and SCORED were published online in the New England Journal of Medicine.

The trials were sponsored initially by Sanofi, and more recently by Lexicon. Dr. Bhatt has received research funding from both companies, and also from several other companies. He also is an adviser to several companies. Dr. Wilcox has been a consultant to Boehringer Ingelheim and Medtronic.

[email protected]

Sotagliflozin, a novel type of sodium-glucose cotransporter inhibitor, showed the diverse benefits this drug class provides along some new twists in a pair of international pivotal trials that together enrolled nearly 12,000 patients with type 2 diabetes.

Unprecedented benefits were seen for the first time with a drug, sotagliflozin (Zynquista) that produces both sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibition as well as SGLT1 inhibition.

They included a big reduction in both MIs and strokes; an ability to meaningfully reduce hyperglycemia in patients with severe renal dysfunction with an estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) of 25-29 mL/min per 1.73 m²; an ability to safely and effectively start in patients still hospitalized (but stable) for an acute heart failure episode; and a striking 37% relative risk reduction in cardiovascular death, heart failure hospitalizations, or an urgent outpatient visit for heart failure in 739 of the patients enrolled in both trials who had heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF).

These studies produced for the first time evidence from controlled, prospective, randomized trials that a drug could improve the outcome of HFpEF patients.

All these novel outcomes came on top of the usual benefits clinicians have generally seen across the SGLT2 inhibitors already on the U.S. market: reductions in cardiovascular death and heart failure hospitalizations among all patients with type 2 diabetes, preservation of renal function, and hemoglobin A1c lowering among T2D patients with eGFR levels of at least 30 mL/min per 1.73 m².

“The data look spectacular,” summed up Deepak L. Bhatt, MD, who presented the results from the two trials, SOLOIST-WHF and SCORED, in talks at the virtual scientific sessions of the American Heart Association.

“I think sotagliflozin has the potential to be the best in class” based on the several added attributes shown in the two trials, he said in an interview. “We’ve shown that it is very safe, well tolerated, and effective.”

The primary results were a significant 33% relative risk reduction with sotagliflozin treatment, compared with placebo in the rate of total cardiovascular deaths, hospitalizations for heart failure, or urgent outpatient visits for heart failure during just over 9 months of median follow-up among patients with T2D recently hospitalized for heart failure in SOLOIST-WFH. And a significant 26% relative risk reduction with sotagliflozin for the same endpoint after a median follow-up of just over 14 months in SCORED, which enrolled patients with T2D and chronic kidney disease.

“Sotagliflozin adds to the SGLT2 inhibitor story,” and the SOLOIST-WHF results “may shift our focus to vulnerable, acute heart failure patients with an opportunity to treat during the transition phase,” when these patients leave the hospital, commented Jane E. Wilcox, MD, the study’s designated discussant and a heart failure cardiologist at Northwestern Medicine in Chicago.
 

A dual SGLT inhibitor

What sets sotagliflozin apart from the SGLT2 inhibitors is that it not only inhibits that protein but also SGTL1, which primarily resides in the gastrointestinal tract and is the main route for gut absorption of glucose. Dr. Bhatt said that he was unaware of any other SGLT1/2 inhibitors currently in advanced clinical testing.

The activity of sotagliflozin against the SGLT1 protein likely explains its ability to cut A1c levels in patients with severe renal dysfunction, a condition that stymies glucose lowering by SGLT2 inhibitors. In SCORED, which randomized 10,584 patients with T2D at 750 study sites in 44 countries, 813 patients (8%) had an eGFR of 25-29 mL/min per 1.73 m² at enrollment. Sotagliflozin treatment led to an average 0.6% cut in A1c in this subgroup, and by the same average amount among the patients with GFRs of 30-60 mL/min per 1.73 m2.

“This is a huge finding for endocrinologists and primary care physicians” who treat patients with T2D who have severe renal dysfunction, said Dr. Bhatt, a professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School in Boston. “It’s a good enough reason by itself to approve this drug.”

The same mechanism may also be behind another unexpected finding in SCORED. Treatment with sotagliflozin cut the rate of total episodes of cardiovascular death, nonfatal MI, or nonfatal stroke by an absolute 1.6%, compared with placebo, and by a relative 23%. This benefit was largely driven by a 32% relative risk reduction total in MIs, and a 34% relative risk reduction in total stroke, both significant differences.

“No SGLT2 inhibitor has shown a reduction in stroke, and the MI signals have been mixed. The sizable MI and stroke effects are unique to sotagliflozin,” compared with the SGLT2 inhibitors, and likely reflect one or more mechanisms that result from blocked gut SGLT1 and a cut in GI glucose uptake, said Dr. Bhatt. “Probably some novel mechanism we don’t fully understand.”
 

First-ever HFpEF benefit

In contrast to these two benefits that are probably unique to drugs that inhibit the SGLT1 protein, sotagliflozin showed two other notable and unprecedented benefits that are likely generalizable to the SGLT2 inhibitors.

First is the striking benefit for HFpEF. Neither SOLOIST, which enrolled 1,222 patients with T2D and just hospitalized for worsening heart failure, nor SCORED, which enrolled patients with T2D and chronic kidney disease based exclusively on an eGFR of 25-60 mL/min per 1.73 m², excluded patients with HFpEF, defined as heart failure patients with a left ventricular ejection fraction of at least 50%. The two studies together included a total of 739 of these patients, and they split fairly evenly between treatment with sotagliflozin or placebo.

The combined analysis showed that the incidence rate for the primary endpoint in both SOLOIST and SCORED was 59% with placebo and 39% with sotagliflozin, an absolute event reduction of 11.6 events/100 patient-years, and a significant 37% relative risk reduction, with a number needed to treat to prevent 1 event per year event of 9.

Although this observation comes from a nonprespecified combined analysis, “to me this result seems real, and I think it’s a class effect that I’m willing to extrapolate to the SGLT2 inhibitors,” Dr. Bhatt said. “It will change my practice,” he added, by spurring him to more aggressively prescribe an SGLT2 inhibitor to a patient with T2D and HFpEF.

“I think there has been some hesitation to use SGLT2 inhibitors in T2D patients with HFpEF” because of the paucity of data in this population, even though labeling and society recommendations do not rule it out. “I hope this finding will move that needle, and also generally improve SGLT2 inhibitor uptake, which has been low,” he said.
 

Also safe soon after acute heart failure decompensation

The other finding likely generalizable to SGLT2 inhibitors stems from the design of SOLOIST-WHF, which tested the efficacy and safety of starting sotagliflozin in patients with T2D as soon as they were stable after hospitalization for acute heart failure decompensation.

“Showing safety and efficacy when started in the hospital is pretty meaningful, because its tells patients that this drug is important and they should stay on it,” which should improve adherence, predicted Dr. Bhatt, who is also executive director of Interventional Cardiovascular Programs at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston. “That’s the ultimate treatment path to prevent patients from falling through the cracks” and failing to receive an SGLT2 inhibitor.

SOLOIST-WHF enrolled patients hospitalized for worsening heart failure who also required intravenous diuretic treatment but had become stable enough to transition to an oral diuretic and come off oxygen. During a median follow-up of just over 9 months (both SOLOIST-WHF and SCORED ended sooner than planned because of a change in drug company sponsorship), treatment with sotagliflozin cut the primary endpoint by a relative 33%, compared with placebo, and with an absolute reduction of 25 events per 100 patient-years for a number needed to treat of 4. Sotagliflozin produced a strikingly high level of treatment efficiency driven by the high event rate in these recently decompensated patients. The benefit also appeared quickly, with a significant cut in events discernible within 28 days.

Extrapolating this finding to the SGLT2 inhibitors is “not a huge leap of faith,” Dr. Bhatt said.

“There is a role for sotagliflozin in acute heart failure. It showed benefit in these high-risk, transition-phase patients,” said Dr. Wilcox.

Simultaneously with Dr. Bhatt’s presentation, results of SOLOIST-WHF and SCORED were published online in the New England Journal of Medicine.

The trials were sponsored initially by Sanofi, and more recently by Lexicon. Dr. Bhatt has received research funding from both companies, and also from several other companies. He also is an adviser to several companies. Dr. Wilcox has been a consultant to Boehringer Ingelheim and Medtronic.

[email protected]

Factor XI has emerged as a promising target for new anticoagulants, and several strategies for inhibiting the enzyme to reduce stroke, thromboembolism, and bleeding risk are under investigation, according to Jeffrey I. Weitz, MD.

These strategies could pick up where direct-acting oral anticoagulants leave off, he suggested during a presentation at the biennial summit of the Thrombosis & Hemostasis Societies of North America.

“We all know that the direct oral anticoagulants – the DOACs – are an advance over vitamin K antagonists,” said Dr. Weitz, professor of medicine and biochemistry at McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario.

Not only are DOACs at least as effective as vitamin K antagonists such as warfarin for stroke prevention in atrial fibrillation or for treatment of venous thromboembolism (VTE), but they also reduce intracranial bleeding and major bleeding risk in those settings, respectively, and they are more convenient to administer because they can be delivered using fixed doses without the need for coagulation monitoring, he added.

Still, new targets are needed, he said, explaining that, although DOACs moved closer to the goal of attenuating thrombosis without increasing the risk of bleeding, annual rates of major bleeding remain at 2%-3% in the atrial fibrillation population, and rates of major and clinically relevant nonmajor bleeding are about 10%.

“The fear of bleeding leads to underuse of anticoagulants for eligible patients with atrial fibrillation and inappropriate use of low-dose [non–vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulant] regimens, which can leave patients unprotected from thrombotic complications,” he said.
 

Factor XI

That’s where Factor XI (FXI) may come in, Dr. Weitz said.

Current anticoagulants target enzymes, including FXa or thrombin, in the common pathway of coagulation, but the intrinsic pathway at the level of FXI and FXII has attracted attention in recent years.

The intrinsic pathway is activated when blood comes into contact with medical devices like stents, mechanical heart valves, or central venous catheters, but evidence also suggests that it plays a role in clot stabilization and growth, he explained, noting additional evidence of attenuation of thrombosis in mice deficient in FXI or FXII and in animals with FXI or FXII inhibitors.

“There is no bleeding with congenital FXII deficiency, and patients with FXI deficiency rarely have spontaneous bleeding, although they can bleed with surgery or trauma,” he noted. “Therefore, the promise of contact pathway inhibition is that we can attenuate thrombosis with little or no disruption of hemostasis.”

The initiators of the intrinsic pathway are naturally occurring polyphosphates that can activate FXI and FXII, promote platelet activation, and lead to thrombosis. A number of agents are being investigated to target these enzymes – particularly FXI, for which the strongest epidemiological and other evidence of its link with thrombosis exists. He noted that FXI deficiency appears protective against deep-vein thrombosis (DVT) and ischemic stroke, whereas high levels are linked with an increased risk of venous and arterial thrombosis.

Investigative strategies include the use of antisense oligonucleotides to reduce hepatic synthesis of FXI, aptamers to bind FXI and block its activity, antibodies to bind FXI and block its activation or activity, and small molecules to bind reversibly to the active site of FXI and block its activity “much like the DOACs block the activity of FXa or thrombin.”

“We have to remember that the DOACs have taken over from vitamin K antagonists, like warfarin, for many indications, and as they go generic their uptake will increase even further,” Dr. Weitz said. “When we compare the FXI inhibitors with existing anticoagulants, we don’t necessarily want to go up against the DOACs – we’re looking for indications where [DOACs] have yet to be tested or may be unsafe.”

Potential indications include the following:

Prevention of major adverse cardiovascular events in patients with end-stage renal disease with or without atrial fibrillation.

Provision of a safer platform for antiplatelet therapy in patients with acute coronary syndrome.

Secondary stroke prevention.

Prevention or treatment of cancer-associated VTE.

Prevention of thrombosis associated with central venous catheters, left ventricular assist devices, or mechanical heart valves.

Agents in development

Of the FXI inhibitors in development, ISIS-FXI_Rx, an antisense oligonucleotide against FXI, is furthest along. In a study published in Blood, ISIS-FXI_Rx produced a dose-dependent and sustained reduction in FXI levels in healthy volunteers, and in a later randomized study published in The New England Journal of Medicine, it significantly reduced the incidence of DVT in patients undergoing voluntary total knee arthroplasty (30.4% with enoxaparin vs. 4.2% with ISIS-FXI_Rx at a dose of 300 mg). Bleeding rates were 8.3% and 2.6%, respectively.

The findings showed the potential for reducing thrombosis without increasing bleeding by targeting FXI, Dr. Weitz said, adding that ISIS-FXIR_x was also evaluated in a small study of patients with end-stage renal disease undergoing hemodialysis and was shown to produce a dose-dependent reduction in FXI levels and to reduce the incidence of category 3 and 4 clotting in the air trap and dialyzer, compared with placebo, when given in addition to heparin.

This suggests that FXI knockdown can attenuate device-associated clotting to a greater extent than heparin alone, Dr. Weitz said.

The FXIa-directed inhibitory antibody osocimab has also been evaluated in both healthy volunteers and in patients undergoing total knee arthroplasty. In a 2019 study of healthy volunteers, a single IV injection showed a dose-dependent pharmacokinetic profile and produced FXI inhibition for about 1 month, and in the FOXTROT trial published in January in JAMA by Dr. Weitz and colleagues, osocimab was shown to reduce the incidence of symptomatic VTE, asymptomatic DVT, and VTE-related death up to day 10-13 after total knee arthroplasty.

Osocimab at doses ranging from 0.3-1.8 mg/kg given postoperatively or preoperatively were noninferior to enoxaparin (rates of 15.7%-23.7% vs. 26.3%), and osocimab at a preoperative dose of 1.8 mg/kg was superior to both enoxaparin and apixaban (11.5% vs. 26.3% and 14.5%, respectively), he said.

Bleeding rates ranged from 0%-5% with osocimab, compared with 6% with enoxaparin and 2% with apixaban
 

Ongoing studies

Currently ongoing studies of FXI-directed anticoagulation strategies include a study comparing ISIS-FXI_Rx with placebo in 200 patients with end-stage renal disease, a study comparing osocimab with placebo in 600 patients with end-stage renal disease, and a study comparing abelacimab – an antibody that binds to FXI and prevents its activation by either FXIIa or thrombin, with enoxaparin in 700 patients undergoing total knee arthroplasty, Dr. Weitz said.

Additionally, there is “considerable activity” with small molecule inhibitors of FXIa, including a phase 2, placebo-controlled, dose-ranging study looking at the novel JNG-7003/BMS-986177 agent for secondary stroke/transient ischemic attack prevention in 2,500 patients and a phase 2 study comparing it with enoxaparin for postoperative thromboprophylaxis in 1,200 patients undergoing total knee arthroplasty.

Parallel phase 2 studies are also underway to compare the novel BAY-2433334 small molecule inhibitor with placebo for stroke/transient ischemic attack prevention, with apixaban for atrial fibrillation, and for prevention of major adverse cardiovascular events in patients with acute MI.

These ongoing trials will help determine the risk-benefit profile of FXI inhibitors he said.

Session comoderator Anne Rose, PharmD, pharmacy coordinator at the University of Wisconsin, Madison, noted that these types of agents have been discussed “for quite some time” and asked whether they will be available for use in clinical practice in the near future.

Dr. Weitz predicted it will be at least a few years. The studies are just now moving to phase 2b and will still need to be evaluated in phase 3 trials and for appropriate new indications, he said.

Dr. Weitz reported research support from Canadian Institutes of Health research, Heart and Stroke Foundation, and Canadian Fund for Innovation, and he is a consultant and/or scientific advisory board member for Anthos, Bayer, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Daiichi-Sankyo, Ionis Pharmaceuticals, Janssen, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Portola, Servier , and Thetherex.

[email protected]

Factor XI has emerged as a promising target for new anticoagulants, and several strategies for inhibiting the enzyme to reduce stroke, thromboembolism, and bleeding risk are under investigation, according to Jeffrey I. Weitz, MD.

These strategies could pick up where direct-acting oral anticoagulants leave off, he suggested during a presentation at the biennial summit of the Thrombosis & Hemostasis Societies of North America.

“We all know that the direct oral anticoagulants – the DOACs – are an advance over vitamin K antagonists,” said Dr. Weitz, professor of medicine and biochemistry at McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario.

Not only are DOACs at least as effective as vitamin K antagonists such as warfarin for stroke prevention in atrial fibrillation or for treatment of venous thromboembolism (VTE), but they also reduce intracranial bleeding and major bleeding risk in those settings, respectively, and they are more convenient to administer because they can be delivered using fixed doses without the need for coagulation monitoring, he added.

Still, new targets are needed, he said, explaining that, although DOACs moved closer to the goal of attenuating thrombosis without increasing the risk of bleeding, annual rates of major bleeding remain at 2%-3% in the atrial fibrillation population, and rates of major and clinically relevant nonmajor bleeding are about 10%.

“The fear of bleeding leads to underuse of anticoagulants for eligible patients with atrial fibrillation and inappropriate use of low-dose [non–vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulant] regimens, which can leave patients unprotected from thrombotic complications,” he said.
 

Factor XI

That’s where Factor XI (FXI) may come in, Dr. Weitz said.

Current anticoagulants target enzymes, including FXa or thrombin, in the common pathway of coagulation, but the intrinsic pathway at the level of FXI and FXII has attracted attention in recent years.

The intrinsic pathway is activated when blood comes into contact with medical devices like stents, mechanical heart valves, or central venous catheters, but evidence also suggests that it plays a role in clot stabilization and growth, he explained, noting additional evidence of attenuation of thrombosis in mice deficient in FXI or FXII and in animals with FXI or FXII inhibitors.

“There is no bleeding with congenital FXII deficiency, and patients with FXI deficiency rarely have spontaneous bleeding, although they can bleed with surgery or trauma,” he noted. “Therefore, the promise of contact pathway inhibition is that we can attenuate thrombosis with little or no disruption of hemostasis.”

The initiators of the intrinsic pathway are naturally occurring polyphosphates that can activate FXI and FXII, promote platelet activation, and lead to thrombosis. A number of agents are being investigated to target these enzymes – particularly FXI, for which the strongest epidemiological and other evidence of its link with thrombosis exists. He noted that FXI deficiency appears protective against deep-vein thrombosis (DVT) and ischemic stroke, whereas high levels are linked with an increased risk of venous and arterial thrombosis.

Investigative strategies include the use of antisense oligonucleotides to reduce hepatic synthesis of FXI, aptamers to bind FXI and block its activity, antibodies to bind FXI and block its activation or activity, and small molecules to bind reversibly to the active site of FXI and block its activity “much like the DOACs block the activity of FXa or thrombin.”

“We have to remember that the DOACs have taken over from vitamin K antagonists, like warfarin, for many indications, and as they go generic their uptake will increase even further,” Dr. Weitz said. “When we compare the FXI inhibitors with existing anticoagulants, we don’t necessarily want to go up against the DOACs – we’re looking for indications where [DOACs] have yet to be tested or may be unsafe.”

Potential indications include the following:

Prevention of major adverse cardiovascular events in patients with end-stage renal disease with or without atrial fibrillation.

Provision of a safer platform for antiplatelet therapy in patients with acute coronary syndrome.

Secondary stroke prevention.

Prevention or treatment of cancer-associated VTE.

Prevention of thrombosis associated with central venous catheters, left ventricular assist devices, or mechanical heart valves.

Agents in development

Of the FXI inhibitors in development, ISIS-FXI_Rx, an antisense oligonucleotide against FXI, is furthest along. In a study published in Blood, ISIS-FXI_Rx produced a dose-dependent and sustained reduction in FXI levels in healthy volunteers, and in a later randomized study published in The New England Journal of Medicine, it significantly reduced the incidence of DVT in patients undergoing voluntary total knee arthroplasty (30.4% with enoxaparin vs. 4.2% with ISIS-FXI_Rx at a dose of 300 mg). Bleeding rates were 8.3% and 2.6%, respectively.

The findings showed the potential for reducing thrombosis without increasing bleeding by targeting FXI, Dr. Weitz said, adding that ISIS-FXIR_x was also evaluated in a small study of patients with end-stage renal disease undergoing hemodialysis and was shown to produce a dose-dependent reduction in FXI levels and to reduce the incidence of category 3 and 4 clotting in the air trap and dialyzer, compared with placebo, when given in addition to heparin.

This suggests that FXI knockdown can attenuate device-associated clotting to a greater extent than heparin alone, Dr. Weitz said.

The FXIa-directed inhibitory antibody osocimab has also been evaluated in both healthy volunteers and in patients undergoing total knee arthroplasty. In a 2019 study of healthy volunteers, a single IV injection showed a dose-dependent pharmacokinetic profile and produced FXI inhibition for about 1 month, and in the FOXTROT trial published in January in JAMA by Dr. Weitz and colleagues, osocimab was shown to reduce the incidence of symptomatic VTE, asymptomatic DVT, and VTE-related death up to day 10-13 after total knee arthroplasty.

Osocimab at doses ranging from 0.3-1.8 mg/kg given postoperatively or preoperatively were noninferior to enoxaparin (rates of 15.7%-23.7% vs. 26.3%), and osocimab at a preoperative dose of 1.8 mg/kg was superior to both enoxaparin and apixaban (11.5% vs. 26.3% and 14.5%, respectively), he said.

Bleeding rates ranged from 0%-5% with osocimab, compared with 6% with enoxaparin and 2% with apixaban
 

Ongoing studies

Currently ongoing studies of FXI-directed anticoagulation strategies include a study comparing ISIS-FXI_Rx with placebo in 200 patients with end-stage renal disease, a study comparing osocimab with placebo in 600 patients with end-stage renal disease, and a study comparing abelacimab – an antibody that binds to FXI and prevents its activation by either FXIIa or thrombin, with enoxaparin in 700 patients undergoing total knee arthroplasty, Dr. Weitz said.

Additionally, there is “considerable activity” with small molecule inhibitors of FXIa, including a phase 2, placebo-controlled, dose-ranging study looking at the novel JNG-7003/BMS-986177 agent for secondary stroke/transient ischemic attack prevention in 2,500 patients and a phase 2 study comparing it with enoxaparin for postoperative thromboprophylaxis in 1,200 patients undergoing total knee arthroplasty.

Parallel phase 2 studies are also underway to compare the novel BAY-2433334 small molecule inhibitor with placebo for stroke/transient ischemic attack prevention, with apixaban for atrial fibrillation, and for prevention of major adverse cardiovascular events in patients with acute MI.

These ongoing trials will help determine the risk-benefit profile of FXI inhibitors he said.

Session comoderator Anne Rose, PharmD, pharmacy coordinator at the University of Wisconsin, Madison, noted that these types of agents have been discussed “for quite some time” and asked whether they will be available for use in clinical practice in the near future.

Dr. Weitz predicted it will be at least a few years. The studies are just now moving to phase 2b and will still need to be evaluated in phase 3 trials and for appropriate new indications, he said.

Dr. Weitz reported research support from Canadian Institutes of Health research, Heart and Stroke Foundation, and Canadian Fund for Innovation, and he is a consultant and/or scientific advisory board member for Anthos, Bayer, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Daiichi-Sankyo, Ionis Pharmaceuticals, Janssen, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Portola, Servier , and Thetherex.

[email protected]

Factor XI has emerged as a promising target for new anticoagulants, and several strategies for inhibiting the enzyme to reduce stroke, thromboembolism, and bleeding risk are under investigation, according to Jeffrey I. Weitz, MD.

These strategies could pick up where direct-acting oral anticoagulants leave off, he suggested during a presentation at the biennial summit of the Thrombosis & Hemostasis Societies of North America.

“We all know that the direct oral anticoagulants – the DOACs – are an advance over vitamin K antagonists,” said Dr. Weitz, professor of medicine and biochemistry at McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario.

Not only are DOACs at least as effective as vitamin K antagonists such as warfarin for stroke prevention in atrial fibrillation or for treatment of venous thromboembolism (VTE), but they also reduce intracranial bleeding and major bleeding risk in those settings, respectively, and they are more convenient to administer because they can be delivered using fixed doses without the need for coagulation monitoring, he added.

Still, new targets are needed, he said, explaining that, although DOACs moved closer to the goal of attenuating thrombosis without increasing the risk of bleeding, annual rates of major bleeding remain at 2%-3% in the atrial fibrillation population, and rates of major and clinically relevant nonmajor bleeding are about 10%.

“The fear of bleeding leads to underuse of anticoagulants for eligible patients with atrial fibrillation and inappropriate use of low-dose [non–vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulant] regimens, which can leave patients unprotected from thrombotic complications,” he said.
 

Factor XI

That’s where Factor XI (FXI) may come in, Dr. Weitz said.

Current anticoagulants target enzymes, including FXa or thrombin, in the common pathway of coagulation, but the intrinsic pathway at the level of FXI and FXII has attracted attention in recent years.

The intrinsic pathway is activated when blood comes into contact with medical devices like stents, mechanical heart valves, or central venous catheters, but evidence also suggests that it plays a role in clot stabilization and growth, he explained, noting additional evidence of attenuation of thrombosis in mice deficient in FXI or FXII and in animals with FXI or FXII inhibitors.

“There is no bleeding with congenital FXII deficiency, and patients with FXI deficiency rarely have spontaneous bleeding, although they can bleed with surgery or trauma,” he noted. “Therefore, the promise of contact pathway inhibition is that we can attenuate thrombosis with little or no disruption of hemostasis.”

The initiators of the intrinsic pathway are naturally occurring polyphosphates that can activate FXI and FXII, promote platelet activation, and lead to thrombosis. A number of agents are being investigated to target these enzymes – particularly FXI, for which the strongest epidemiological and other evidence of its link with thrombosis exists. He noted that FXI deficiency appears protective against deep-vein thrombosis (DVT) and ischemic stroke, whereas high levels are linked with an increased risk of venous and arterial thrombosis.

Investigative strategies include the use of antisense oligonucleotides to reduce hepatic synthesis of FXI, aptamers to bind FXI and block its activity, antibodies to bind FXI and block its activation or activity, and small molecules to bind reversibly to the active site of FXI and block its activity “much like the DOACs block the activity of FXa or thrombin.”

“We have to remember that the DOACs have taken over from vitamin K antagonists, like warfarin, for many indications, and as they go generic their uptake will increase even further,” Dr. Weitz said. “When we compare the FXI inhibitors with existing anticoagulants, we don’t necessarily want to go up against the DOACs – we’re looking for indications where [DOACs] have yet to be tested or may be unsafe.”

Potential indications include the following:

Prevention of major adverse cardiovascular events in patients with end-stage renal disease with or without atrial fibrillation.

Provision of a safer platform for antiplatelet therapy in patients with acute coronary syndrome.

Secondary stroke prevention.

Prevention or treatment of cancer-associated VTE.

Prevention of thrombosis associated with central venous catheters, left ventricular assist devices, or mechanical heart valves.

Agents in development

Of the FXI inhibitors in development, ISIS-FXI_Rx, an antisense oligonucleotide against FXI, is furthest along. In a study published in Blood, ISIS-FXI_Rx produced a dose-dependent and sustained reduction in FXI levels in healthy volunteers, and in a later randomized study published in The New England Journal of Medicine, it significantly reduced the incidence of DVT in patients undergoing voluntary total knee arthroplasty (30.4% with enoxaparin vs. 4.2% with ISIS-FXI_Rx at a dose of 300 mg). Bleeding rates were 8.3% and 2.6%, respectively.

The findings showed the potential for reducing thrombosis without increasing bleeding by targeting FXI, Dr. Weitz said, adding that ISIS-FXIR_x was also evaluated in a small study of patients with end-stage renal disease undergoing hemodialysis and was shown to produce a dose-dependent reduction in FXI levels and to reduce the incidence of category 3 and 4 clotting in the air trap and dialyzer, compared with placebo, when given in addition to heparin.

This suggests that FXI knockdown can attenuate device-associated clotting to a greater extent than heparin alone, Dr. Weitz said.

The FXIa-directed inhibitory antibody osocimab has also been evaluated in both healthy volunteers and in patients undergoing total knee arthroplasty. In a 2019 study of healthy volunteers, a single IV injection showed a dose-dependent pharmacokinetic profile and produced FXI inhibition for about 1 month, and in the FOXTROT trial published in January in JAMA by Dr. Weitz and colleagues, osocimab was shown to reduce the incidence of symptomatic VTE, asymptomatic DVT, and VTE-related death up to day 10-13 after total knee arthroplasty.

Osocimab at doses ranging from 0.3-1.8 mg/kg given postoperatively or preoperatively were noninferior to enoxaparin (rates of 15.7%-23.7% vs. 26.3%), and osocimab at a preoperative dose of 1.8 mg/kg was superior to both enoxaparin and apixaban (11.5% vs. 26.3% and 14.5%, respectively), he said.

Bleeding rates ranged from 0%-5% with osocimab, compared with 6% with enoxaparin and 2% with apixaban
 

Ongoing studies

Currently ongoing studies of FXI-directed anticoagulation strategies include a study comparing ISIS-FXI_Rx with placebo in 200 patients with end-stage renal disease, a study comparing osocimab with placebo in 600 patients with end-stage renal disease, and a study comparing abelacimab – an antibody that binds to FXI and prevents its activation by either FXIIa or thrombin, with enoxaparin in 700 patients undergoing total knee arthroplasty, Dr. Weitz said.

Additionally, there is “considerable activity” with small molecule inhibitors of FXIa, including a phase 2, placebo-controlled, dose-ranging study looking at the novel JNG-7003/BMS-986177 agent for secondary stroke/transient ischemic attack prevention in 2,500 patients and a phase 2 study comparing it with enoxaparin for postoperative thromboprophylaxis in 1,200 patients undergoing total knee arthroplasty.

Parallel phase 2 studies are also underway to compare the novel BAY-2433334 small molecule inhibitor with placebo for stroke/transient ischemic attack prevention, with apixaban for atrial fibrillation, and for prevention of major adverse cardiovascular events in patients with acute MI.

These ongoing trials will help determine the risk-benefit profile of FXI inhibitors he said.

Session comoderator Anne Rose, PharmD, pharmacy coordinator at the University of Wisconsin, Madison, noted that these types of agents have been discussed “for quite some time” and asked whether they will be available for use in clinical practice in the near future.

Dr. Weitz predicted it will be at least a few years. The studies are just now moving to phase 2b and will still need to be evaluated in phase 3 trials and for appropriate new indications, he said.

Dr. Weitz reported research support from Canadian Institutes of Health research, Heart and Stroke Foundation, and Canadian Fund for Innovation, and he is a consultant and/or scientific advisory board member for Anthos, Bayer, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Daiichi-Sankyo, Ionis Pharmaceuticals, Janssen, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Portola, Servier , and Thetherex.

[email protected]

New observational data are the first to support recommendations to continue osteoporosis medications during the COVID-19 pandemic, and even suggest that some agents may protect against the virus.

Findings from the cross-sectional study of 2,102 patients with osteoporosis, osteoarthritis, and/or fibromyalgia – so-called noninflammatory rheumatic conditions – during March 1 to May 3, 2020, were recently published in Aging by Josep Blanch-Rubió, MD, scientific clinical director of the Rheumatology Service, Hospital del Mar, Barcelona, and colleagues.

Patients taking denosumab, zoledronate, and calcium showed trends toward lower incidence of developing symptomatic presumed COVID-19 (polymerase chain reaction tests weren’t widely available at the time), as did those taking the antidepressant serotonin/norepinephrine inhibitor duloxetine.

Some analgesics, particularly pregabalin and most other antidepressants, were associated with higher incidences of COVID-19, while oral bisphosphonates, vitamin D, thiazide diuretics, antihypertensive drugs, and chronic nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs had no effect on COVID-19 incidence.

These data are the first to support guidance issued in May 2020 by the American Society for Bone and Mineral Research and four other professional societies advising continuation of osteoporosis medications during the pandemic. That statement’s authors acknowledged that, lacking data, their recommendations were based primarily on expert opinion.

“There were guidelines without any scientific base. ... This is the first scientific evidence showing that indeed you should continue your osteoporosis treatment if you have COVID-19. This is the first study to provide scientific support for the guidelines,” study coauthor Rafael Maldonado, MD, PhD, of the Laboratory of Neuropharmacology, Universitat Pompeu Fabra, Barcelona, said in an interview.

And while the data don’t offer proof of benefit for any drug – all of the 95% confidence intervals crossed 1.0 – they do show trends that deserve further study, Dr. Maldonado said.

“What we observed is that there is no harm. Treatments should be continued.”

“But we obtained very interesting results with denosumab, zoledronate, calcium, and duloxetine. ... There is a clear tendency, and the message is we should promote studies to see if these four treatments provide benefit.”
 

Different mechanisms for each?

Asked to comment on the findings, Matthew T. Drake, MD, PhD, said in an interview, “I would agree that there’s no reason any of these medications should be stopped or discontinued since there’s no evidence that they make the risk for infection worse.”

“But how [some of them may] improve or reduce the infection risk in my mind is somewhat unclear. ... It’s hard to come up with a unifying explanation” because those mentioned as potentially beneficial “are fairly different,” he noted.

Dr. Drake, associate professor of medicine in the department of endocrinology at the Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn., said he agreed with the study authors that denosumab’s targeting of the RANK/RANKL system is a possible anti-COVID-19 mechanism for that drug because that system is involved in immune response.

Regarding zoledronate/zoledronic acid, both the Spanish authors and Dr. Drake pointed to a landmark study linking the intravenous drug to longer survival in patients with hip fracture. The study authors note that there could be several mechanisms for an overall survival benefit, but additionally, “zoledronate may make dendritic cells and their precursors less susceptible to SARS-CoV-2 infection, which could explain the beneficial effects here ... on COVID-19 incidence.”

And, the authors hypothesized, the reason for the lack of benefit with oral bisphosphonates might relate to the higher potency of the intravenous zoledronate. Dr. Drake added that its higher bioavailability may also play a role.

As for calcium, the authors suggest that the beneficial effect against COVID-19 could relate to its action in generating two immune cell types – T follicular helper cells and T follicular regulatory cells – which promote an appropriate immune response against infectious agents, including viruses.
 

Data supporting the guidelines

Of the 2,102 patients in the study by Blanch-Rubió and colleagues, 80.5% were women, and their mean age was 66.4 years. Overall, 63.7% had osteoarthritis, 43.5% had osteoporosis, and 27.2% had fibromyalgia. Treatments included vitamin D in 62%, calcium in 23.3%, denosumab in 12.6%, and intravenous zoledronate in 8.5%. Over half were taking analgesics and nearly a third antidepressants, with 9.9% taking duloxetine.

During the study period, 5.2%, or 109 individuals, were diagnosed with COVID-19 based on presenting for medical care with hallmark symptoms.

After adjustments for sex, age, diabetes, pulmonary disease, cardiovascular disease, chronic kidney disease, and active cancer or treatment, the relative risks for COVID-19 were 0.58 for denosumab, 0.62 for intravenous zoledronate, and 0.64 for calcium, all nonsignificant trends. No associations were found between COVID-19 and oral bisphosphonates, vitamin D, or thiazide diuretics. Increased but nonsignificant relative risks for COVID-19 were seen with analgesics, particularly pregabalin (1.55), gabapentin (1.39), and opioids (1.25).

Among antidepressants, there was a relative risk of 1.54 for selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors, 1.38 for amitriptyline, and 1.22 for all dual-action antidepressants together. In contrast, there was a negative association with the dual-action antidepressant duloxetine, with an adjusted relative risk of 0.68.

“The good news,” Dr. Drake said, “is that none of it appears bad.”

Dr. Blanch-Rubió has received grants or consulting fees from Amgen, Laboratorio Stada, Gedeon-Rhicter Ibérica, Lilly España, Pfizer, Gebro Pharma, and UCB Pharma. Dr. Maldonado has received research grants or consulting fees from Aelis, Almirall, Boehringer Ingelheim, BrainCo, Esteve, Ferrer, GlaxoSmithKline, Grünenthal, GW Pharmaceuticals, Janus, Lundbeck, Pharmaleads, Phytoplant, Rhodes, Sanofi, Spherium, Union de Pharmacologie Scientifique Appliquée, Upjohn, and Uriach. Dr. Drake has reported no relevant financial relationships.
 

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

New observational data are the first to support recommendations to continue osteoporosis medications during the COVID-19 pandemic, and even suggest that some agents may protect against the virus.

Findings from the cross-sectional study of 2,102 patients with osteoporosis, osteoarthritis, and/or fibromyalgia – so-called noninflammatory rheumatic conditions – during March 1 to May 3, 2020, were recently published in Aging by Josep Blanch-Rubió, MD, scientific clinical director of the Rheumatology Service, Hospital del Mar, Barcelona, and colleagues.

Patients taking denosumab, zoledronate, and calcium showed trends toward lower incidence of developing symptomatic presumed COVID-19 (polymerase chain reaction tests weren’t widely available at the time), as did those taking the antidepressant serotonin/norepinephrine inhibitor duloxetine.

Some analgesics, particularly pregabalin and most other antidepressants, were associated with higher incidences of COVID-19, while oral bisphosphonates, vitamin D, thiazide diuretics, antihypertensive drugs, and chronic nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs had no effect on COVID-19 incidence.

These data are the first to support guidance issued in May 2020 by the American Society for Bone and Mineral Research and four other professional societies advising continuation of osteoporosis medications during the pandemic. That statement’s authors acknowledged that, lacking data, their recommendations were based primarily on expert opinion.

“There were guidelines without any scientific base. ... This is the first scientific evidence showing that indeed you should continue your osteoporosis treatment if you have COVID-19. This is the first study to provide scientific support for the guidelines,” study coauthor Rafael Maldonado, MD, PhD, of the Laboratory of Neuropharmacology, Universitat Pompeu Fabra, Barcelona, said in an interview.

And while the data don’t offer proof of benefit for any drug – all of the 95% confidence intervals crossed 1.0 – they do show trends that deserve further study, Dr. Maldonado said.

“What we observed is that there is no harm. Treatments should be continued.”

“But we obtained very interesting results with denosumab, zoledronate, calcium, and duloxetine. ... There is a clear tendency, and the message is we should promote studies to see if these four treatments provide benefit.”
 

Different mechanisms for each?

Asked to comment on the findings, Matthew T. Drake, MD, PhD, said in an interview, “I would agree that there’s no reason any of these medications should be stopped or discontinued since there’s no evidence that they make the risk for infection worse.”

“But how [some of them may] improve or reduce the infection risk in my mind is somewhat unclear. ... It’s hard to come up with a unifying explanation” because those mentioned as potentially beneficial “are fairly different,” he noted.

Dr. Drake, associate professor of medicine in the department of endocrinology at the Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn., said he agreed with the study authors that denosumab’s targeting of the RANK/RANKL system is a possible anti-COVID-19 mechanism for that drug because that system is involved in immune response.

Regarding zoledronate/zoledronic acid, both the Spanish authors and Dr. Drake pointed to a landmark study linking the intravenous drug to longer survival in patients with hip fracture. The study authors note that there could be several mechanisms for an overall survival benefit, but additionally, “zoledronate may make dendritic cells and their precursors less susceptible to SARS-CoV-2 infection, which could explain the beneficial effects here ... on COVID-19 incidence.”

And, the authors hypothesized, the reason for the lack of benefit with oral bisphosphonates might relate to the higher potency of the intravenous zoledronate. Dr. Drake added that its higher bioavailability may also play a role.

As for calcium, the authors suggest that the beneficial effect against COVID-19 could relate to its action in generating two immune cell types – T follicular helper cells and T follicular regulatory cells – which promote an appropriate immune response against infectious agents, including viruses.
 

Data supporting the guidelines

Of the 2,102 patients in the study by Blanch-Rubió and colleagues, 80.5% were women, and their mean age was 66.4 years. Overall, 63.7% had osteoarthritis, 43.5% had osteoporosis, and 27.2% had fibromyalgia. Treatments included vitamin D in 62%, calcium in 23.3%, denosumab in 12.6%, and intravenous zoledronate in 8.5%. Over half were taking analgesics and nearly a third antidepressants, with 9.9% taking duloxetine.

During the study period, 5.2%, or 109 individuals, were diagnosed with COVID-19 based on presenting for medical care with hallmark symptoms.

After adjustments for sex, age, diabetes, pulmonary disease, cardiovascular disease, chronic kidney disease, and active cancer or treatment, the relative risks for COVID-19 were 0.58 for denosumab, 0.62 for intravenous zoledronate, and 0.64 for calcium, all nonsignificant trends. No associations were found between COVID-19 and oral bisphosphonates, vitamin D, or thiazide diuretics. Increased but nonsignificant relative risks for COVID-19 were seen with analgesics, particularly pregabalin (1.55), gabapentin (1.39), and opioids (1.25).

Among antidepressants, there was a relative risk of 1.54 for selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors, 1.38 for amitriptyline, and 1.22 for all dual-action antidepressants together. In contrast, there was a negative association with the dual-action antidepressant duloxetine, with an adjusted relative risk of 0.68.

“The good news,” Dr. Drake said, “is that none of it appears bad.”

Dr. Blanch-Rubió has received grants or consulting fees from Amgen, Laboratorio Stada, Gedeon-Rhicter Ibérica, Lilly España, Pfizer, Gebro Pharma, and UCB Pharma. Dr. Maldonado has received research grants or consulting fees from Aelis, Almirall, Boehringer Ingelheim, BrainCo, Esteve, Ferrer, GlaxoSmithKline, Grünenthal, GW Pharmaceuticals, Janus, Lundbeck, Pharmaleads, Phytoplant, Rhodes, Sanofi, Spherium, Union de Pharmacologie Scientifique Appliquée, Upjohn, and Uriach. Dr. Drake has reported no relevant financial relationships.
 

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

New observational data are the first to support recommendations to continue osteoporosis medications during the COVID-19 pandemic, and even suggest that some agents may protect against the virus.

Findings from the cross-sectional study of 2,102 patients with osteoporosis, osteoarthritis, and/or fibromyalgia – so-called noninflammatory rheumatic conditions – during March 1 to May 3, 2020, were recently published in Aging by Josep Blanch-Rubió, MD, scientific clinical director of the Rheumatology Service, Hospital del Mar, Barcelona, and colleagues.

Patients taking denosumab, zoledronate, and calcium showed trends toward lower incidence of developing symptomatic presumed COVID-19 (polymerase chain reaction tests weren’t widely available at the time), as did those taking the antidepressant serotonin/norepinephrine inhibitor duloxetine.

Some analgesics, particularly pregabalin and most other antidepressants, were associated with higher incidences of COVID-19, while oral bisphosphonates, vitamin D, thiazide diuretics, antihypertensive drugs, and chronic nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs had no effect on COVID-19 incidence.

These data are the first to support guidance issued in May 2020 by the American Society for Bone and Mineral Research and four other professional societies advising continuation of osteoporosis medications during the pandemic. That statement’s authors acknowledged that, lacking data, their recommendations were based primarily on expert opinion.

“There were guidelines without any scientific base. ... This is the first scientific evidence showing that indeed you should continue your osteoporosis treatment if you have COVID-19. This is the first study to provide scientific support for the guidelines,” study coauthor Rafael Maldonado, MD, PhD, of the Laboratory of Neuropharmacology, Universitat Pompeu Fabra, Barcelona, said in an interview.

And while the data don’t offer proof of benefit for any drug – all of the 95% confidence intervals crossed 1.0 – they do show trends that deserve further study, Dr. Maldonado said.

“What we observed is that there is no harm. Treatments should be continued.”

“But we obtained very interesting results with denosumab, zoledronate, calcium, and duloxetine. ... There is a clear tendency, and the message is we should promote studies to see if these four treatments provide benefit.”
 

Different mechanisms for each?

Asked to comment on the findings, Matthew T. Drake, MD, PhD, said in an interview, “I would agree that there’s no reason any of these medications should be stopped or discontinued since there’s no evidence that they make the risk for infection worse.”

“But how [some of them may] improve or reduce the infection risk in my mind is somewhat unclear. ... It’s hard to come up with a unifying explanation” because those mentioned as potentially beneficial “are fairly different,” he noted.

Dr. Drake, associate professor of medicine in the department of endocrinology at the Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn., said he agreed with the study authors that denosumab’s targeting of the RANK/RANKL system is a possible anti-COVID-19 mechanism for that drug because that system is involved in immune response.

Regarding zoledronate/zoledronic acid, both the Spanish authors and Dr. Drake pointed to a landmark study linking the intravenous drug to longer survival in patients with hip fracture. The study authors note that there could be several mechanisms for an overall survival benefit, but additionally, “zoledronate may make dendritic cells and their precursors less susceptible to SARS-CoV-2 infection, which could explain the beneficial effects here ... on COVID-19 incidence.”

And, the authors hypothesized, the reason for the lack of benefit with oral bisphosphonates might relate to the higher potency of the intravenous zoledronate. Dr. Drake added that its higher bioavailability may also play a role.

As for calcium, the authors suggest that the beneficial effect against COVID-19 could relate to its action in generating two immune cell types – T follicular helper cells and T follicular regulatory cells – which promote an appropriate immune response against infectious agents, including viruses.
 

Data supporting the guidelines

Of the 2,102 patients in the study by Blanch-Rubió and colleagues, 80.5% were women, and their mean age was 66.4 years. Overall, 63.7% had osteoarthritis, 43.5% had osteoporosis, and 27.2% had fibromyalgia. Treatments included vitamin D in 62%, calcium in 23.3%, denosumab in 12.6%, and intravenous zoledronate in 8.5%. Over half were taking analgesics and nearly a third antidepressants, with 9.9% taking duloxetine.

During the study period, 5.2%, or 109 individuals, were diagnosed with COVID-19 based on presenting for medical care with hallmark symptoms.

After adjustments for sex, age, diabetes, pulmonary disease, cardiovascular disease, chronic kidney disease, and active cancer or treatment, the relative risks for COVID-19 were 0.58 for denosumab, 0.62 for intravenous zoledronate, and 0.64 for calcium, all nonsignificant trends. No associations were found between COVID-19 and oral bisphosphonates, vitamin D, or thiazide diuretics. Increased but nonsignificant relative risks for COVID-19 were seen with analgesics, particularly pregabalin (1.55), gabapentin (1.39), and opioids (1.25).

Among antidepressants, there was a relative risk of 1.54 for selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors, 1.38 for amitriptyline, and 1.22 for all dual-action antidepressants together. In contrast, there was a negative association with the dual-action antidepressant duloxetine, with an adjusted relative risk of 0.68.

“The good news,” Dr. Drake said, “is that none of it appears bad.”

Dr. Blanch-Rubió has received grants or consulting fees from Amgen, Laboratorio Stada, Gedeon-Rhicter Ibérica, Lilly España, Pfizer, Gebro Pharma, and UCB Pharma. Dr. Maldonado has received research grants or consulting fees from Aelis, Almirall, Boehringer Ingelheim, BrainCo, Esteve, Ferrer, GlaxoSmithKline, Grünenthal, GW Pharmaceuticals, Janus, Lundbeck, Pharmaleads, Phytoplant, Rhodes, Sanofi, Spherium, Union de Pharmacologie Scientifique Appliquée, Upjohn, and Uriach. Dr. Drake has reported no relevant financial relationships.
 

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

In the early weeks of the COVID-19 pandemic in the United States, rates of sustained return of spontaneous circulation after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest were lower throughout the country, compared with a year earlier, in one study.

A second study of that period showed that patients with COVID-19 had rates that were better than previously reported of surviving in-hospital cardiac arrest.

Paul S. Chan, MD, presented the out-of-hospital cardiac arrest research, and Oscar J. Mitchell, MD, presented the in-hospital cardiac arrest findings in a late-breaking resuscitation science session at the American Heart Association scientific sessions. The former study was also simultaneously published online Nov. 14 in JAMA Cardiology.

Importantly, “the survival rates were not zero in either setting,” said Dr. Chan, commenting on the implications of both studies taken together.

“The survival rates – either return of circulation or survival to discharge – were not futile,” Dr. Chan, from Saint Luke’s Mid America Heart Institute, Kansas City, Missouri, said in an interview.

“And I think that’s an overall important message – that we can’t write off patients who have a cardiac arrest at this point,” he stressed. “They deserve a response. Although the outcomes might not be as good as we had seen in years prior, we are seeing patients making it out of the hospital and surviving.”

Dr. Mitchell, from the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia, echoed this message in an interview.

“I think that the key finding here is that survival is possible after patients with COVID-19 suffer an in-hospital cardiac arrest,” Dr. Mitchell said. “We hope that the information from our study will be of use to frontline providers who are treating patients with COVID-19.”

“In coming weeks, there will likely be increased hospital strain and enormous challenges to providing COVID-19 care,” added Benjamin S. Abella, MD, the senior author of the in-hospital study. Dr. Abella is also from the University of Pennsylvania and was cochair of the Resuscitation Science symposium during the AHA meeting.

“It is crucial that hospital leaders prepare now for how they will manage COVID-19 resuscitation efforts,” Dr. Abella said. “Emergency medicine and critical care leaders must be mindful that many COVID-19 patients with arrest could survive to return to their families.”

“It is important to note both studies demonstrated variations in outcome and that those differences were associated with the differential COVID prevalence and mortality,” session comoderator Cindy H. Hsu, MD, PhD, University of Michigan, said in an interview.

“Future studies,” she said, “should address knowledge gaps including associated comorbidities and affected resuscitation process variables during the COVID-19 pandemic.”
 

Out-of-hospital cardiac arrest, March 2019 vs. March 2020

Compared with 2019, in 2020, the reported rates of return of spontaneous circulation after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest fell from 25% to 10.6% in New York and from 13.5% to 5.0% in northern Italy – two areas that were severely affected, Dr. Chan noted.

In this study, the researchers aimed to examine whether out-of-hospital cardiac arrest outcomes would be similar throughout the United States, including areas that were less severely affected, in the first weeks of the pandemic.

They linked data from the Cardiac Arrest Registry to Enhance Survival (CARES), which covers an area with about 152 million U.S. residents, with COVID-19 disease mortality data.

There were 9,863 out-of-hospital arrests from March 16 to April 30, 2020, compared with 9,440 cases during this time in 2019.

The patients in both years had a similar age (mean, 62 years) and sex (62% male), but there were more Black patients in 2020 (28% vs. 23%).

Overall, in communities with low to high rates of death from COVID-19, the rate of return of spontaneous circulation was 18% lower in that early pandemic period than in the same time in the previous year (23% vs. 29.8%; adjusted rate ratio, 0.82).

The rates of return of spontaneous circulation were also lower in communities with a low rate of COVID-19 mortality, but to a lesser extent (11%-15% lower in 2020 vs. 2019).

In the subset of emergency medical agencies with complete data on hospital survival, overall rates of survival to discharge were 17% lower during the studied pandemic period versus the same time a year earlier (6.6% vs. 9.8%; adjusted RR, 0.83).

This drop in survival was greater in communities with moderate to high COVID-19 mortality.

These outcomes were not explained by differences in emergency medical services arrival or treatment times, rates of bystander CPR, or initial out-of-hospital cardiac arrest rhythm.

Dr. Chan was a coauthor of an interim guidance issued April 9, 2020, by the AHA and several other medical societies for ways to protect frontline workers from contracting COVID-19 while they were performing CPR.

Communities that were not heavily affected by COVID-19 could have also been following the recommendations, which might have affected outcomes, he speculated.

For example, “when we pause chest compressions it can potentially worsen survival even if it’s for a short period of time. That might explain the lower rates of return of circulation.”

“That guidance was really meant for heavily affected communities,” Dr. Chan added. “Of course, as we speak, the pandemic is pretty much everywhere in the United States. It’s not just in the northeast; it’s not just in Arizona, Florida, California, Texas like it was in the summer. You are seeing surges in 46 of the 50 states.

“If your community is heavily affected by COVID-19 in terms of deaths at this time, paramedics will need to take caution to also help protect themselves, and the guidance may apply at that point,” he said.

In-hospital cardiac arrest, March Through May 2020

The early studies of in-hospital cardiac arrest in patients with COVID-19 showed “concerningly low rates” of return of spontaneous circulation and survival, said Dr. Mitchell.

“The first was a study from Wuhan, which demonstrated a 2.9% 30-day survival and the second was a small cohort from NYC with 0% survival to hospital discharge,” he said. “This raised concerns that offering CPR to patients who had a cardiac arrest from COVID-19 might only hold a low probability of success.”

To investigate this, the researchers formed a COVID study group comprising two hospitals in New York and nine hospitals in the Northeast and West Coast.

They identified 260 hospitalized adult patients with COVID-19 who had in-hospital cardiac arrest between March 1 and May 31, 2020. The patients had a median age of 69 years, and 72% were male. Most had preexisting comorbidities. Most of the cardiac arrests were in the ICU (64%), and almost all were witnessed (91%).

Return of spontaneous circulation occurred in 22% of the patients, and 12% had survived 30 days later. Of the 260 cardiac arrests, most (204) occurred in the New York hospitals.

There was a huge variation in outcomes. The rate of sustained return of spontaneous circulation was much lower in the two hospitals in New York compared with elsewhere (11% vs. 64%), as was 30-day survival (6% vs. 36%).

“Variation in outcomes from [in-hospital cardiac arrest] has been well described prior to the COVID-19 pandemic,” said Dr. Mitchell, “and is felt to be due to a range of factors, including variation in detection and prevention of cardiac arrest, management of patients during the cardiac arrest, and differences in postarrest care – including targeted temperature management and neuroprognostication.”

“We hypothesize that the strains of the COVID-19 pandemic may have amplified these variations (although we were unable to compare hospital performance before and after the pandemic),” he said.

Nevertheless, “in contrast to [earlier] studies, we have found that survival with a good neurological status is possible after in-hospital cardiac arrest in patients with COVID-19, which is certainly reassuring for those of us on the front line.”

Dr. Chan has received research support from the American Heart Association (which helps fund CARES); the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; and Optum Rx. Dr. Abella has received honoraria from NeuroproteXeon, Becton Dickinson, and Physio-Control, and research grants from Medtronic, PCORI, Physio-Control, Stryker, and TerSera. Dr. Mitchell has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
 

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

In the early weeks of the COVID-19 pandemic in the United States, rates of sustained return of spontaneous circulation after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest were lower throughout the country, compared with a year earlier, in one study.

A second study of that period showed that patients with COVID-19 had rates that were better than previously reported of surviving in-hospital cardiac arrest.

Paul S. Chan, MD, presented the out-of-hospital cardiac arrest research, and Oscar J. Mitchell, MD, presented the in-hospital cardiac arrest findings in a late-breaking resuscitation science session at the American Heart Association scientific sessions. The former study was also simultaneously published online Nov. 14 in JAMA Cardiology.

Importantly, “the survival rates were not zero in either setting,” said Dr. Chan, commenting on the implications of both studies taken together.

“The survival rates – either return of circulation or survival to discharge – were not futile,” Dr. Chan, from Saint Luke’s Mid America Heart Institute, Kansas City, Missouri, said in an interview.

“And I think that’s an overall important message – that we can’t write off patients who have a cardiac arrest at this point,” he stressed. “They deserve a response. Although the outcomes might not be as good as we had seen in years prior, we are seeing patients making it out of the hospital and surviving.”

Dr. Mitchell, from the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia, echoed this message in an interview.

“I think that the key finding here is that survival is possible after patients with COVID-19 suffer an in-hospital cardiac arrest,” Dr. Mitchell said. “We hope that the information from our study will be of use to frontline providers who are treating patients with COVID-19.”

“In coming weeks, there will likely be increased hospital strain and enormous challenges to providing COVID-19 care,” added Benjamin S. Abella, MD, the senior author of the in-hospital study. Dr. Abella is also from the University of Pennsylvania and was cochair of the Resuscitation Science symposium during the AHA meeting.

“It is crucial that hospital leaders prepare now for how they will manage COVID-19 resuscitation efforts,” Dr. Abella said. “Emergency medicine and critical care leaders must be mindful that many COVID-19 patients with arrest could survive to return to their families.”

“It is important to note both studies demonstrated variations in outcome and that those differences were associated with the differential COVID prevalence and mortality,” session comoderator Cindy H. Hsu, MD, PhD, University of Michigan, said in an interview.

“Future studies,” she said, “should address knowledge gaps including associated comorbidities and affected resuscitation process variables during the COVID-19 pandemic.”
 

Out-of-hospital cardiac arrest, March 2019 vs. March 2020

Compared with 2019, in 2020, the reported rates of return of spontaneous circulation after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest fell from 25% to 10.6% in New York and from 13.5% to 5.0% in northern Italy – two areas that were severely affected, Dr. Chan noted.

In this study, the researchers aimed to examine whether out-of-hospital cardiac arrest outcomes would be similar throughout the United States, including areas that were less severely affected, in the first weeks of the pandemic.

They linked data from the Cardiac Arrest Registry to Enhance Survival (CARES), which covers an area with about 152 million U.S. residents, with COVID-19 disease mortality data.

There were 9,863 out-of-hospital arrests from March 16 to April 30, 2020, compared with 9,440 cases during this time in 2019.

The patients in both years had a similar age (mean, 62 years) and sex (62% male), but there were more Black patients in 2020 (28% vs. 23%).

Overall, in communities with low to high rates of death from COVID-19, the rate of return of spontaneous circulation was 18% lower in that early pandemic period than in the same time in the previous year (23% vs. 29.8%; adjusted rate ratio, 0.82).

The rates of return of spontaneous circulation were also lower in communities with a low rate of COVID-19 mortality, but to a lesser extent (11%-15% lower in 2020 vs. 2019).

In the subset of emergency medical agencies with complete data on hospital survival, overall rates of survival to discharge were 17% lower during the studied pandemic period versus the same time a year earlier (6.6% vs. 9.8%; adjusted RR, 0.83).

This drop in survival was greater in communities with moderate to high COVID-19 mortality.

These outcomes were not explained by differences in emergency medical services arrival or treatment times, rates of bystander CPR, or initial out-of-hospital cardiac arrest rhythm.

Dr. Chan was a coauthor of an interim guidance issued April 9, 2020, by the AHA and several other medical societies for ways to protect frontline workers from contracting COVID-19 while they were performing CPR.

Communities that were not heavily affected by COVID-19 could have also been following the recommendations, which might have affected outcomes, he speculated.

For example, “when we pause chest compressions it can potentially worsen survival even if it’s for a short period of time. That might explain the lower rates of return of circulation.”

“That guidance was really meant for heavily affected communities,” Dr. Chan added. “Of course, as we speak, the pandemic is pretty much everywhere in the United States. It’s not just in the northeast; it’s not just in Arizona, Florida, California, Texas like it was in the summer. You are seeing surges in 46 of the 50 states.

“If your community is heavily affected by COVID-19 in terms of deaths at this time, paramedics will need to take caution to also help protect themselves, and the guidance may apply at that point,” he said.

In-hospital cardiac arrest, March Through May 2020

The early studies of in-hospital cardiac arrest in patients with COVID-19 showed “concerningly low rates” of return of spontaneous circulation and survival, said Dr. Mitchell.

“The first was a study from Wuhan, which demonstrated a 2.9% 30-day survival and the second was a small cohort from NYC with 0% survival to hospital discharge,” he said. “This raised concerns that offering CPR to patients who had a cardiac arrest from COVID-19 might only hold a low probability of success.”

To investigate this, the researchers formed a COVID study group comprising two hospitals in New York and nine hospitals in the Northeast and West Coast.

They identified 260 hospitalized adult patients with COVID-19 who had in-hospital cardiac arrest between March 1 and May 31, 2020. The patients had a median age of 69 years, and 72% were male. Most had preexisting comorbidities. Most of the cardiac arrests were in the ICU (64%), and almost all were witnessed (91%).

Return of spontaneous circulation occurred in 22% of the patients, and 12% had survived 30 days later. Of the 260 cardiac arrests, most (204) occurred in the New York hospitals.

There was a huge variation in outcomes. The rate of sustained return of spontaneous circulation was much lower in the two hospitals in New York compared with elsewhere (11% vs. 64%), as was 30-day survival (6% vs. 36%).

“Variation in outcomes from [in-hospital cardiac arrest] has been well described prior to the COVID-19 pandemic,” said Dr. Mitchell, “and is felt to be due to a range of factors, including variation in detection and prevention of cardiac arrest, management of patients during the cardiac arrest, and differences in postarrest care – including targeted temperature management and neuroprognostication.”

“We hypothesize that the strains of the COVID-19 pandemic may have amplified these variations (although we were unable to compare hospital performance before and after the pandemic),” he said.

Nevertheless, “in contrast to [earlier] studies, we have found that survival with a good neurological status is possible after in-hospital cardiac arrest in patients with COVID-19, which is certainly reassuring for those of us on the front line.”

Dr. Chan has received research support from the American Heart Association (which helps fund CARES); the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; and Optum Rx. Dr. Abella has received honoraria from NeuroproteXeon, Becton Dickinson, and Physio-Control, and research grants from Medtronic, PCORI, Physio-Control, Stryker, and TerSera. Dr. Mitchell has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
 

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

In the early weeks of the COVID-19 pandemic in the United States, rates of sustained return of spontaneous circulation after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest were lower throughout the country, compared with a year earlier, in one study.

A second study of that period showed that patients with COVID-19 had rates that were better than previously reported of surviving in-hospital cardiac arrest.

Paul S. Chan, MD, presented the out-of-hospital cardiac arrest research, and Oscar J. Mitchell, MD, presented the in-hospital cardiac arrest findings in a late-breaking resuscitation science session at the American Heart Association scientific sessions. The former study was also simultaneously published online Nov. 14 in JAMA Cardiology.

Importantly, “the survival rates were not zero in either setting,” said Dr. Chan, commenting on the implications of both studies taken together.

“The survival rates – either return of circulation or survival to discharge – were not futile,” Dr. Chan, from Saint Luke’s Mid America Heart Institute, Kansas City, Missouri, said in an interview.

“And I think that’s an overall important message – that we can’t write off patients who have a cardiac arrest at this point,” he stressed. “They deserve a response. Although the outcomes might not be as good as we had seen in years prior, we are seeing patients making it out of the hospital and surviving.”

Dr. Mitchell, from the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia, echoed this message in an interview.

“I think that the key finding here is that survival is possible after patients with COVID-19 suffer an in-hospital cardiac arrest,” Dr. Mitchell said. “We hope that the information from our study will be of use to frontline providers who are treating patients with COVID-19.”

“In coming weeks, there will likely be increased hospital strain and enormous challenges to providing COVID-19 care,” added Benjamin S. Abella, MD, the senior author of the in-hospital study. Dr. Abella is also from the University of Pennsylvania and was cochair of the Resuscitation Science symposium during the AHA meeting.

“It is crucial that hospital leaders prepare now for how they will manage COVID-19 resuscitation efforts,” Dr. Abella said. “Emergency medicine and critical care leaders must be mindful that many COVID-19 patients with arrest could survive to return to their families.”

“It is important to note both studies demonstrated variations in outcome and that those differences were associated with the differential COVID prevalence and mortality,” session comoderator Cindy H. Hsu, MD, PhD, University of Michigan, said in an interview.

“Future studies,” she said, “should address knowledge gaps including associated comorbidities and affected resuscitation process variables during the COVID-19 pandemic.”
 

Out-of-hospital cardiac arrest, March 2019 vs. March 2020

Compared with 2019, in 2020, the reported rates of return of spontaneous circulation after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest fell from 25% to 10.6% in New York and from 13.5% to 5.0% in northern Italy – two areas that were severely affected, Dr. Chan noted.

In this study, the researchers aimed to examine whether out-of-hospital cardiac arrest outcomes would be similar throughout the United States, including areas that were less severely affected, in the first weeks of the pandemic.

They linked data from the Cardiac Arrest Registry to Enhance Survival (CARES), which covers an area with about 152 million U.S. residents, with COVID-19 disease mortality data.

There were 9,863 out-of-hospital arrests from March 16 to April 30, 2020, compared with 9,440 cases during this time in 2019.

The patients in both years had a similar age (mean, 62 years) and sex (62% male), but there were more Black patients in 2020 (28% vs. 23%).

Overall, in communities with low to high rates of death from COVID-19, the rate of return of spontaneous circulation was 18% lower in that early pandemic period than in the same time in the previous year (23% vs. 29.8%; adjusted rate ratio, 0.82).

The rates of return of spontaneous circulation were also lower in communities with a low rate of COVID-19 mortality, but to a lesser extent (11%-15% lower in 2020 vs. 2019).

In the subset of emergency medical agencies with complete data on hospital survival, overall rates of survival to discharge were 17% lower during the studied pandemic period versus the same time a year earlier (6.6% vs. 9.8%; adjusted RR, 0.83).

This drop in survival was greater in communities with moderate to high COVID-19 mortality.

These outcomes were not explained by differences in emergency medical services arrival or treatment times, rates of bystander CPR, or initial out-of-hospital cardiac arrest rhythm.

Dr. Chan was a coauthor of an interim guidance issued April 9, 2020, by the AHA and several other medical societies for ways to protect frontline workers from contracting COVID-19 while they were performing CPR.

Communities that were not heavily affected by COVID-19 could have also been following the recommendations, which might have affected outcomes, he speculated.

For example, “when we pause chest compressions it can potentially worsen survival even if it’s for a short period of time. That might explain the lower rates of return of circulation.”

“That guidance was really meant for heavily affected communities,” Dr. Chan added. “Of course, as we speak, the pandemic is pretty much everywhere in the United States. It’s not just in the northeast; it’s not just in Arizona, Florida, California, Texas like it was in the summer. You are seeing surges in 46 of the 50 states.

“If your community is heavily affected by COVID-19 in terms of deaths at this time, paramedics will need to take caution to also help protect themselves, and the guidance may apply at that point,” he said.

In-hospital cardiac arrest, March Through May 2020

The early studies of in-hospital cardiac arrest in patients with COVID-19 showed “concerningly low rates” of return of spontaneous circulation and survival, said Dr. Mitchell.

“The first was a study from Wuhan, which demonstrated a 2.9% 30-day survival and the second was a small cohort from NYC with 0% survival to hospital discharge,” he said. “This raised concerns that offering CPR to patients who had a cardiac arrest from COVID-19 might only hold a low probability of success.”

To investigate this, the researchers formed a COVID study group comprising two hospitals in New York and nine hospitals in the Northeast and West Coast.

They identified 260 hospitalized adult patients with COVID-19 who had in-hospital cardiac arrest between March 1 and May 31, 2020. The patients had a median age of 69 years, and 72% were male. Most had preexisting comorbidities. Most of the cardiac arrests were in the ICU (64%), and almost all were witnessed (91%).

Return of spontaneous circulation occurred in 22% of the patients, and 12% had survived 30 days later. Of the 260 cardiac arrests, most (204) occurred in the New York hospitals.

There was a huge variation in outcomes. The rate of sustained return of spontaneous circulation was much lower in the two hospitals in New York compared with elsewhere (11% vs. 64%), as was 30-day survival (6% vs. 36%).

“Variation in outcomes from [in-hospital cardiac arrest] has been well described prior to the COVID-19 pandemic,” said Dr. Mitchell, “and is felt to be due to a range of factors, including variation in detection and prevention of cardiac arrest, management of patients during the cardiac arrest, and differences in postarrest care – including targeted temperature management and neuroprognostication.”

“We hypothesize that the strains of the COVID-19 pandemic may have amplified these variations (although we were unable to compare hospital performance before and after the pandemic),” he said.

Nevertheless, “in contrast to [earlier] studies, we have found that survival with a good neurological status is possible after in-hospital cardiac arrest in patients with COVID-19, which is certainly reassuring for those of us on the front line.”

Dr. Chan has received research support from the American Heart Association (which helps fund CARES); the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; and Optum Rx. Dr. Abella has received honoraria from NeuroproteXeon, Becton Dickinson, and Physio-Control, and research grants from Medtronic, PCORI, Physio-Control, Stryker, and TerSera. Dr. Mitchell has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
 

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