Emergency Medicine

Bempedoic acid, the first agent in a new class of drugs that reduce LDL cholesterol, received Food and Drug Administration approval on Feb. 21 for treating selected hypercholesterolemic patients and is a welcome addition to the medicine cabinet, say lipid experts.

MDedge News

However, it is a tertiary option at least until results from a 14,000 patient clinical-outcome trial of bempedoic acid come out, likely in 2022, they agreed.

“I’m excited to have a new tool in the toolkit for treating high-risk patients, but I will always reach first for the drugs proven to reduce clinical outcomes,” said Erin D. Michos, MD, director of Women’s Cardiovascular Health and associate director of Preventive Cardiology at Johns Hopkins Medicine in Baltimore. That sentiment, shared by other experts, should for the time being relegate bempedoic acid (Nexletol) to a backup role behind statins, ezetimibe, and the PCSK9 inhibitor antibodies that are all now on the U.S. market and all buttressed with evidence of their ability to cut cardiovascular disease death and other CVD outcomes from large outcome studies.

The existing evidence base for bempedoic acid rests primarily two multicenter, randomized, placebo-controlled clinical trials of bempedoic acid in patients with LDL levels above 70 mg/dL while on maximally tolerated lipid-lowering therapy. In CLEAR Harmony, results showed that treatment with bempedoic acid cut LDL-cholesterol levels by an average of 18% more compared with placebo (N Engl J Med 2019;380:1022-32). In CLEAR Wisdom, bempedoic acid reduced LDL cholesterol levels by 17% (JAMA. 2019;322[18]:1780-8).

While those two trials proved the drug’s ability to lower levels of LDL cholesterol, they lacked the power to address whether this effect cut the incidence of CVD events, a question that the CLEAR Outcomes trial aims to answer.

“I believe in the lipid hypothesis, but the main thing we need to see is whether bempedoic acid leads to a meaningful reduction in CVD events. The window for bempedoic acid will remain narrow until we see the outcomes results,” Dr. Michos said in an interview.

Bempedoic acid is a prodrug that’s activated in liver and targets the same cholesterol synthesis pathway as statins by inhibition of ATP-citrate lyase, an enzyme that’s upstream of HMG-CoA reductase, thereby enhancing LDL cholesterol clearance via up-regulation of LDL receptors

.

Combined treatment with bempedoic acid and ezetimibe “may be successful in avoiding [using] a PCSK9 inhibitor in some patients, and in particular patients with HeFH or those who are statin intolerant.” But like his colleagues, Dr. Eckel agreed that, for the moment, ezetimibe has an edge over bempedoic acid because of its more extensive evidence base. “If the combination of bempedoic acid and ezetimibe is not needed, the decision [of which one of these to use] needs to depend on the outcome trial results for ezetimibe,” he said. Other factors clinicians could apply if faced with choosing between these two agents include the significant reduction in high-sensitivity C-reactive protein that bempedoic acid produces; the downside that bempedoic acid can cause in some patients an early and persistent rise in serum uric acid levels that can trigger gout flares in patients with a history of gout or at risk for gout; and cost, he said.

Cost is the room-dwelling elephant that colors many decisions about which lipid-lowering drug to use for patients, with options running the price gamut from the generic and uniformly affordable statins and ezetimibe, to the notoriously pricey PCSK9 inhibitors that remain for many patients either prohibitively expensive or hard to get covered by some insurers. Bempedoic acid seems on track to fall somewhere between these two poles, although staff members from Esperion, the company that developed and will market bempedoic acid as Nexletol starting on March 30, declared in a conference call on Feb. 24 that “cost will not be an issue,” for indicated patients prescribed the drug. Company representatives cited a program of coupons, discounts, and rebates they have planned that they anticipate will allow patients who meet the labeled indications to have an out-of-pocket cost for bempedoic acid of “as low as” $10 for a 90-pill supply. They also noted their goal of getting bempedoic acid onto the lowest tier of the Medicare formulary.

How these steps actually play out in the fun house of U.S. prescription drug pricing and preauthorizations remains to be seen. “Out-of-pocket costs are not the real drivers” of drug access, noted Dr. Robinson. “Insurers will likely start with restricted access and prior authorization requirements, just as they did with ezetimibe when it was on patent and prior to having the results from a CVD outcomes trial.” For the time being, bempedoic acid can generally be seen as “expensive ezetimibe,” summed up Dr. Robinson.

Despite that somewhat dismissive characterization, experts are intrigued by the possibility of combining two moderately potent, oral, and safe lipid-lowering drugs in selected patients as a potential alternative to the still financially challenging PCSK9 inhibitors. Combining bempedoic acid and ezetimibe “has a lot of appeal,” said Dr. Michos. “Even though preauthorization has gotten better, it’s still a challenge to get a PCSK9 inhibitor approved.”

Much of her enthusiasm stems from a study reported last year that randomized 301 patients to treatment with bempedoic acid, ezetimibe, or both. The results showed that combined treatment has a similar safety profile to treatment with either drug alone, and produced a cut in LDL cholesterol that was roughly additive for the reductions produced by each drug by itself: Ezetimibe alone cut LDL by about 23%, bempedoic acid alone by about 17%, and the two dosed together once daily resulted in an average 36% drop (Eur J Prev Cardiol. 2019 Jul 29. doi: 10.1177/2047487319864671). The results showed that, “in patients requiring intensive LDL cholesterol lowering, who cannot afford PCSK9 inhibitors, or have statin intolerance, bempedoic acid and ezetimibe are stronger together and can serve as an alternative approach for lipid management in ASCVD prevention,” wrote Dr. Michos and a coauthor in a commentary that appeared with the study results (Eur J Prev Cardiol. 2019 Jul 29. doi: 10.1177/2047487319864672).

The concept of combined bempedoic acid and ezetimibe treatment is so appealing that the bempedoic acid manufacturer, Esperion, has already developed a single-pill formulation of the two drugs that received FDA marketing approval on February 26. A company statement said that marketing of this combined formulation, Nexlizet, will start in July 2020.

Although interest in bempedoic acid seems running high for patients included in the new FDA indication, Dr. Michos and others see possibly greater potential for what would now be off-label use for primary prevention in high-risk patients without HeFH, patients who generally don’t qualify for insurance coverage of a PCSK9 inhibitor.

“Use in primary prevention in [non-HeFH] patients with insufficient lowering of LDL cholesterol wouldn’t surprise me,” but a big concern will be out-of-pocket cost when off-label use precludes insurance coverage or discount eligibility, noted Dr. Eckel. An Esperion spokesperson said that the undiscounted, wholesale acquisition cost for bempedoic acid is expected to be roughly $10/pill, or about $300 for a 30-day supply, positioning it more or less midway between generic statins and ezetimibe and the list price for a PCSk9 inhibitor of roughly $500/month.

“I’m most excited about bempedoic acid in the off-label space, for patients who can’t get approved for a PCSK9 inhibitor, for treating patients with subclinical ASCVD, or really high-risk patients with multiple risk factors including diabetes,” especially when these patients are intolerant of a high-intensity statin regimen, said Dr. Michos. “I have a clinic full of patients” who can’t take their full, indicated dosage of a high-intensity statin, and when those patients also can’t get on treatment with a PCSK9 inhibitor then bempedoic acid will be an important part of their alternative regimen, she explained.

Dr. Michos had no disclosures. Dr. Robinson has received research funding from Esperion and from several other companies, and she has been a consultant to Amgen, Merck, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Pfizer, Regeneron, and Sanofi. Dr. Eckel has received honoraria from Kowa, Merck, Novo Nordisk, and Sanofi/Regeneron.

This article was updated 2/27/20.

[email protected]

Bempedoic acid, the first agent in a new class of drugs that reduce LDL cholesterol, received Food and Drug Administration approval on Feb. 21 for treating selected hypercholesterolemic patients and is a welcome addition to the medicine cabinet, say lipid experts.

MDedge News

However, it is a tertiary option at least until results from a 14,000 patient clinical-outcome trial of bempedoic acid come out, likely in 2022, they agreed.

“I’m excited to have a new tool in the toolkit for treating high-risk patients, but I will always reach first for the drugs proven to reduce clinical outcomes,” said Erin D. Michos, MD, director of Women’s Cardiovascular Health and associate director of Preventive Cardiology at Johns Hopkins Medicine in Baltimore. That sentiment, shared by other experts, should for the time being relegate bempedoic acid (Nexletol) to a backup role behind statins, ezetimibe, and the PCSK9 inhibitor antibodies that are all now on the U.S. market and all buttressed with evidence of their ability to cut cardiovascular disease death and other CVD outcomes from large outcome studies.

The existing evidence base for bempedoic acid rests primarily two multicenter, randomized, placebo-controlled clinical trials of bempedoic acid in patients with LDL levels above 70 mg/dL while on maximally tolerated lipid-lowering therapy. In CLEAR Harmony, results showed that treatment with bempedoic acid cut LDL-cholesterol levels by an average of 18% more compared with placebo (N Engl J Med 2019;380:1022-32). In CLEAR Wisdom, bempedoic acid reduced LDL cholesterol levels by 17% (JAMA. 2019;322[18]:1780-8).

While those two trials proved the drug’s ability to lower levels of LDL cholesterol, they lacked the power to address whether this effect cut the incidence of CVD events, a question that the CLEAR Outcomes trial aims to answer.

“I believe in the lipid hypothesis, but the main thing we need to see is whether bempedoic acid leads to a meaningful reduction in CVD events. The window for bempedoic acid will remain narrow until we see the outcomes results,” Dr. Michos said in an interview.

Bempedoic acid is a prodrug that’s activated in liver and targets the same cholesterol synthesis pathway as statins by inhibition of ATP-citrate lyase, an enzyme that’s upstream of HMG-CoA reductase, thereby enhancing LDL cholesterol clearance via up-regulation of LDL receptors

.

Combined treatment with bempedoic acid and ezetimibe “may be successful in avoiding [using] a PCSK9 inhibitor in some patients, and in particular patients with HeFH or those who are statin intolerant.” But like his colleagues, Dr. Eckel agreed that, for the moment, ezetimibe has an edge over bempedoic acid because of its more extensive evidence base. “If the combination of bempedoic acid and ezetimibe is not needed, the decision [of which one of these to use] needs to depend on the outcome trial results for ezetimibe,” he said. Other factors clinicians could apply if faced with choosing between these two agents include the significant reduction in high-sensitivity C-reactive protein that bempedoic acid produces; the downside that bempedoic acid can cause in some patients an early and persistent rise in serum uric acid levels that can trigger gout flares in patients with a history of gout or at risk for gout; and cost, he said.

Cost is the room-dwelling elephant that colors many decisions about which lipid-lowering drug to use for patients, with options running the price gamut from the generic and uniformly affordable statins and ezetimibe, to the notoriously pricey PCSK9 inhibitors that remain for many patients either prohibitively expensive or hard to get covered by some insurers. Bempedoic acid seems on track to fall somewhere between these two poles, although staff members from Esperion, the company that developed and will market bempedoic acid as Nexletol starting on March 30, declared in a conference call on Feb. 24 that “cost will not be an issue,” for indicated patients prescribed the drug. Company representatives cited a program of coupons, discounts, and rebates they have planned that they anticipate will allow patients who meet the labeled indications to have an out-of-pocket cost for bempedoic acid of “as low as” $10 for a 90-pill supply. They also noted their goal of getting bempedoic acid onto the lowest tier of the Medicare formulary.

How these steps actually play out in the fun house of U.S. prescription drug pricing and preauthorizations remains to be seen. “Out-of-pocket costs are not the real drivers” of drug access, noted Dr. Robinson. “Insurers will likely start with restricted access and prior authorization requirements, just as they did with ezetimibe when it was on patent and prior to having the results from a CVD outcomes trial.” For the time being, bempedoic acid can generally be seen as “expensive ezetimibe,” summed up Dr. Robinson.

Despite that somewhat dismissive characterization, experts are intrigued by the possibility of combining two moderately potent, oral, and safe lipid-lowering drugs in selected patients as a potential alternative to the still financially challenging PCSK9 inhibitors. Combining bempedoic acid and ezetimibe “has a lot of appeal,” said Dr. Michos. “Even though preauthorization has gotten better, it’s still a challenge to get a PCSK9 inhibitor approved.”

Much of her enthusiasm stems from a study reported last year that randomized 301 patients to treatment with bempedoic acid, ezetimibe, or both. The results showed that combined treatment has a similar safety profile to treatment with either drug alone, and produced a cut in LDL cholesterol that was roughly additive for the reductions produced by each drug by itself: Ezetimibe alone cut LDL by about 23%, bempedoic acid alone by about 17%, and the two dosed together once daily resulted in an average 36% drop (Eur J Prev Cardiol. 2019 Jul 29. doi: 10.1177/2047487319864671). The results showed that, “in patients requiring intensive LDL cholesterol lowering, who cannot afford PCSK9 inhibitors, or have statin intolerance, bempedoic acid and ezetimibe are stronger together and can serve as an alternative approach for lipid management in ASCVD prevention,” wrote Dr. Michos and a coauthor in a commentary that appeared with the study results (Eur J Prev Cardiol. 2019 Jul 29. doi: 10.1177/2047487319864672).

The concept of combined bempedoic acid and ezetimibe treatment is so appealing that the bempedoic acid manufacturer, Esperion, has already developed a single-pill formulation of the two drugs that received FDA marketing approval on February 26. A company statement said that marketing of this combined formulation, Nexlizet, will start in July 2020.

Although interest in bempedoic acid seems running high for patients included in the new FDA indication, Dr. Michos and others see possibly greater potential for what would now be off-label use for primary prevention in high-risk patients without HeFH, patients who generally don’t qualify for insurance coverage of a PCSK9 inhibitor.

“Use in primary prevention in [non-HeFH] patients with insufficient lowering of LDL cholesterol wouldn’t surprise me,” but a big concern will be out-of-pocket cost when off-label use precludes insurance coverage or discount eligibility, noted Dr. Eckel. An Esperion spokesperson said that the undiscounted, wholesale acquisition cost for bempedoic acid is expected to be roughly $10/pill, or about $300 for a 30-day supply, positioning it more or less midway between generic statins and ezetimibe and the list price for a PCSk9 inhibitor of roughly $500/month.

“I’m most excited about bempedoic acid in the off-label space, for patients who can’t get approved for a PCSK9 inhibitor, for treating patients with subclinical ASCVD, or really high-risk patients with multiple risk factors including diabetes,” especially when these patients are intolerant of a high-intensity statin regimen, said Dr. Michos. “I have a clinic full of patients” who can’t take their full, indicated dosage of a high-intensity statin, and when those patients also can’t get on treatment with a PCSK9 inhibitor then bempedoic acid will be an important part of their alternative regimen, she explained.

Dr. Michos had no disclosures. Dr. Robinson has received research funding from Esperion and from several other companies, and she has been a consultant to Amgen, Merck, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Pfizer, Regeneron, and Sanofi. Dr. Eckel has received honoraria from Kowa, Merck, Novo Nordisk, and Sanofi/Regeneron.

This article was updated 2/27/20.

[email protected]

Bempedoic acid, the first agent in a new class of drugs that reduce LDL cholesterol, received Food and Drug Administration approval on Feb. 21 for treating selected hypercholesterolemic patients and is a welcome addition to the medicine cabinet, say lipid experts.

MDedge News

However, it is a tertiary option at least until results from a 14,000 patient clinical-outcome trial of bempedoic acid come out, likely in 2022, they agreed.

“I’m excited to have a new tool in the toolkit for treating high-risk patients, but I will always reach first for the drugs proven to reduce clinical outcomes,” said Erin D. Michos, MD, director of Women’s Cardiovascular Health and associate director of Preventive Cardiology at Johns Hopkins Medicine in Baltimore. That sentiment, shared by other experts, should for the time being relegate bempedoic acid (Nexletol) to a backup role behind statins, ezetimibe, and the PCSK9 inhibitor antibodies that are all now on the U.S. market and all buttressed with evidence of their ability to cut cardiovascular disease death and other CVD outcomes from large outcome studies.

The existing evidence base for bempedoic acid rests primarily two multicenter, randomized, placebo-controlled clinical trials of bempedoic acid in patients with LDL levels above 70 mg/dL while on maximally tolerated lipid-lowering therapy. In CLEAR Harmony, results showed that treatment with bempedoic acid cut LDL-cholesterol levels by an average of 18% more compared with placebo (N Engl J Med 2019;380:1022-32). In CLEAR Wisdom, bempedoic acid reduced LDL cholesterol levels by 17% (JAMA. 2019;322[18]:1780-8).

While those two trials proved the drug’s ability to lower levels of LDL cholesterol, they lacked the power to address whether this effect cut the incidence of CVD events, a question that the CLEAR Outcomes trial aims to answer.

“I believe in the lipid hypothesis, but the main thing we need to see is whether bempedoic acid leads to a meaningful reduction in CVD events. The window for bempedoic acid will remain narrow until we see the outcomes results,” Dr. Michos said in an interview.

Bempedoic acid is a prodrug that’s activated in liver and targets the same cholesterol synthesis pathway as statins by inhibition of ATP-citrate lyase, an enzyme that’s upstream of HMG-CoA reductase, thereby enhancing LDL cholesterol clearance via up-regulation of LDL receptors

.

Combined treatment with bempedoic acid and ezetimibe “may be successful in avoiding [using] a PCSK9 inhibitor in some patients, and in particular patients with HeFH or those who are statin intolerant.” But like his colleagues, Dr. Eckel agreed that, for the moment, ezetimibe has an edge over bempedoic acid because of its more extensive evidence base. “If the combination of bempedoic acid and ezetimibe is not needed, the decision [of which one of these to use] needs to depend on the outcome trial results for ezetimibe,” he said. Other factors clinicians could apply if faced with choosing between these two agents include the significant reduction in high-sensitivity C-reactive protein that bempedoic acid produces; the downside that bempedoic acid can cause in some patients an early and persistent rise in serum uric acid levels that can trigger gout flares in patients with a history of gout or at risk for gout; and cost, he said.

Cost is the room-dwelling elephant that colors many decisions about which lipid-lowering drug to use for patients, with options running the price gamut from the generic and uniformly affordable statins and ezetimibe, to the notoriously pricey PCSK9 inhibitors that remain for many patients either prohibitively expensive or hard to get covered by some insurers. Bempedoic acid seems on track to fall somewhere between these two poles, although staff members from Esperion, the company that developed and will market bempedoic acid as Nexletol starting on March 30, declared in a conference call on Feb. 24 that “cost will not be an issue,” for indicated patients prescribed the drug. Company representatives cited a program of coupons, discounts, and rebates they have planned that they anticipate will allow patients who meet the labeled indications to have an out-of-pocket cost for bempedoic acid of “as low as” $10 for a 90-pill supply. They also noted their goal of getting bempedoic acid onto the lowest tier of the Medicare formulary.

How these steps actually play out in the fun house of U.S. prescription drug pricing and preauthorizations remains to be seen. “Out-of-pocket costs are not the real drivers” of drug access, noted Dr. Robinson. “Insurers will likely start with restricted access and prior authorization requirements, just as they did with ezetimibe when it was on patent and prior to having the results from a CVD outcomes trial.” For the time being, bempedoic acid can generally be seen as “expensive ezetimibe,” summed up Dr. Robinson.

Despite that somewhat dismissive characterization, experts are intrigued by the possibility of combining two moderately potent, oral, and safe lipid-lowering drugs in selected patients as a potential alternative to the still financially challenging PCSK9 inhibitors. Combining bempedoic acid and ezetimibe “has a lot of appeal,” said Dr. Michos. “Even though preauthorization has gotten better, it’s still a challenge to get a PCSK9 inhibitor approved.”

Much of her enthusiasm stems from a study reported last year that randomized 301 patients to treatment with bempedoic acid, ezetimibe, or both. The results showed that combined treatment has a similar safety profile to treatment with either drug alone, and produced a cut in LDL cholesterol that was roughly additive for the reductions produced by each drug by itself: Ezetimibe alone cut LDL by about 23%, bempedoic acid alone by about 17%, and the two dosed together once daily resulted in an average 36% drop (Eur J Prev Cardiol. 2019 Jul 29. doi: 10.1177/2047487319864671). The results showed that, “in patients requiring intensive LDL cholesterol lowering, who cannot afford PCSK9 inhibitors, or have statin intolerance, bempedoic acid and ezetimibe are stronger together and can serve as an alternative approach for lipid management in ASCVD prevention,” wrote Dr. Michos and a coauthor in a commentary that appeared with the study results (Eur J Prev Cardiol. 2019 Jul 29. doi: 10.1177/2047487319864672).

The concept of combined bempedoic acid and ezetimibe treatment is so appealing that the bempedoic acid manufacturer, Esperion, has already developed a single-pill formulation of the two drugs that received FDA marketing approval on February 26. A company statement said that marketing of this combined formulation, Nexlizet, will start in July 2020.

Although interest in bempedoic acid seems running high for patients included in the new FDA indication, Dr. Michos and others see possibly greater potential for what would now be off-label use for primary prevention in high-risk patients without HeFH, patients who generally don’t qualify for insurance coverage of a PCSK9 inhibitor.

“Use in primary prevention in [non-HeFH] patients with insufficient lowering of LDL cholesterol wouldn’t surprise me,” but a big concern will be out-of-pocket cost when off-label use precludes insurance coverage or discount eligibility, noted Dr. Eckel. An Esperion spokesperson said that the undiscounted, wholesale acquisition cost for bempedoic acid is expected to be roughly $10/pill, or about $300 for a 30-day supply, positioning it more or less midway between generic statins and ezetimibe and the list price for a PCSk9 inhibitor of roughly $500/month.

“I’m most excited about bempedoic acid in the off-label space, for patients who can’t get approved for a PCSK9 inhibitor, for treating patients with subclinical ASCVD, or really high-risk patients with multiple risk factors including diabetes,” especially when these patients are intolerant of a high-intensity statin regimen, said Dr. Michos. “I have a clinic full of patients” who can’t take their full, indicated dosage of a high-intensity statin, and when those patients also can’t get on treatment with a PCSK9 inhibitor then bempedoic acid will be an important part of their alternative regimen, she explained.

Dr. Michos had no disclosures. Dr. Robinson has received research funding from Esperion and from several other companies, and she has been a consultant to Amgen, Merck, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Pfizer, Regeneron, and Sanofi. Dr. Eckel has received honoraria from Kowa, Merck, Novo Nordisk, and Sanofi/Regeneron.

This article was updated 2/27/20.

[email protected]

The Food and Drug Administration has approved bempedoic acid (Nexletol) for the treatment of adults with heterozygous familial hypercholesterolemia (HeFH) or established atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) who require additional LDL cholesterol lowering.

The oral adenosine triphosphate–citrate lyase (ACL) inhibitor is indicated as an adjunct to diet and maximally tolerated statin therapy in these patients, and approved at the 180 mg once daily dose, the agency announced today.

The safety and efficacy of bempedoic acid were demonstrated over 52 weeks in two multicenter randomized, clinical trials involving 3,009 adults with HeFH or established ASCVD on maximally tolerated statin therapy.

The difference between bempedoic acid and placebo for the primary outcome of change in LDL cholesterol from baseline to week 12 was –18% in the first trial, CLEAR Harmony (95% confidence interval, –20% to –16%; P less than .001), and –17% in the second trial, CLEAR Wisdom (95% CI, –21% to –14%; P less than .001).

The label notes that the effect on cardiovascular morbidity and mortality has not been determined. The label also includes warnings stating that bempedoic acid may increase blood uric acid levels and is associated with an increased risk of tendon rupture or injury.

In clinical trials, 26% of bempedoic acid–treated patients with normal baseline uric acid values versus 9.5% of placebo-treated patients experienced hyperuricemia one or more times, and 3.5% of patients experienced clinically significant hyperuricemia reported as an adverse reaction versus 1.1% with placebo, according to the label. Gout was reported in 1.5% of patients treated with bempedoic acid and 0.4% of those treated with placebo.

Also in clinical trials, the risk of tendon rupture was 0.5% with bempedoic acid and 0% with placebo. Tendon rupture involved the rotator cuff, biceps tendon, or Achilles tendon, and occurred within weeks to months of starting the drug. Rupture may “occur more frequently in patients over 60 years of age, in those taking corticosteroid or fluoroquinolone drugs, in patients with renal failure, and in patients with previous tendon disorders,” the label states.

The label also advises that patients avoid concomitant use of bempedoic acid with simvastatin greater than 20 mg or pravastatin greater than 40 mg because it causes an increase in statin concentrations and may increase the risk of related myopathy.

A decision is expected shortly on a new drug application submitted by Esperion for an LDL cholesterol–lowering indication for bempedoic acid 180 mg/ezetimibe 10 mg combination tablet.

Full prescribing information is available online.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The Food and Drug Administration has approved bempedoic acid (Nexletol) for the treatment of adults with heterozygous familial hypercholesterolemia (HeFH) or established atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) who require additional LDL cholesterol lowering.

The oral adenosine triphosphate–citrate lyase (ACL) inhibitor is indicated as an adjunct to diet and maximally tolerated statin therapy in these patients, and approved at the 180 mg once daily dose, the agency announced today.

The safety and efficacy of bempedoic acid were demonstrated over 52 weeks in two multicenter randomized, clinical trials involving 3,009 adults with HeFH or established ASCVD on maximally tolerated statin therapy.

The difference between bempedoic acid and placebo for the primary outcome of change in LDL cholesterol from baseline to week 12 was –18% in the first trial, CLEAR Harmony (95% confidence interval, –20% to –16%; P less than .001), and –17% in the second trial, CLEAR Wisdom (95% CI, –21% to –14%; P less than .001).

The label notes that the effect on cardiovascular morbidity and mortality has not been determined. The label also includes warnings stating that bempedoic acid may increase blood uric acid levels and is associated with an increased risk of tendon rupture or injury.

In clinical trials, 26% of bempedoic acid–treated patients with normal baseline uric acid values versus 9.5% of placebo-treated patients experienced hyperuricemia one or more times, and 3.5% of patients experienced clinically significant hyperuricemia reported as an adverse reaction versus 1.1% with placebo, according to the label. Gout was reported in 1.5% of patients treated with bempedoic acid and 0.4% of those treated with placebo.

Also in clinical trials, the risk of tendon rupture was 0.5% with bempedoic acid and 0% with placebo. Tendon rupture involved the rotator cuff, biceps tendon, or Achilles tendon, and occurred within weeks to months of starting the drug. Rupture may “occur more frequently in patients over 60 years of age, in those taking corticosteroid or fluoroquinolone drugs, in patients with renal failure, and in patients with previous tendon disorders,” the label states.

The label also advises that patients avoid concomitant use of bempedoic acid with simvastatin greater than 20 mg or pravastatin greater than 40 mg because it causes an increase in statin concentrations and may increase the risk of related myopathy.

A decision is expected shortly on a new drug application submitted by Esperion for an LDL cholesterol–lowering indication for bempedoic acid 180 mg/ezetimibe 10 mg combination tablet.

Full prescribing information is available online.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The Food and Drug Administration has approved bempedoic acid (Nexletol) for the treatment of adults with heterozygous familial hypercholesterolemia (HeFH) or established atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) who require additional LDL cholesterol lowering.

The oral adenosine triphosphate–citrate lyase (ACL) inhibitor is indicated as an adjunct to diet and maximally tolerated statin therapy in these patients, and approved at the 180 mg once daily dose, the agency announced today.

The safety and efficacy of bempedoic acid were demonstrated over 52 weeks in two multicenter randomized, clinical trials involving 3,009 adults with HeFH or established ASCVD on maximally tolerated statin therapy.

The difference between bempedoic acid and placebo for the primary outcome of change in LDL cholesterol from baseline to week 12 was –18% in the first trial, CLEAR Harmony (95% confidence interval, –20% to –16%; P less than .001), and –17% in the second trial, CLEAR Wisdom (95% CI, –21% to –14%; P less than .001).

The label notes that the effect on cardiovascular morbidity and mortality has not been determined. The label also includes warnings stating that bempedoic acid may increase blood uric acid levels and is associated with an increased risk of tendon rupture or injury.

In clinical trials, 26% of bempedoic acid–treated patients with normal baseline uric acid values versus 9.5% of placebo-treated patients experienced hyperuricemia one or more times, and 3.5% of patients experienced clinically significant hyperuricemia reported as an adverse reaction versus 1.1% with placebo, according to the label. Gout was reported in 1.5% of patients treated with bempedoic acid and 0.4% of those treated with placebo.

Also in clinical trials, the risk of tendon rupture was 0.5% with bempedoic acid and 0% with placebo. Tendon rupture involved the rotator cuff, biceps tendon, or Achilles tendon, and occurred within weeks to months of starting the drug. Rupture may “occur more frequently in patients over 60 years of age, in those taking corticosteroid or fluoroquinolone drugs, in patients with renal failure, and in patients with previous tendon disorders,” the label states.

The label also advises that patients avoid concomitant use of bempedoic acid with simvastatin greater than 20 mg or pravastatin greater than 40 mg because it causes an increase in statin concentrations and may increase the risk of related myopathy.

A decision is expected shortly on a new drug application submitted by Esperion for an LDL cholesterol–lowering indication for bempedoic acid 180 mg/ezetimibe 10 mg combination tablet.

Full prescribing information is available online.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

LOS ANGELES – Carotid artery stenting in older, asymptomatic patients with severe carotid artery stenosis is, in general, as bad an idea as it has already proven to be in symptomatic patients, with a multifold increase in adverse short- and mid-term outcomes, compared with similar older, asymptomatic patients who underwent endarterectomy, according to a combined-study analysis with more than 2,500 patients.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

The risk for poor outcomes in patients with severe but asymptomatic carotid artery disease who underwent carotid artery stenting (CAS), compared with patients who instead underwent carotid endarterectomy (CEA) “abruptly increased around age 75,” in an analysis that combined data from the two major, published, randomized trials that compared these two interventions in this patient population, Jenifer H. Voeks, PhD said at the International Stroke Conference sponsored by the American Heart Association.

These results “largely mirror” the findings from a similar combined analysis of data from four major, randomized trials that compared CEA and CAS in patients with symptomatic carotid disease, she noted (Lancet. 2016 Mar 26;387[10025]:1305-11). The new findings in an expanded population of asymptomatic patients derived from two separate studies showed that, in patients aged 70 years or less, “CAS appears to be a reasonable alternative to CEA, but above age 70, and certainly above age 75, age-related risk factors such as cerebrovascular anatomy and underlying cerebral pathology should be carefully considered before selecting patients for CAS,” said Dr. Voeks, a neurology researcher at the Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston. Many experts also believe that, for asymptomatic patients, intensive medical management may have returned as an alternative to either of these invasive approaches for treating severe carotid stenosis and has achieved a level of equipoise that led to the launch of CREST 2 (Carotid Revascularization and Medical Management for Asymptomatic Carotid Stenosis Trial). CREST 2 is comparing CEA and CAS with medical management, and is scheduled to report results in 2021.

The data for this analysis in asymptomatic patients came from the first CREST (Carotid Revascularization Endarterectomy Versus Stenting Trial; N Engl J Med. 2010 Jul 1;363[1]:11-23), which included 1,181 asymptomatic patients (nearly half the total enrollment, with symptomatic patients making up the balance) and had no age ceiling, as well as all 1,453 patients from the ACT 1 trial, which enrolled exclusively asymptomatic patients and limited enrollment to patients aged 79 years or less (N Engl J Med. 2016 Mar 17;374[11]: 1011-20). Because the maximum age of patients in ACT 1 was 79 years, for this analysis Dr. Voeks and associates only included the 1,091 asymptomatic CREST patients who also were within the same age ceiling. The resulting cohort of 2,544 included 1,637 patients who underwent CAS and 907 who underwent CEA (because of a 3:1 randomization ratio in ACT 1), creating the largest data set to compare CAS and CEA by age in asymptomatic patients, Dr. Voeks noted. When subdivided by age, 30% of the cohort was younger that 65 years, 54% were 65-74, and 16% were 75-79.

The primary outcome the researchers used for their analysis was the combined incidence of periprocedural stroke, MI, or death, plus the incidence of ipsilateral stroke during 4 years of follow-up post procedure. Among patients who underwent CAS, this outcome occurred in roughly 9% of patients aged 75-79 years and in about 3% of those younger than 65 years, a hazard ratio of 2.9 that was statistically significant. In contrast, the incidence of the primary outcome among patients aged 65-74 years was just 30% higher, compared with patients aged less than 65 years, a difference that was not statistically significant.

Patients who underwent CEA showed no similar relationship between age and outcome. The incidence of the primary outcome among the CEA patients was roughly the same, about 3.5%, regardless of their age.

A second analysis that considered age as a continuous variable showed a sharply spiked increase in the risk for CAS patients, compared with CEA patients once they reached about age 73-75 years. Until about age 72, the rate of the primary outcome was nearly the same regardless of whether patients underwent CAS or CEA, but the risk for adverse outcomes rose “steeply” starting at about age 75 so that by age 79 the rate of the primary outcome approached 300% higher among the CAS patients compared with CEA patients, Dr. Voeks said.

She cautioned that the analysis included just 115 total primary-outcome events, which makes the incidence rate estimates somewhat imprecise, and that the data reflect outcomes in patients who were treated more than a decade ago, but these data remain the only reported results from large randomized trials that compared CAS and CEA in asymptomatic patients.

Dr. Voeks reported no disclosures.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Voeks JH al. Stroke. 2020 Feb 12;51[suppl 1], Abstract 70.

LOS ANGELES – Carotid artery stenting in older, asymptomatic patients with severe carotid artery stenosis is, in general, as bad an idea as it has already proven to be in symptomatic patients, with a multifold increase in adverse short- and mid-term outcomes, compared with similar older, asymptomatic patients who underwent endarterectomy, according to a combined-study analysis with more than 2,500 patients.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

The risk for poor outcomes in patients with severe but asymptomatic carotid artery disease who underwent carotid artery stenting (CAS), compared with patients who instead underwent carotid endarterectomy (CEA) “abruptly increased around age 75,” in an analysis that combined data from the two major, published, randomized trials that compared these two interventions in this patient population, Jenifer H. Voeks, PhD said at the International Stroke Conference sponsored by the American Heart Association.

These results “largely mirror” the findings from a similar combined analysis of data from four major, randomized trials that compared CEA and CAS in patients with symptomatic carotid disease, she noted (Lancet. 2016 Mar 26;387[10025]:1305-11). The new findings in an expanded population of asymptomatic patients derived from two separate studies showed that, in patients aged 70 years or less, “CAS appears to be a reasonable alternative to CEA, but above age 70, and certainly above age 75, age-related risk factors such as cerebrovascular anatomy and underlying cerebral pathology should be carefully considered before selecting patients for CAS,” said Dr. Voeks, a neurology researcher at the Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston. Many experts also believe that, for asymptomatic patients, intensive medical management may have returned as an alternative to either of these invasive approaches for treating severe carotid stenosis and has achieved a level of equipoise that led to the launch of CREST 2 (Carotid Revascularization and Medical Management for Asymptomatic Carotid Stenosis Trial). CREST 2 is comparing CEA and CAS with medical management, and is scheduled to report results in 2021.

The data for this analysis in asymptomatic patients came from the first CREST (Carotid Revascularization Endarterectomy Versus Stenting Trial; N Engl J Med. 2010 Jul 1;363[1]:11-23), which included 1,181 asymptomatic patients (nearly half the total enrollment, with symptomatic patients making up the balance) and had no age ceiling, as well as all 1,453 patients from the ACT 1 trial, which enrolled exclusively asymptomatic patients and limited enrollment to patients aged 79 years or less (N Engl J Med. 2016 Mar 17;374[11]: 1011-20). Because the maximum age of patients in ACT 1 was 79 years, for this analysis Dr. Voeks and associates only included the 1,091 asymptomatic CREST patients who also were within the same age ceiling. The resulting cohort of 2,544 included 1,637 patients who underwent CAS and 907 who underwent CEA (because of a 3:1 randomization ratio in ACT 1), creating the largest data set to compare CAS and CEA by age in asymptomatic patients, Dr. Voeks noted. When subdivided by age, 30% of the cohort was younger that 65 years, 54% were 65-74, and 16% were 75-79.

The primary outcome the researchers used for their analysis was the combined incidence of periprocedural stroke, MI, or death, plus the incidence of ipsilateral stroke during 4 years of follow-up post procedure. Among patients who underwent CAS, this outcome occurred in roughly 9% of patients aged 75-79 years and in about 3% of those younger than 65 years, a hazard ratio of 2.9 that was statistically significant. In contrast, the incidence of the primary outcome among patients aged 65-74 years was just 30% higher, compared with patients aged less than 65 years, a difference that was not statistically significant.

Patients who underwent CEA showed no similar relationship between age and outcome. The incidence of the primary outcome among the CEA patients was roughly the same, about 3.5%, regardless of their age.

A second analysis that considered age as a continuous variable showed a sharply spiked increase in the risk for CAS patients, compared with CEA patients once they reached about age 73-75 years. Until about age 72, the rate of the primary outcome was nearly the same regardless of whether patients underwent CAS or CEA, but the risk for adverse outcomes rose “steeply” starting at about age 75 so that by age 79 the rate of the primary outcome approached 300% higher among the CAS patients compared with CEA patients, Dr. Voeks said.

She cautioned that the analysis included just 115 total primary-outcome events, which makes the incidence rate estimates somewhat imprecise, and that the data reflect outcomes in patients who were treated more than a decade ago, but these data remain the only reported results from large randomized trials that compared CAS and CEA in asymptomatic patients.

Dr. Voeks reported no disclosures.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Voeks JH al. Stroke. 2020 Feb 12;51[suppl 1], Abstract 70.

LOS ANGELES – Carotid artery stenting in older, asymptomatic patients with severe carotid artery stenosis is, in general, as bad an idea as it has already proven to be in symptomatic patients, with a multifold increase in adverse short- and mid-term outcomes, compared with similar older, asymptomatic patients who underwent endarterectomy, according to a combined-study analysis with more than 2,500 patients.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

The risk for poor outcomes in patients with severe but asymptomatic carotid artery disease who underwent carotid artery stenting (CAS), compared with patients who instead underwent carotid endarterectomy (CEA) “abruptly increased around age 75,” in an analysis that combined data from the two major, published, randomized trials that compared these two interventions in this patient population, Jenifer H. Voeks, PhD said at the International Stroke Conference sponsored by the American Heart Association.

These results “largely mirror” the findings from a similar combined analysis of data from four major, randomized trials that compared CEA and CAS in patients with symptomatic carotid disease, she noted (Lancet. 2016 Mar 26;387[10025]:1305-11). The new findings in an expanded population of asymptomatic patients derived from two separate studies showed that, in patients aged 70 years or less, “CAS appears to be a reasonable alternative to CEA, but above age 70, and certainly above age 75, age-related risk factors such as cerebrovascular anatomy and underlying cerebral pathology should be carefully considered before selecting patients for CAS,” said Dr. Voeks, a neurology researcher at the Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston. Many experts also believe that, for asymptomatic patients, intensive medical management may have returned as an alternative to either of these invasive approaches for treating severe carotid stenosis and has achieved a level of equipoise that led to the launch of CREST 2 (Carotid Revascularization and Medical Management for Asymptomatic Carotid Stenosis Trial). CREST 2 is comparing CEA and CAS with medical management, and is scheduled to report results in 2021.

The data for this analysis in asymptomatic patients came from the first CREST (Carotid Revascularization Endarterectomy Versus Stenting Trial; N Engl J Med. 2010 Jul 1;363[1]:11-23), which included 1,181 asymptomatic patients (nearly half the total enrollment, with symptomatic patients making up the balance) and had no age ceiling, as well as all 1,453 patients from the ACT 1 trial, which enrolled exclusively asymptomatic patients and limited enrollment to patients aged 79 years or less (N Engl J Med. 2016 Mar 17;374[11]: 1011-20). Because the maximum age of patients in ACT 1 was 79 years, for this analysis Dr. Voeks and associates only included the 1,091 asymptomatic CREST patients who also were within the same age ceiling. The resulting cohort of 2,544 included 1,637 patients who underwent CAS and 907 who underwent CEA (because of a 3:1 randomization ratio in ACT 1), creating the largest data set to compare CAS and CEA by age in asymptomatic patients, Dr. Voeks noted. When subdivided by age, 30% of the cohort was younger that 65 years, 54% were 65-74, and 16% were 75-79.

The primary outcome the researchers used for their analysis was the combined incidence of periprocedural stroke, MI, or death, plus the incidence of ipsilateral stroke during 4 years of follow-up post procedure. Among patients who underwent CAS, this outcome occurred in roughly 9% of patients aged 75-79 years and in about 3% of those younger than 65 years, a hazard ratio of 2.9 that was statistically significant. In contrast, the incidence of the primary outcome among patients aged 65-74 years was just 30% higher, compared with patients aged less than 65 years, a difference that was not statistically significant.

Patients who underwent CEA showed no similar relationship between age and outcome. The incidence of the primary outcome among the CEA patients was roughly the same, about 3.5%, regardless of their age.

A second analysis that considered age as a continuous variable showed a sharply spiked increase in the risk for CAS patients, compared with CEA patients once they reached about age 73-75 years. Until about age 72, the rate of the primary outcome was nearly the same regardless of whether patients underwent CAS or CEA, but the risk for adverse outcomes rose “steeply” starting at about age 75 so that by age 79 the rate of the primary outcome approached 300% higher among the CAS patients compared with CEA patients, Dr. Voeks said.

She cautioned that the analysis included just 115 total primary-outcome events, which makes the incidence rate estimates somewhat imprecise, and that the data reflect outcomes in patients who were treated more than a decade ago, but these data remain the only reported results from large randomized trials that compared CAS and CEA in asymptomatic patients.

Dr. Voeks reported no disclosures.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Voeks JH al. Stroke. 2020 Feb 12;51[suppl 1], Abstract 70.

SNOWMASS, COLO. – Catheter ablation of atrial fibrillation was associated with a significant reduction in the composite endpoint of all-cause mortality, stroke, major bleeding, or cardiac arrest, compared with rhythm and/or rate control drugs in a propensity score–weighted, retrospective, observational study.

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

Findings of the investigation, which included more than 183,000 real-world patients in routine clinical practice, were reported by Peter S. Noseworthy, MD, during the annual Cardiovascular Conference at Snowmass sponsored by the American College of Cardiology.

The results breathe new life into the controversy created by the previously reported CABANA trial (Catheter Ablation vs. Antiarrhythmic Drug Therapy for Atrial Fibrillation), a 10-country study in which 2,204 patients with atrial fibrillation (AFib) were randomized to catheter ablation or antiarrhythmic and/or rhythm control medications and followed for a mean of about 4 years. CABANA yielded a negative result (JAMA. 2019 Apr 2;321[13]:1261-74), with the prespecified intent-to-treat analysis indicating no significant between-group difference in the primary composite endpoint – the very same one that was positive in the large observational study.

However, CABANA was marred by major problems arising from protocol deviations: Nearly 28% of patients assigned to medical therapy crossed over to catheter ablation, typically because their antiarrhythmic drugs failed, and 10% of patients randomized to catheter ablation never got it. This muddies the waters when trying to identify a true stroke/mortality benefit for catheter ablation, if indeed any such benefit was actually present.

Here’s where the controversy arose: While CABANA must be called a negative trial based upon the disappointing results of the intent-to-treat analysis, a prespecified post hoc analysis of patients as actually treated showed a statistically significant 27% relative risk reduction for the primary composite endpoint in the catheter ablation group. That’s strikingly similar to the 30% relative risk reduction for catheter ablation seen in the huge observational study, where the CABANA-type primary outcome occurred in 22.5% of the medically managed patients and 16.8% of those who underwent catheter ablation, noted Dr. Noseworthy, professor of medicine and director of heart rhythm and physiology at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn.

He ought to know: He was both an investigator in CABANA and first author of the published observational study (Eur Heart J. 2019 Apr 21;40[16]:1257-64).

In the observational study, Dr. Noseworthy and coinvestigators utilized a huge U.S. administrative health claims database in order to identify a nationally representative group of 183,760 AFib patients, 12,032 of whom were treated with catheter ablation and the rest with antiarrhythmic and/or rhythm control drugs during the same years the CABANA trial was enrolling patients. The two groups were balanced using propensity score weighting to adjust for baseline differences in 90 variables.

The investigators sought to learn if the CABANA study population was representative of real-world AFib patients, and whether the observational experience could help resolve the CABANA controversy. It turned out that most AFib patients seen in daily clinical practice were CABANA like; that is, 74% of them would have been eligible for the clinical trial because they were symptomatic, over age 65, or younger than 65 with at least one CHADS2 stroke risk factor. About 22% of the large real-world sample would have been excluded from CABANA because they’d failed on amiodarone and other antiarrhythmic agents or had previously undergone ablation. About 4% of patients failed to meet the CABANA inclusion criteria.

The risk reduction for the composite endpoint associated with catheter ablation in the large retrospective study was greatest in the CABANA-like patients, at 30%. It was less robust but still statistically significant at 15% in patients who met at least one of the exclusion criteria for the trial.

The sheer size of this study provides greater statistical power than in CABANA. Of course, a nonrandomized, propensity score–based comparison such as this is always susceptible to confounding, even after adjustment for 90 variables. But the observational study does offer “a glimmer of hope” that catheter ablation, done in the right patients, might confer a stroke risk reduction and mortality benefit, he said.

The 33% relative risk reduction in the small group of real-world patients who failed to meet the CABANA inclusion criteria, while numerically impressive, wasn’t close to statistical significance, probably because event rates in that population were so low.

“Even if you could reduce stroke risk with ablation in that low-risk group, it would be a very inefficient way to reduce the population burden of stroke,” Dr. Noseworthy observed.

Putting together the results of CABANA and the large observational study to sum up his view of where catheter ablation for AF[ib] stands today, Dr. Noseworthy commented, “Ablation is reasonable for symptom control in many patients, basically anyone who is either breaking through on drugs or doesn’t want to take the drugs and is highly symptomatic. And there may be a small stroke and/or mortality benefit for people who are in the sweet spot – and those are people who look a lot like the patients enrolled in CABANA.”

Patients who met the exclusion criteria for CABANA are too advanced in their AFib to be likely to derive a stroke or mortality benefit from catheter ablation. “It’s very hard to move the needle in these patients with either a drug or catheter ablation approach. I wouldn’t try to reduce the risk of stroke here with an expensive and invasive procedure,” the electrophysiologist concluded.

He reported having no financial conflicts regarding his presentation.

[email protected]

SNOWMASS, COLO. – Catheter ablation of atrial fibrillation was associated with a significant reduction in the composite endpoint of all-cause mortality, stroke, major bleeding, or cardiac arrest, compared with rhythm and/or rate control drugs in a propensity score–weighted, retrospective, observational study.

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

Findings of the investigation, which included more than 183,000 real-world patients in routine clinical practice, were reported by Peter S. Noseworthy, MD, during the annual Cardiovascular Conference at Snowmass sponsored by the American College of Cardiology.

The results breathe new life into the controversy created by the previously reported CABANA trial (Catheter Ablation vs. Antiarrhythmic Drug Therapy for Atrial Fibrillation), a 10-country study in which 2,204 patients with atrial fibrillation (AFib) were randomized to catheter ablation or antiarrhythmic and/or rhythm control medications and followed for a mean of about 4 years. CABANA yielded a negative result (JAMA. 2019 Apr 2;321[13]:1261-74), with the prespecified intent-to-treat analysis indicating no significant between-group difference in the primary composite endpoint – the very same one that was positive in the large observational study.

However, CABANA was marred by major problems arising from protocol deviations: Nearly 28% of patients assigned to medical therapy crossed over to catheter ablation, typically because their antiarrhythmic drugs failed, and 10% of patients randomized to catheter ablation never got it. This muddies the waters when trying to identify a true stroke/mortality benefit for catheter ablation, if indeed any such benefit was actually present.

Here’s where the controversy arose: While CABANA must be called a negative trial based upon the disappointing results of the intent-to-treat analysis, a prespecified post hoc analysis of patients as actually treated showed a statistically significant 27% relative risk reduction for the primary composite endpoint in the catheter ablation group. That’s strikingly similar to the 30% relative risk reduction for catheter ablation seen in the huge observational study, where the CABANA-type primary outcome occurred in 22.5% of the medically managed patients and 16.8% of those who underwent catheter ablation, noted Dr. Noseworthy, professor of medicine and director of heart rhythm and physiology at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn.

He ought to know: He was both an investigator in CABANA and first author of the published observational study (Eur Heart J. 2019 Apr 21;40[16]:1257-64).

In the observational study, Dr. Noseworthy and coinvestigators utilized a huge U.S. administrative health claims database in order to identify a nationally representative group of 183,760 AFib patients, 12,032 of whom were treated with catheter ablation and the rest with antiarrhythmic and/or rhythm control drugs during the same years the CABANA trial was enrolling patients. The two groups were balanced using propensity score weighting to adjust for baseline differences in 90 variables.

The investigators sought to learn if the CABANA study population was representative of real-world AFib patients, and whether the observational experience could help resolve the CABANA controversy. It turned out that most AFib patients seen in daily clinical practice were CABANA like; that is, 74% of them would have been eligible for the clinical trial because they were symptomatic, over age 65, or younger than 65 with at least one CHADS2 stroke risk factor. About 22% of the large real-world sample would have been excluded from CABANA because they’d failed on amiodarone and other antiarrhythmic agents or had previously undergone ablation. About 4% of patients failed to meet the CABANA inclusion criteria.

The risk reduction for the composite endpoint associated with catheter ablation in the large retrospective study was greatest in the CABANA-like patients, at 30%. It was less robust but still statistically significant at 15% in patients who met at least one of the exclusion criteria for the trial.

The sheer size of this study provides greater statistical power than in CABANA. Of course, a nonrandomized, propensity score–based comparison such as this is always susceptible to confounding, even after adjustment for 90 variables. But the observational study does offer “a glimmer of hope” that catheter ablation, done in the right patients, might confer a stroke risk reduction and mortality benefit, he said.

The 33% relative risk reduction in the small group of real-world patients who failed to meet the CABANA inclusion criteria, while numerically impressive, wasn’t close to statistical significance, probably because event rates in that population were so low.

“Even if you could reduce stroke risk with ablation in that low-risk group, it would be a very inefficient way to reduce the population burden of stroke,” Dr. Noseworthy observed.

Putting together the results of CABANA and the large observational study to sum up his view of where catheter ablation for AF[ib] stands today, Dr. Noseworthy commented, “Ablation is reasonable for symptom control in many patients, basically anyone who is either breaking through on drugs or doesn’t want to take the drugs and is highly symptomatic. And there may be a small stroke and/or mortality benefit for people who are in the sweet spot – and those are people who look a lot like the patients enrolled in CABANA.”

Patients who met the exclusion criteria for CABANA are too advanced in their AFib to be likely to derive a stroke or mortality benefit from catheter ablation. “It’s very hard to move the needle in these patients with either a drug or catheter ablation approach. I wouldn’t try to reduce the risk of stroke here with an expensive and invasive procedure,” the electrophysiologist concluded.

He reported having no financial conflicts regarding his presentation.

[email protected]

SNOWMASS, COLO. – Catheter ablation of atrial fibrillation was associated with a significant reduction in the composite endpoint of all-cause mortality, stroke, major bleeding, or cardiac arrest, compared with rhythm and/or rate control drugs in a propensity score–weighted, retrospective, observational study.

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

Findings of the investigation, which included more than 183,000 real-world patients in routine clinical practice, were reported by Peter S. Noseworthy, MD, during the annual Cardiovascular Conference at Snowmass sponsored by the American College of Cardiology.

The results breathe new life into the controversy created by the previously reported CABANA trial (Catheter Ablation vs. Antiarrhythmic Drug Therapy for Atrial Fibrillation), a 10-country study in which 2,204 patients with atrial fibrillation (AFib) were randomized to catheter ablation or antiarrhythmic and/or rhythm control medications and followed for a mean of about 4 years. CABANA yielded a negative result (JAMA. 2019 Apr 2;321[13]:1261-74), with the prespecified intent-to-treat analysis indicating no significant between-group difference in the primary composite endpoint – the very same one that was positive in the large observational study.

However, CABANA was marred by major problems arising from protocol deviations: Nearly 28% of patients assigned to medical therapy crossed over to catheter ablation, typically because their antiarrhythmic drugs failed, and 10% of patients randomized to catheter ablation never got it. This muddies the waters when trying to identify a true stroke/mortality benefit for catheter ablation, if indeed any such benefit was actually present.

Here’s where the controversy arose: While CABANA must be called a negative trial based upon the disappointing results of the intent-to-treat analysis, a prespecified post hoc analysis of patients as actually treated showed a statistically significant 27% relative risk reduction for the primary composite endpoint in the catheter ablation group. That’s strikingly similar to the 30% relative risk reduction for catheter ablation seen in the huge observational study, where the CABANA-type primary outcome occurred in 22.5% of the medically managed patients and 16.8% of those who underwent catheter ablation, noted Dr. Noseworthy, professor of medicine and director of heart rhythm and physiology at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn.

He ought to know: He was both an investigator in CABANA and first author of the published observational study (Eur Heart J. 2019 Apr 21;40[16]:1257-64).

In the observational study, Dr. Noseworthy and coinvestigators utilized a huge U.S. administrative health claims database in order to identify a nationally representative group of 183,760 AFib patients, 12,032 of whom were treated with catheter ablation and the rest with antiarrhythmic and/or rhythm control drugs during the same years the CABANA trial was enrolling patients. The two groups were balanced using propensity score weighting to adjust for baseline differences in 90 variables.

The investigators sought to learn if the CABANA study population was representative of real-world AFib patients, and whether the observational experience could help resolve the CABANA controversy. It turned out that most AFib patients seen in daily clinical practice were CABANA like; that is, 74% of them would have been eligible for the clinical trial because they were symptomatic, over age 65, or younger than 65 with at least one CHADS2 stroke risk factor. About 22% of the large real-world sample would have been excluded from CABANA because they’d failed on amiodarone and other antiarrhythmic agents or had previously undergone ablation. About 4% of patients failed to meet the CABANA inclusion criteria.

The risk reduction for the composite endpoint associated with catheter ablation in the large retrospective study was greatest in the CABANA-like patients, at 30%. It was less robust but still statistically significant at 15% in patients who met at least one of the exclusion criteria for the trial.

The sheer size of this study provides greater statistical power than in CABANA. Of course, a nonrandomized, propensity score–based comparison such as this is always susceptible to confounding, even after adjustment for 90 variables. But the observational study does offer “a glimmer of hope” that catheter ablation, done in the right patients, might confer a stroke risk reduction and mortality benefit, he said.

The 33% relative risk reduction in the small group of real-world patients who failed to meet the CABANA inclusion criteria, while numerically impressive, wasn’t close to statistical significance, probably because event rates in that population were so low.

“Even if you could reduce stroke risk with ablation in that low-risk group, it would be a very inefficient way to reduce the population burden of stroke,” Dr. Noseworthy observed.

Putting together the results of CABANA and the large observational study to sum up his view of where catheter ablation for AF[ib] stands today, Dr. Noseworthy commented, “Ablation is reasonable for symptom control in many patients, basically anyone who is either breaking through on drugs or doesn’t want to take the drugs and is highly symptomatic. And there may be a small stroke and/or mortality benefit for people who are in the sweet spot – and those are people who look a lot like the patients enrolled in CABANA.”

Patients who met the exclusion criteria for CABANA are too advanced in their AFib to be likely to derive a stroke or mortality benefit from catheter ablation. “It’s very hard to move the needle in these patients with either a drug or catheter ablation approach. I wouldn’t try to reduce the risk of stroke here with an expensive and invasive procedure,” the electrophysiologist concluded.

He reported having no financial conflicts regarding his presentation.

[email protected]

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

SPL/Science Source

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

A new definition takes hold

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

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

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

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

Abnormal slopes in over 40%

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

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

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

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

A simpler test is needed

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

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

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

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

[email protected]

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

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

SPL/Science Source

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

A new definition takes hold

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

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

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

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

Abnormal slopes in over 40%

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

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

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

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

A simpler test is needed

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

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

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

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

[email protected]

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

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

SPL/Science Source

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

A new definition takes hold

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

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

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

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

Abnormal slopes in over 40%

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

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

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

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

A simpler test is needed

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

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

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

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

[email protected]

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

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

Delpixel/Shutterstock

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

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

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

Three key factors may help reduce the fear factor.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

*This article was updated 2/21/2020.

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

Delpixel/Shutterstock

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

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

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

Three key factors may help reduce the fear factor.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

*This article was updated 2/21/2020.

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

Delpixel/Shutterstock

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

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

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

Three key factors may help reduce the fear factor.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

*This article was updated 2/21/2020.

SNOWMASS, COLO. – Targeted temperature management maintained at 32-36 degrees Celsius is now a strong class I recommendation for all comatose patients who experience return of spontaneous circulation after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest, including those with nonshockable rhythms, Erin A. Bohula, MD, PhD, said at the annual Cardiovascular Conference at Snowmass sponsored by the American College of Cardiology.

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

“Our practice is that there are no absolute contraindications to targeted temperature management at the Brigham. Everybody gets cooled,” said Dr. Bohula, a cardiologist and critical care specialist at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston.

The current ACC/AHA guidelines declare: “There are essentially no patients for whom temperature control somewhere in the range between 32 degrees C [89.6 F) and 36 degrees C [96.8 F] is contraindicated.” The writing committee cited “recent clinical trial data enrolling patients with all rhythms, the rarity of adverse effects in trials, the high neurologic morbidity and mortality without any specific interventions, and the preponderance of data suggesting that temperature is an important variable for neurologic recovery” (Circulation. 2015 Nov 3;132[18 Suppl 2]:S465-82).

“That’s a pretty strong statement,” Dr. Bohula observed.

The current guidelines, which date back to 2015, give a class I, level of evidence B recommendation for targeted temperature management (TTM) in patients who are comatose with return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC) after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest involving ventricular fibrillation or pulseless ventricular fibrillation. The bedside definition of comatose is lack of meaningful response to verbal commands to squeeze hands, blink, or move toes.

The current recommendation for TTM in patients resuscitated from out-of-hospital cardiac arrest with a nonshockable rhythm is class I, level of evidence C, meaning it’s based on expert consensus. However, that recommendation is now out of date and due for a level-of-evidence upgrade in light of the recent results of the French HYPERION trial, an open-label randomized trial of 584 patients resuscitated from cardiac arrest with a nonshockable rhythm. Although 90-day mortality was similarly high in the TTM and targeted normothermia groups, the rate of favorable neurologic outcome as assessed by a Cerebral Performance Category scale score of 1 or 2 was 10.2% in the TTM group, significantly better than the 5.7% rate in controls (N Engl J Med. 2019 Dec 12;381[24]:2327-37).

The 2010, ACC/AHA guidelines recommended a TTM range of 32-34 degrees C, but on the basis of subsequent persuasive randomized trial data, that range was broadened to 32-36 degrees C in the 2015 guidelines, with a class IB recommendation. Maintenance of TTM for at least 24 hours has a IIa, level of evidence C recommendation in the current guidelines.

The guidelines emphasize that specific features may favor selection of one temperature for TTM over another. For example, patients with seizures or cerebral edema might be better off with TTM at a lower temperature, while a higher temperature may be best for those with bleeding or severe bradycardia. At Brigham and Women’s Hospital, the default temperature is 33 degrees C. However, TTM with a goal of 36 degrees C is seriously considered in patients with recent head trauma, major surgery within the past 2 weeks, refractory hypotension, severe sepsis, pregnancy, or high bleeding risk. Rewarming is done at a rate of 0.25 degrees C per hour, with sedation maintained until the patient has been returned to 98.6 degrees F, according to Dr. Bohula.

Based on several negative studies of TTM using rapid infusion of chilled fluids in the ambulance en route to the hospital, the guidelines rate that practice class IIIA, meaning don’t do it. Avoidance of a systolic blood pressure below 90 mm Hg and a mean arterial pressure of less than 65 mm Hg gets a class IIb level of evidence C recommendation to lessen the risk of cerebral hypoxia.
 

TTM a major breakthrough

Prior to the introduction of TTM, comatose patients with ROSC after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest had a dreadful prognosis, with survival rates of 1%-10% in registry studies. In contrast, the survival rate in the landmark TTM clinical trials was 50%-60%. And while that’s a dramatic improvement, ROSC after cardiac arrest remains a high-mortality condition. Dr. Bohula was first author of a report by the Critical Care Cardiology Trials Network, composed of 16 tertiary cardiac intensive care units in the United States and Canada. Cardiac arrest was the primary indication for 8.7% of 3,049 consecutive admissions, and its 38% mortality rate was the highest of all cardiac critical care indications (JAMA Cardiol. 2019 Jul 24;4[9]:928-35).

TTM was developed in response to a recognition that two-thirds of deaths in patients who make it to the hospital after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest are neurologic – the result of brain anoxia – rather than being due to the myocardial ischemia that may have initially brought them to medical attention.

“Time is brain cells, the same way we think of time as cardiac muscle,” Dr. Bohula observed.

The main idea behind therapeutic hypothermia is that it lowers the cerebral metabolic rate of oxygen to reduce the consequences of ongoing anoxia. The brain doesn’t require as much perfusion when cooled.

TTM has other beneficial neurologic effects as well: It reduces cerebral blood volume via autoregulation, decreases intracranial pressure, and blunts the inflammatory response involved in the postcardiac arrest syndrome. In addition, TTM has anticonvulsant properties, an important effect because seizures and/or myoclonus occur in up to 15% of adults who achieve ROSC after cardiac arrest – and in even more of those who are comatose after doing so. And seizures increase the brain’s metabolic rate threefold, resulting in more cerebral ischemic injury, she explained.

Seizure activity can be difficult to distinguish from shivering in a patient on TTM. For this reason Dr. Bohula recommends putting patients on continuous EEG monitoring from the time of admission, as is the routine practice at the Brigham.

She reported serving as a consultant to Daiichi Sankyo, Servier, Lexicon, Kowa, Merck, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, and the National Institutes of Health. In addition, she generates institutional research grants provided by a half-dozen pharmaceutical companies.

[email protected]

SNOWMASS, COLO. – Targeted temperature management maintained at 32-36 degrees Celsius is now a strong class I recommendation for all comatose patients who experience return of spontaneous circulation after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest, including those with nonshockable rhythms, Erin A. Bohula, MD, PhD, said at the annual Cardiovascular Conference at Snowmass sponsored by the American College of Cardiology.

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

“Our practice is that there are no absolute contraindications to targeted temperature management at the Brigham. Everybody gets cooled,” said Dr. Bohula, a cardiologist and critical care specialist at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston.

The current ACC/AHA guidelines declare: “There are essentially no patients for whom temperature control somewhere in the range between 32 degrees C [89.6 F) and 36 degrees C [96.8 F] is contraindicated.” The writing committee cited “recent clinical trial data enrolling patients with all rhythms, the rarity of adverse effects in trials, the high neurologic morbidity and mortality without any specific interventions, and the preponderance of data suggesting that temperature is an important variable for neurologic recovery” (Circulation. 2015 Nov 3;132[18 Suppl 2]:S465-82).

“That’s a pretty strong statement,” Dr. Bohula observed.

The current guidelines, which date back to 2015, give a class I, level of evidence B recommendation for targeted temperature management (TTM) in patients who are comatose with return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC) after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest involving ventricular fibrillation or pulseless ventricular fibrillation. The bedside definition of comatose is lack of meaningful response to verbal commands to squeeze hands, blink, or move toes.

The current recommendation for TTM in patients resuscitated from out-of-hospital cardiac arrest with a nonshockable rhythm is class I, level of evidence C, meaning it’s based on expert consensus. However, that recommendation is now out of date and due for a level-of-evidence upgrade in light of the recent results of the French HYPERION trial, an open-label randomized trial of 584 patients resuscitated from cardiac arrest with a nonshockable rhythm. Although 90-day mortality was similarly high in the TTM and targeted normothermia groups, the rate of favorable neurologic outcome as assessed by a Cerebral Performance Category scale score of 1 or 2 was 10.2% in the TTM group, significantly better than the 5.7% rate in controls (N Engl J Med. 2019 Dec 12;381[24]:2327-37).

The 2010, ACC/AHA guidelines recommended a TTM range of 32-34 degrees C, but on the basis of subsequent persuasive randomized trial data, that range was broadened to 32-36 degrees C in the 2015 guidelines, with a class IB recommendation. Maintenance of TTM for at least 24 hours has a IIa, level of evidence C recommendation in the current guidelines.

The guidelines emphasize that specific features may favor selection of one temperature for TTM over another. For example, patients with seizures or cerebral edema might be better off with TTM at a lower temperature, while a higher temperature may be best for those with bleeding or severe bradycardia. At Brigham and Women’s Hospital, the default temperature is 33 degrees C. However, TTM with a goal of 36 degrees C is seriously considered in patients with recent head trauma, major surgery within the past 2 weeks, refractory hypotension, severe sepsis, pregnancy, or high bleeding risk. Rewarming is done at a rate of 0.25 degrees C per hour, with sedation maintained until the patient has been returned to 98.6 degrees F, according to Dr. Bohula.

Based on several negative studies of TTM using rapid infusion of chilled fluids in the ambulance en route to the hospital, the guidelines rate that practice class IIIA, meaning don’t do it. Avoidance of a systolic blood pressure below 90 mm Hg and a mean arterial pressure of less than 65 mm Hg gets a class IIb level of evidence C recommendation to lessen the risk of cerebral hypoxia.
 

TTM a major breakthrough

Prior to the introduction of TTM, comatose patients with ROSC after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest had a dreadful prognosis, with survival rates of 1%-10% in registry studies. In contrast, the survival rate in the landmark TTM clinical trials was 50%-60%. And while that’s a dramatic improvement, ROSC after cardiac arrest remains a high-mortality condition. Dr. Bohula was first author of a report by the Critical Care Cardiology Trials Network, composed of 16 tertiary cardiac intensive care units in the United States and Canada. Cardiac arrest was the primary indication for 8.7% of 3,049 consecutive admissions, and its 38% mortality rate was the highest of all cardiac critical care indications (JAMA Cardiol. 2019 Jul 24;4[9]:928-35).

TTM was developed in response to a recognition that two-thirds of deaths in patients who make it to the hospital after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest are neurologic – the result of brain anoxia – rather than being due to the myocardial ischemia that may have initially brought them to medical attention.

“Time is brain cells, the same way we think of time as cardiac muscle,” Dr. Bohula observed.

The main idea behind therapeutic hypothermia is that it lowers the cerebral metabolic rate of oxygen to reduce the consequences of ongoing anoxia. The brain doesn’t require as much perfusion when cooled.

TTM has other beneficial neurologic effects as well: It reduces cerebral blood volume via autoregulation, decreases intracranial pressure, and blunts the inflammatory response involved in the postcardiac arrest syndrome. In addition, TTM has anticonvulsant properties, an important effect because seizures and/or myoclonus occur in up to 15% of adults who achieve ROSC after cardiac arrest – and in even more of those who are comatose after doing so. And seizures increase the brain’s metabolic rate threefold, resulting in more cerebral ischemic injury, she explained.

Seizure activity can be difficult to distinguish from shivering in a patient on TTM. For this reason Dr. Bohula recommends putting patients on continuous EEG monitoring from the time of admission, as is the routine practice at the Brigham.

She reported serving as a consultant to Daiichi Sankyo, Servier, Lexicon, Kowa, Merck, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, and the National Institutes of Health. In addition, she generates institutional research grants provided by a half-dozen pharmaceutical companies.

[email protected]

SNOWMASS, COLO. – Targeted temperature management maintained at 32-36 degrees Celsius is now a strong class I recommendation for all comatose patients who experience return of spontaneous circulation after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest, including those with nonshockable rhythms, Erin A. Bohula, MD, PhD, said at the annual Cardiovascular Conference at Snowmass sponsored by the American College of Cardiology.

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

“Our practice is that there are no absolute contraindications to targeted temperature management at the Brigham. Everybody gets cooled,” said Dr. Bohula, a cardiologist and critical care specialist at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston.

The current ACC/AHA guidelines declare: “There are essentially no patients for whom temperature control somewhere in the range between 32 degrees C [89.6 F) and 36 degrees C [96.8 F] is contraindicated.” The writing committee cited “recent clinical trial data enrolling patients with all rhythms, the rarity of adverse effects in trials, the high neurologic morbidity and mortality without any specific interventions, and the preponderance of data suggesting that temperature is an important variable for neurologic recovery” (Circulation. 2015 Nov 3;132[18 Suppl 2]:S465-82).

“That’s a pretty strong statement,” Dr. Bohula observed.

The current guidelines, which date back to 2015, give a class I, level of evidence B recommendation for targeted temperature management (TTM) in patients who are comatose with return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC) after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest involving ventricular fibrillation or pulseless ventricular fibrillation. The bedside definition of comatose is lack of meaningful response to verbal commands to squeeze hands, blink, or move toes.

The current recommendation for TTM in patients resuscitated from out-of-hospital cardiac arrest with a nonshockable rhythm is class I, level of evidence C, meaning it’s based on expert consensus. However, that recommendation is now out of date and due for a level-of-evidence upgrade in light of the recent results of the French HYPERION trial, an open-label randomized trial of 584 patients resuscitated from cardiac arrest with a nonshockable rhythm. Although 90-day mortality was similarly high in the TTM and targeted normothermia groups, the rate of favorable neurologic outcome as assessed by a Cerebral Performance Category scale score of 1 or 2 was 10.2% in the TTM group, significantly better than the 5.7% rate in controls (N Engl J Med. 2019 Dec 12;381[24]:2327-37).

The 2010, ACC/AHA guidelines recommended a TTM range of 32-34 degrees C, but on the basis of subsequent persuasive randomized trial data, that range was broadened to 32-36 degrees C in the 2015 guidelines, with a class IB recommendation. Maintenance of TTM for at least 24 hours has a IIa, level of evidence C recommendation in the current guidelines.

The guidelines emphasize that specific features may favor selection of one temperature for TTM over another. For example, patients with seizures or cerebral edema might be better off with TTM at a lower temperature, while a higher temperature may be best for those with bleeding or severe bradycardia. At Brigham and Women’s Hospital, the default temperature is 33 degrees C. However, TTM with a goal of 36 degrees C is seriously considered in patients with recent head trauma, major surgery within the past 2 weeks, refractory hypotension, severe sepsis, pregnancy, or high bleeding risk. Rewarming is done at a rate of 0.25 degrees C per hour, with sedation maintained until the patient has been returned to 98.6 degrees F, according to Dr. Bohula.

Based on several negative studies of TTM using rapid infusion of chilled fluids in the ambulance en route to the hospital, the guidelines rate that practice class IIIA, meaning don’t do it. Avoidance of a systolic blood pressure below 90 mm Hg and a mean arterial pressure of less than 65 mm Hg gets a class IIb level of evidence C recommendation to lessen the risk of cerebral hypoxia.
 

TTM a major breakthrough

Prior to the introduction of TTM, comatose patients with ROSC after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest had a dreadful prognosis, with survival rates of 1%-10% in registry studies. In contrast, the survival rate in the landmark TTM clinical trials was 50%-60%. And while that’s a dramatic improvement, ROSC after cardiac arrest remains a high-mortality condition. Dr. Bohula was first author of a report by the Critical Care Cardiology Trials Network, composed of 16 tertiary cardiac intensive care units in the United States and Canada. Cardiac arrest was the primary indication for 8.7% of 3,049 consecutive admissions, and its 38% mortality rate was the highest of all cardiac critical care indications (JAMA Cardiol. 2019 Jul 24;4[9]:928-35).

TTM was developed in response to a recognition that two-thirds of deaths in patients who make it to the hospital after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest are neurologic – the result of brain anoxia – rather than being due to the myocardial ischemia that may have initially brought them to medical attention.

“Time is brain cells, the same way we think of time as cardiac muscle,” Dr. Bohula observed.

The main idea behind therapeutic hypothermia is that it lowers the cerebral metabolic rate of oxygen to reduce the consequences of ongoing anoxia. The brain doesn’t require as much perfusion when cooled.

TTM has other beneficial neurologic effects as well: It reduces cerebral blood volume via autoregulation, decreases intracranial pressure, and blunts the inflammatory response involved in the postcardiac arrest syndrome. In addition, TTM has anticonvulsant properties, an important effect because seizures and/or myoclonus occur in up to 15% of adults who achieve ROSC after cardiac arrest – and in even more of those who are comatose after doing so. And seizures increase the brain’s metabolic rate threefold, resulting in more cerebral ischemic injury, she explained.

Seizure activity can be difficult to distinguish from shivering in a patient on TTM. For this reason Dr. Bohula recommends putting patients on continuous EEG monitoring from the time of admission, as is the routine practice at the Brigham.

She reported serving as a consultant to Daiichi Sankyo, Servier, Lexicon, Kowa, Merck, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, and the National Institutes of Health. In addition, she generates institutional research grants provided by a half-dozen pharmaceutical companies.

[email protected]

An additional 5 cases of 2019 novel coronavirus (2109-nCoV) have been confirmed in the United States, bringing the total number of confirmed cases to 11, Nancy Messonnier, MD, director of the National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases, said during a Centers for Disease Control and Prevention press briefing.

Four of the new cases are in California, and one in Massachusetts. Although four of the new cases have recent travel history to Wuhan, China, the epicenter of the 2019-nCoV outbreak, the fifth is a close household contact of one of the other California patients, said Dr. Messonnier. This last case is the second instance of person-to-person spread of 2019-nCoV in the United States.

“We expect to find additional cases of the novel coronavirus in the United States,” she said. “We expect to see more cases of person-to-person spread among close contacts. And we continue to expect this will happen given the explosive nature of this outbreak in China.”

As of the morning of Feb. 3, 167 persons under investigation, or PUIs, for possible 2019-nCoV have tested negative for the virus, and an additional 82 PUIs have testing pending – this latter figure includes some tests that are still in transit to the CDC, said Dr. Messonnier.

During the briefing, Dr. Messonnier emphasized both the aggressive nature of the U.S. public health response and the rationale for quick and assertive action. “The goal of our public health response is to protect and contain,” she said. “Strong measures now may blunt the impact of this virus on the United States.”

She cited the intensity of transmission in Hubei Province, the expansion of transmission to other provinces in China, the expansion of cases outside of China, and sporadic ongoing deaths from 2019-nCoV as drivers of the aggressive U.S. public health response.

A presidential proclamation is currently in place that bars U.S. entry to foreign nationals who have visited mainland China within the past 14 days; the ban does not apply to travelers from Hong Kong and Macao. Immediate family members of U.S. citizens and individuals who have U.S. permanent resident status are exempted from the entry ban and will be allowed entry into the United States.

However, explained Dr. Messonnier, those who have traveled to China recently and are permitted entry will be subject to screening. All passengers with such recent travel will be directed to one of 11 U.S. airports set up to perform additional screening.

As of Feb 3, the list of airports includes:

• San Francisco International Airport in California.
• Los Angeles International Airport in California.
• Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport in Georgia.
• Daniel K. Inouye International Airport in Hawaii.
• O’Hare International Airport in Illinois.
• Detroit Metropolitan Airport in Michigan.
• Newark Liberty International Airport in New Jersey.
• John F. Kennedy International Airport in New York.
• Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport in Texas.
• Washington Dulles International Airport in Virginia.
• Seattle-Tacoma International Airport in Washington.

Travelers who have been to Hubei Province in the previous 14 days will have an additional health assessment at which they will be screened for fever, cough, or difficulty breathing. Any American citizens or exempt individuals who are symptomatic would then be transferred for further medical evaluation. Asymptomatic travelers in this category will be subject to a mandatory 14-day quarantine near their point of entry, rather than continuing on to their final destinations.

Dr. Messonnier emphasized that the mandatory 14-day quarantine is specifically for Americans or exempt individuals returning from Hubei Province, adding that the CDC is presently working with individual states to determine the exact venues for quarantine.

American citizens and exempt individuals returning from other parts of mainland China will be routed to one of the 11 airports and will also receive additional health screening. Symptomatic individuals in this travel category would be referred for further evaluation before being able to complete their itinerary.

Asymptomatic American citizens and exempt individuals who are returning from mainland China – but not Hubei Province – will be allowed to travel on to their final destinations, but will be asked to stay home as much as possible and to monitor their health during the 14 days after their return.

The U.S. Department of State is bringing back more Americans from Wuhan province this week, and these individuals will also be kept under federal quarantine for 14 days.

“There are likely to be confirmed infections among returning travelers,” said Dr. Messonnier. “It is important to note that this strategy is not meant to catch every single traveler returning from China with novel coronavirus; given the nature of this virus and how it’s spreading, that would be impossible, but working together we can catch the majority of them.

“The goal here is to slow the entry of this virus into the United States,” she said, adding that the nation’s health care and public health systems stand on high alert to detect the virus in community settings. In response to questioning from the press, Dr. Messonnier defended the stringent quarantine measures, noting that they are in line with those taken by some other nations, and with the aggressive action being taken by the Chinese government itself. “These actions are science based and aimed at protecting the health of all Americans,” she said.

The real-time reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (rRT-PCR) assay that the CDC has developed detects 2019-nCoV in both respiratory and serum specimens. Dr. Messonnier reported that the CDC is today filing an emergency use authorization (EUA) application to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to expedite access to the assay for public health laboratories across the country. “This will greatly enhance our capacity to test for this virus,” she said, noting that EUA approval may come as soon as the end of this week.

Although the CDC is poised to send an expert team to China, it’s still awaiting favorable results from the international negotiations currently underway. “This is a horrible situation in China,” said Dr. Messonnier. “Our presence on the ground in China would be a help to China. ... Science should trump everything else; that’s what we’re hoping – that the scientific expertise of the global community can be brought to bear on the incredibly complicated, difficult situation that our colleagues in China are dealing with.”

[email protected]

An additional 5 cases of 2019 novel coronavirus (2109-nCoV) have been confirmed in the United States, bringing the total number of confirmed cases to 11, Nancy Messonnier, MD, director of the National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases, said during a Centers for Disease Control and Prevention press briefing.

Four of the new cases are in California, and one in Massachusetts. Although four of the new cases have recent travel history to Wuhan, China, the epicenter of the 2019-nCoV outbreak, the fifth is a close household contact of one of the other California patients, said Dr. Messonnier. This last case is the second instance of person-to-person spread of 2019-nCoV in the United States.

“We expect to find additional cases of the novel coronavirus in the United States,” she said. “We expect to see more cases of person-to-person spread among close contacts. And we continue to expect this will happen given the explosive nature of this outbreak in China.”

As of the morning of Feb. 3, 167 persons under investigation, or PUIs, for possible 2019-nCoV have tested negative for the virus, and an additional 82 PUIs have testing pending – this latter figure includes some tests that are still in transit to the CDC, said Dr. Messonnier.

During the briefing, Dr. Messonnier emphasized both the aggressive nature of the U.S. public health response and the rationale for quick and assertive action. “The goal of our public health response is to protect and contain,” she said. “Strong measures now may blunt the impact of this virus on the United States.”

She cited the intensity of transmission in Hubei Province, the expansion of transmission to other provinces in China, the expansion of cases outside of China, and sporadic ongoing deaths from 2019-nCoV as drivers of the aggressive U.S. public health response.

A presidential proclamation is currently in place that bars U.S. entry to foreign nationals who have visited mainland China within the past 14 days; the ban does not apply to travelers from Hong Kong and Macao. Immediate family members of U.S. citizens and individuals who have U.S. permanent resident status are exempted from the entry ban and will be allowed entry into the United States.

However, explained Dr. Messonnier, those who have traveled to China recently and are permitted entry will be subject to screening. All passengers with such recent travel will be directed to one of 11 U.S. airports set up to perform additional screening.

As of Feb 3, the list of airports includes:

• San Francisco International Airport in California.
• Los Angeles International Airport in California.
• Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport in Georgia.
• Daniel K. Inouye International Airport in Hawaii.
• O’Hare International Airport in Illinois.
• Detroit Metropolitan Airport in Michigan.
• Newark Liberty International Airport in New Jersey.
• John F. Kennedy International Airport in New York.
• Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport in Texas.
• Washington Dulles International Airport in Virginia.
• Seattle-Tacoma International Airport in Washington.

Travelers who have been to Hubei Province in the previous 14 days will have an additional health assessment at which they will be screened for fever, cough, or difficulty breathing. Any American citizens or exempt individuals who are symptomatic would then be transferred for further medical evaluation. Asymptomatic travelers in this category will be subject to a mandatory 14-day quarantine near their point of entry, rather than continuing on to their final destinations.

Dr. Messonnier emphasized that the mandatory 14-day quarantine is specifically for Americans or exempt individuals returning from Hubei Province, adding that the CDC is presently working with individual states to determine the exact venues for quarantine.

American citizens and exempt individuals returning from other parts of mainland China will be routed to one of the 11 airports and will also receive additional health screening. Symptomatic individuals in this travel category would be referred for further evaluation before being able to complete their itinerary.

Asymptomatic American citizens and exempt individuals who are returning from mainland China – but not Hubei Province – will be allowed to travel on to their final destinations, but will be asked to stay home as much as possible and to monitor their health during the 14 days after their return.

The U.S. Department of State is bringing back more Americans from Wuhan province this week, and these individuals will also be kept under federal quarantine for 14 days.

“There are likely to be confirmed infections among returning travelers,” said Dr. Messonnier. “It is important to note that this strategy is not meant to catch every single traveler returning from China with novel coronavirus; given the nature of this virus and how it’s spreading, that would be impossible, but working together we can catch the majority of them.

“The goal here is to slow the entry of this virus into the United States,” she said, adding that the nation’s health care and public health systems stand on high alert to detect the virus in community settings. In response to questioning from the press, Dr. Messonnier defended the stringent quarantine measures, noting that they are in line with those taken by some other nations, and with the aggressive action being taken by the Chinese government itself. “These actions are science based and aimed at protecting the health of all Americans,” she said.

The real-time reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (rRT-PCR) assay that the CDC has developed detects 2019-nCoV in both respiratory and serum specimens. Dr. Messonnier reported that the CDC is today filing an emergency use authorization (EUA) application to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to expedite access to the assay for public health laboratories across the country. “This will greatly enhance our capacity to test for this virus,” she said, noting that EUA approval may come as soon as the end of this week.

Although the CDC is poised to send an expert team to China, it’s still awaiting favorable results from the international negotiations currently underway. “This is a horrible situation in China,” said Dr. Messonnier. “Our presence on the ground in China would be a help to China. ... Science should trump everything else; that’s what we’re hoping – that the scientific expertise of the global community can be brought to bear on the incredibly complicated, difficult situation that our colleagues in China are dealing with.”

[email protected]

An additional 5 cases of 2019 novel coronavirus (2109-nCoV) have been confirmed in the United States, bringing the total number of confirmed cases to 11, Nancy Messonnier, MD, director of the National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases, said during a Centers for Disease Control and Prevention press briefing.

Four of the new cases are in California, and one in Massachusetts. Although four of the new cases have recent travel history to Wuhan, China, the epicenter of the 2019-nCoV outbreak, the fifth is a close household contact of one of the other California patients, said Dr. Messonnier. This last case is the second instance of person-to-person spread of 2019-nCoV in the United States.

“We expect to find additional cases of the novel coronavirus in the United States,” she said. “We expect to see more cases of person-to-person spread among close contacts. And we continue to expect this will happen given the explosive nature of this outbreak in China.”

As of the morning of Feb. 3, 167 persons under investigation, or PUIs, for possible 2019-nCoV have tested negative for the virus, and an additional 82 PUIs have testing pending – this latter figure includes some tests that are still in transit to the CDC, said Dr. Messonnier.

During the briefing, Dr. Messonnier emphasized both the aggressive nature of the U.S. public health response and the rationale for quick and assertive action. “The goal of our public health response is to protect and contain,” she said. “Strong measures now may blunt the impact of this virus on the United States.”

She cited the intensity of transmission in Hubei Province, the expansion of transmission to other provinces in China, the expansion of cases outside of China, and sporadic ongoing deaths from 2019-nCoV as drivers of the aggressive U.S. public health response.

A presidential proclamation is currently in place that bars U.S. entry to foreign nationals who have visited mainland China within the past 14 days; the ban does not apply to travelers from Hong Kong and Macao. Immediate family members of U.S. citizens and individuals who have U.S. permanent resident status are exempted from the entry ban and will be allowed entry into the United States.

However, explained Dr. Messonnier, those who have traveled to China recently and are permitted entry will be subject to screening. All passengers with such recent travel will be directed to one of 11 U.S. airports set up to perform additional screening.

As of Feb 3, the list of airports includes:

• San Francisco International Airport in California.
• Los Angeles International Airport in California.
• Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport in Georgia.
• Daniel K. Inouye International Airport in Hawaii.
• O’Hare International Airport in Illinois.
• Detroit Metropolitan Airport in Michigan.
• Newark Liberty International Airport in New Jersey.
• John F. Kennedy International Airport in New York.
• Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport in Texas.
• Washington Dulles International Airport in Virginia.
• Seattle-Tacoma International Airport in Washington.

Travelers who have been to Hubei Province in the previous 14 days will have an additional health assessment at which they will be screened for fever, cough, or difficulty breathing. Any American citizens or exempt individuals who are symptomatic would then be transferred for further medical evaluation. Asymptomatic travelers in this category will be subject to a mandatory 14-day quarantine near their point of entry, rather than continuing on to their final destinations.

Dr. Messonnier emphasized that the mandatory 14-day quarantine is specifically for Americans or exempt individuals returning from Hubei Province, adding that the CDC is presently working with individual states to determine the exact venues for quarantine.

American citizens and exempt individuals returning from other parts of mainland China will be routed to one of the 11 airports and will also receive additional health screening. Symptomatic individuals in this travel category would be referred for further evaluation before being able to complete their itinerary.

Asymptomatic American citizens and exempt individuals who are returning from mainland China – but not Hubei Province – will be allowed to travel on to their final destinations, but will be asked to stay home as much as possible and to monitor their health during the 14 days after their return.

The U.S. Department of State is bringing back more Americans from Wuhan province this week, and these individuals will also be kept under federal quarantine for 14 days.

“There are likely to be confirmed infections among returning travelers,” said Dr. Messonnier. “It is important to note that this strategy is not meant to catch every single traveler returning from China with novel coronavirus; given the nature of this virus and how it’s spreading, that would be impossible, but working together we can catch the majority of them.

“The goal here is to slow the entry of this virus into the United States,” she said, adding that the nation’s health care and public health systems stand on high alert to detect the virus in community settings. In response to questioning from the press, Dr. Messonnier defended the stringent quarantine measures, noting that they are in line with those taken by some other nations, and with the aggressive action being taken by the Chinese government itself. “These actions are science based and aimed at protecting the health of all Americans,” she said.

The real-time reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (rRT-PCR) assay that the CDC has developed detects 2019-nCoV in both respiratory and serum specimens. Dr. Messonnier reported that the CDC is today filing an emergency use authorization (EUA) application to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to expedite access to the assay for public health laboratories across the country. “This will greatly enhance our capacity to test for this virus,” she said, noting that EUA approval may come as soon as the end of this week.

Although the CDC is poised to send an expert team to China, it’s still awaiting favorable results from the international negotiations currently underway. “This is a horrible situation in China,” said Dr. Messonnier. “Our presence on the ground in China would be a help to China. ... Science should trump everything else; that’s what we’re hoping – that the scientific expertise of the global community can be brought to bear on the incredibly complicated, difficult situation that our colleagues in China are dealing with.”

[email protected]

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s approval of an expanded indication for a leadless pacemaker for patients “who may benefit from maintenance of atrioventricular synchrony” will make this technology potentially available to nearly half of the Americans who need a pacemaker, roughly triple the number of patients who have been candidates for a leadless pacemaker up to now.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

“This approval was huge. The complication rate with leadless pacemakers has been 63% less than the rate using pacemakers with transvenous leads,” said Larry A. Chinitz, MD, a cardiac electrophysiologist and a coinvestigator on some of the studies that led to the new indication. By expanding the types of patients suitable for leadless pacing “we’ll achieve AV [atrioventricular] synchrony in more patients with fewer complications,” said Dr. Chinitz, professor of medicine and director of the Cardiac Electrophysiology and Heart Rhythm Center at NYU Langone Health in New York.

Because the device is both leadless and requires no pocket owing to its small size and placement in a patient’s right ventricle, it has implications for potentially broadening the population that could benefit from the device, he said in an interview. “When we started with this pacemaker, it was limited to elderly patients with persistent atrial fibrillation who needed only ventricular pacing, a very small group,” just under 15% of the universe of patients who need pacemakers. The broadened indication, for patients with high-grade AV block who also have atrial function, makes it possible to think of using this safer and easier-to-place device in patients who need infrequent pacing, and in patients with multiple comorbidities that give them an increased complication risk, he said. The new indication means “you’re treating a much broader patient population, doing it more safely, and creating the foundation for expanding this technology.”

The Micra AV pacemaker uses the same basic design as the previously approved Micra Transcatheter Pacing System, which came onto the U.S. market in 2016 and provides single-chamber pacing. An accelerometer on the device allows it to detect atrial motion and thereby synchronize ventricular and atrial contractions, which led to the new indication. Although the Micra AV device looks similar to the original single-chamber model, it has an entirely new circuitry that prolongs battery life during dual-chamber pacing as well as new software that incorporates the accelerometer data, explained Robert Kowal, MD, a cardiac electrophysiologist, and vice president of medical affairs and chief medical officer of cardiac rhythm and heart failure at Medtronic in Minneapolis. The battery of the Micra AV is designed to last about 15 years, Dr. Chinitz noted.

Results from two studies that Dr. Chinitz helped run established the safety and efficacy of the device for dual-chamber pacing. The MARVEL (Micra Atrial Tracking Using a Ventricular Accelerometer) study included 64 patients who completed the study at 12 worldwide centers, which produced an average 80% AV synchrony in 33 patients with high-degree AV block (The other patients in the study had predominantly intrinsic AV conduction; Heart Rhythm. 2018 Sep;15[9]:1363-71). The MARVEL 2 study included 75 patients with either second- or third-degree AV block at 12 worldwide centers and showed that AV synchrony increased from an average of 27% without two-chamber pacing to 89% with the dual-chamber function turned on, and with 95% of patients achieving at least 70% AV synchrony (JACC Clin Electrophysiol. 2020 Jan;6[1]:94-106).

The 2016 indication for single-chamber pacing included patients with “high-grade” AV bloc with or without atrial fibrillation, typically patients for whom dual-chamber pacemaker was not a great option because of the risks for complication but with the downside of limited AV synchrony, a limitation now mitigated by the option of mechanical synchronization, Dr. Kowal said. The AV device remains intended for patients with high-grade AV node block, which means patients with second- or third-degree block, he added in an interview. The estimated prevalence of third-degree AV block among U.S. adults is about 0.02%, which translates into about 50,000 people; the estimated prevalence of second-degree AV block is much less, about 10% of the third-degree prevalence.

Despite the substantial cut in complications by a leadless and pocketless pacemaker, “some patients may still benefit from a traditional dual-chamber pacemaker,” specifically active patients who might sometimes get their heart rates up with exercise to levels of about 150 beats/min or higher, Dr. Kowal said. That’s because currently the programing algorithms used to synchronize the ventricle and atrium become less reliable at heart rates above 105 beats/min, he explained. However, the ability for mechanical synchronization to keep up at higher heart rates should improve as additional data are collected that can refine the algorithms. It’s also unusual for most patients who are pacemaker candidates to reach heart rates this high, he said.

The MARVEL and MARVEL 2 studies were sponsored by Medtronic, the company that markets Micra pacemakers. Dr. Chinitz has received fees and fellowship support from Medtronic, and has also received fees from Abbott, Biosense Webster, Biotronik, and Pfizer, and he has also received fellowship support from Biotronik and Boston Scientific. Dr. Kowal is a Medtronic employee.

[email protected]

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s approval of an expanded indication for a leadless pacemaker for patients “who may benefit from maintenance of atrioventricular synchrony” will make this technology potentially available to nearly half of the Americans who need a pacemaker, roughly triple the number of patients who have been candidates for a leadless pacemaker up to now.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

“This approval was huge. The complication rate with leadless pacemakers has been 63% less than the rate using pacemakers with transvenous leads,” said Larry A. Chinitz, MD, a cardiac electrophysiologist and a coinvestigator on some of the studies that led to the new indication. By expanding the types of patients suitable for leadless pacing “we’ll achieve AV [atrioventricular] synchrony in more patients with fewer complications,” said Dr. Chinitz, professor of medicine and director of the Cardiac Electrophysiology and Heart Rhythm Center at NYU Langone Health in New York.

Because the device is both leadless and requires no pocket owing to its small size and placement in a patient’s right ventricle, it has implications for potentially broadening the population that could benefit from the device, he said in an interview. “When we started with this pacemaker, it was limited to elderly patients with persistent atrial fibrillation who needed only ventricular pacing, a very small group,” just under 15% of the universe of patients who need pacemakers. The broadened indication, for patients with high-grade AV block who also have atrial function, makes it possible to think of using this safer and easier-to-place device in patients who need infrequent pacing, and in patients with multiple comorbidities that give them an increased complication risk, he said. The new indication means “you’re treating a much broader patient population, doing it more safely, and creating the foundation for expanding this technology.”

The Micra AV pacemaker uses the same basic design as the previously approved Micra Transcatheter Pacing System, which came onto the U.S. market in 2016 and provides single-chamber pacing. An accelerometer on the device allows it to detect atrial motion and thereby synchronize ventricular and atrial contractions, which led to the new indication. Although the Micra AV device looks similar to the original single-chamber model, it has an entirely new circuitry that prolongs battery life during dual-chamber pacing as well as new software that incorporates the accelerometer data, explained Robert Kowal, MD, a cardiac electrophysiologist, and vice president of medical affairs and chief medical officer of cardiac rhythm and heart failure at Medtronic in Minneapolis. The battery of the Micra AV is designed to last about 15 years, Dr. Chinitz noted.

Results from two studies that Dr. Chinitz helped run established the safety and efficacy of the device for dual-chamber pacing. The MARVEL (Micra Atrial Tracking Using a Ventricular Accelerometer) study included 64 patients who completed the study at 12 worldwide centers, which produced an average 80% AV synchrony in 33 patients with high-degree AV block (The other patients in the study had predominantly intrinsic AV conduction; Heart Rhythm. 2018 Sep;15[9]:1363-71). The MARVEL 2 study included 75 patients with either second- or third-degree AV block at 12 worldwide centers and showed that AV synchrony increased from an average of 27% without two-chamber pacing to 89% with the dual-chamber function turned on, and with 95% of patients achieving at least 70% AV synchrony (JACC Clin Electrophysiol. 2020 Jan;6[1]:94-106).

The 2016 indication for single-chamber pacing included patients with “high-grade” AV bloc with or without atrial fibrillation, typically patients for whom dual-chamber pacemaker was not a great option because of the risks for complication but with the downside of limited AV synchrony, a limitation now mitigated by the option of mechanical synchronization, Dr. Kowal said. The AV device remains intended for patients with high-grade AV node block, which means patients with second- or third-degree block, he added in an interview. The estimated prevalence of third-degree AV block among U.S. adults is about 0.02%, which translates into about 50,000 people; the estimated prevalence of second-degree AV block is much less, about 10% of the third-degree prevalence.

Despite the substantial cut in complications by a leadless and pocketless pacemaker, “some patients may still benefit from a traditional dual-chamber pacemaker,” specifically active patients who might sometimes get their heart rates up with exercise to levels of about 150 beats/min or higher, Dr. Kowal said. That’s because currently the programing algorithms used to synchronize the ventricle and atrium become less reliable at heart rates above 105 beats/min, he explained. However, the ability for mechanical synchronization to keep up at higher heart rates should improve as additional data are collected that can refine the algorithms. It’s also unusual for most patients who are pacemaker candidates to reach heart rates this high, he said.

The MARVEL and MARVEL 2 studies were sponsored by Medtronic, the company that markets Micra pacemakers. Dr. Chinitz has received fees and fellowship support from Medtronic, and has also received fees from Abbott, Biosense Webster, Biotronik, and Pfizer, and he has also received fellowship support from Biotronik and Boston Scientific. Dr. Kowal is a Medtronic employee.

[email protected]

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s approval of an expanded indication for a leadless pacemaker for patients “who may benefit from maintenance of atrioventricular synchrony” will make this technology potentially available to nearly half of the Americans who need a pacemaker, roughly triple the number of patients who have been candidates for a leadless pacemaker up to now.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

“This approval was huge. The complication rate with leadless pacemakers has been 63% less than the rate using pacemakers with transvenous leads,” said Larry A. Chinitz, MD, a cardiac electrophysiologist and a coinvestigator on some of the studies that led to the new indication. By expanding the types of patients suitable for leadless pacing “we’ll achieve AV [atrioventricular] synchrony in more patients with fewer complications,” said Dr. Chinitz, professor of medicine and director of the Cardiac Electrophysiology and Heart Rhythm Center at NYU Langone Health in New York.

Because the device is both leadless and requires no pocket owing to its small size and placement in a patient’s right ventricle, it has implications for potentially broadening the population that could benefit from the device, he said in an interview. “When we started with this pacemaker, it was limited to elderly patients with persistent atrial fibrillation who needed only ventricular pacing, a very small group,” just under 15% of the universe of patients who need pacemakers. The broadened indication, for patients with high-grade AV block who also have atrial function, makes it possible to think of using this safer and easier-to-place device in patients who need infrequent pacing, and in patients with multiple comorbidities that give them an increased complication risk, he said. The new indication means “you’re treating a much broader patient population, doing it more safely, and creating the foundation for expanding this technology.”

The Micra AV pacemaker uses the same basic design as the previously approved Micra Transcatheter Pacing System, which came onto the U.S. market in 2016 and provides single-chamber pacing. An accelerometer on the device allows it to detect atrial motion and thereby synchronize ventricular and atrial contractions, which led to the new indication. Although the Micra AV device looks similar to the original single-chamber model, it has an entirely new circuitry that prolongs battery life during dual-chamber pacing as well as new software that incorporates the accelerometer data, explained Robert Kowal, MD, a cardiac electrophysiologist, and vice president of medical affairs and chief medical officer of cardiac rhythm and heart failure at Medtronic in Minneapolis. The battery of the Micra AV is designed to last about 15 years, Dr. Chinitz noted.

Results from two studies that Dr. Chinitz helped run established the safety and efficacy of the device for dual-chamber pacing. The MARVEL (Micra Atrial Tracking Using a Ventricular Accelerometer) study included 64 patients who completed the study at 12 worldwide centers, which produced an average 80% AV synchrony in 33 patients with high-degree AV block (The other patients in the study had predominantly intrinsic AV conduction; Heart Rhythm. 2018 Sep;15[9]:1363-71). The MARVEL 2 study included 75 patients with either second- or third-degree AV block at 12 worldwide centers and showed that AV synchrony increased from an average of 27% without two-chamber pacing to 89% with the dual-chamber function turned on, and with 95% of patients achieving at least 70% AV synchrony (JACC Clin Electrophysiol. 2020 Jan;6[1]:94-106).

The 2016 indication for single-chamber pacing included patients with “high-grade” AV bloc with or without atrial fibrillation, typically patients for whom dual-chamber pacemaker was not a great option because of the risks for complication but with the downside of limited AV synchrony, a limitation now mitigated by the option of mechanical synchronization, Dr. Kowal said. The AV device remains intended for patients with high-grade AV node block, which means patients with second- or third-degree block, he added in an interview. The estimated prevalence of third-degree AV block among U.S. adults is about 0.02%, which translates into about 50,000 people; the estimated prevalence of second-degree AV block is much less, about 10% of the third-degree prevalence.

Despite the substantial cut in complications by a leadless and pocketless pacemaker, “some patients may still benefit from a traditional dual-chamber pacemaker,” specifically active patients who might sometimes get their heart rates up with exercise to levels of about 150 beats/min or higher, Dr. Kowal said. That’s because currently the programing algorithms used to synchronize the ventricle and atrium become less reliable at heart rates above 105 beats/min, he explained. However, the ability for mechanical synchronization to keep up at higher heart rates should improve as additional data are collected that can refine the algorithms. It’s also unusual for most patients who are pacemaker candidates to reach heart rates this high, he said.

The MARVEL and MARVEL 2 studies were sponsored by Medtronic, the company that markets Micra pacemakers. Dr. Chinitz has received fees and fellowship support from Medtronic, and has also received fees from Abbott, Biosense Webster, Biotronik, and Pfizer, and he has also received fellowship support from Biotronik and Boston Scientific. Dr. Kowal is a Medtronic employee.

[email protected]

SNOWMASS, COLO. – A repeated theme threading through much of one prominent interventional cardiologist’s personal list of the top five coronary artery disease (CAD) trials of the past year is that aspirin is very often more trouble than it’s worth.

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

“For some years I’ve been concerned that the only thing that aspirin does [in patients after percutaneous coronary intervention] is increase your risk of bleeding. It doesn’t really provide any additional ischemic protection,” Malcolm R. Bell, MBBS, said at the annual Cardiovascular Conference at Snowmass sponsored by the American College of Cardiology.

“I’ll remind you that, when we go back to the early stent days, the combination of clopidogrel and aspirin was never compared in a proper trial to clopidogrel alone. We’ve just inherited this DAPT [dual-antiplatelet therapy] philosophy,” observed Dr. Bell, professor of medicine and vice chair of the department of cardiovascular medicine at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn.

Here are the key takeaway messages from his five most important randomized trials in CAD during the last year.
 

AUGUSTUS

For years, cardiologists have grappled with how to best manage high-cardiovascular-risk patients with atrial fibrillation who seem like they might benefit from triple-antithrombotic therapy. AUGUSTUS supplied the answer: Don’t do it. Skip the aspirin and turn instead to a P2Y12 inhibitor plus a non–vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulant (NOAC), rather than warfarin.

“I would like you to think of triple therapy as a triple threat. That’s really what triple therapy is all about”– a three-pronged threat to patient safety, Dr. Bell commented.

In AUGUSTUS, 4,614 patients with atrial fibrillation and CAD with an acute coronary syndrome (ACS) and/or percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in 33 countries were placed on a P2Y12 inhibitor – most often clopidogrel – and randomized double blind to either apixaban (Eliquis) or warfarin, and further to aspirin or placebo, for 6 months of antithrombotic therapy. The strategy of a P2Y12 inhibitor and apixaban without aspirin was the clear winner, resulting in significantly less major bleeding, mortality, and hospitalizations than treatment with a P2Y12 inhibitor and warfarin, with or without aspirin. Most importantly, ischemic event rates didn’t differ between the apixaban and warfarin groups. And patients randomized to aspirin had rates of ischemic events and death or hospitalization similar to placebo-treated controls, meaning aspirin accomplished nothing (N Engl J Med. 2019 Apr 18;380[16]:1509-24).

Dr. Bell noted that a meta-analysis of AUGUSTUS and three smaller randomized trials including more than 10,000 AUGUSTUS-type patients with atrial fibrillation concluded that a treatment strategy utilizing a NOAC and a P2Y12 inhibitor resulted in less bleeding than warfarin plus DAPT, and at no cost in terms of excess ischemic events. Moreover, regimens without aspirin resulted in less intracranial and other major bleeding without any difference in major adverse cardiovascular events (JAMA Cardiol. 2019 Jun 19. doi: 10.1001/jamacardio.2019.1880).

A key message of these four trials is that a NOAC is preferable to warfarin, so much so that, in high-risk patients who are already on warfarin, it’s worth considering a switch to a NOAC.

“And we should really be avoiding DAPT,” Dr. Bell added.

How soon after an ACS and/or PCI should patients with atrial fibrillation stop taking aspirin?

“In AUGUSTUS, randomization occurred at a median of 6 days, so we know that half the patients stopped their aspirin by then. In our own practice, we’re just dropping the aspirin for the most part before the patient leaves the hospital. I think if you leave them with instructions to stop the aspirin in a week’s time or a month’s time it just leads to confusion. And we should also remember that half of the major bleeding after PCI or ACS happens in the first 30 days, so it doesn’t make a lot of sense to say that we should continue it for a month and then drop it,” according to the cardiologist.
 

SMART-CHOICE and STOPDAPT-2

These two large multicenter studies demonstrate that DAPT can safely be stopped early if needed. SMART-CHOICE from South Korea and STOPDAPT-2 from Japan each randomized roughly 3,000 patients undergoing PCI to 12 months of DAPT or to DAPT for only 3 months or 1 month, respectively, at which point the aspirin was dropped and patients in the abbreviated DAPT arm continued on P2Y12 inhibitor monotherapy, mostly clopidogrel, for the remainder of the 12 months. In the Japanese STOPDAPT-2 trial, 1 month of DAPT proved superior to 12 months of DAPT for the primary composite endpoint of cardiovascular death, MI, stroke, definite stent thrombosis, or major or minor bleeding at 12 months (JAMA. 2019 Jun 25;321[24]:2414-27). In the South Korean SMART-CHOICE trial, 3 months of DAPT was noninferior to 12 months for major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events, and superior in terms of bleeding risk (JAMA. 2019 Jun 25;321[24]:2428-37). Of note, roughly half of patients in the two trials were lower-risk individuals undergoing PCI for stable angina.

Dr. Bell noted that, while the TWILIGHT trial (Ticagrelor With or Without Aspirin in High-Risk Patients After PCI) didn’t make his top-five list, it certainly fits well with the two East Asian studies. The TWILIGHT investigators randomized more than 7,000 patients to 12 months of DAPT or discontinuation of aspirin after 3 months. The result: a lower incidence of clinically relevant bleeding with ticagrelor monotherapy, and with no increased risk of death, MI, or stroke, compared with 12 months of DAPT (N Engl J Med. 2019 Nov 21;381[21]:2032-42).

“Again, I would just question what the added value of aspirin is here,” Dr. Bell commented. “Many interventional cardiologists are absolutely terrified of their patients having stent thrombosis, but with second-generation drug-eluting stents – the stents we’re putting in day in and day out – the risk of stent thrombosis is less than 1%. And in these two trials it was less than 0.5%. There’s more risk of having major bleeding events than there is of ischemia, so I think the balance is in favor of preventing bleeding. We know that major bleeding predicts short- and long-term mortality.”
 

COLCOT

This double-blind trial randomized 4,745 patients within 30 days post MI to low-dose colchicine or placebo on top of excellent rates of background guideline-directed medical therapy. The goal was to see if this anti-inflammatory agent could reduce cardiovascular events independent of any lipid-lowering effect, as was earlier seen with canakinumab in the CANTOS trial. It did so to a statistically significant but relatively modest degree, with a 5.5% rate of the composite cardiovascular events endpoint in the colchicine group and 7.1% in placebo-treated controls (N Engl J Med. 2019 Dec 26;381[26]:2497-505). But Dr. Bell was unimpressed.

“All-cause mortality was identical at 1.8% in both groups. So colchicine is not saving lives. In fact, the only real differences were in stroke – but the study wasn’t powered to look at stroke – and in urgent hospitalization for angina leading to revascularization, which is a soft endpoint,” he observed.

Plus, 2.5% of patients were lost to follow-up, which Dr. Bell considers “a little concerning” in a trial conducted in the current era.

“In my opinion, the evidence that colchicine is effective is weak, and I don’t think really supports the drug’s routine use post MI. We already send these patients out on numerous medications. We have to think about cost/benefit, and if a patient asks me: ‘Is this going to prevent another heart attack or make me live longer?’ I think the unequivocal answer is no,” he said.

These days colchicine is no longer an inexpensive drug, either, at an average cost of $300-$400 per month, the cardiologist added.
 

COMPLETE

This study randomized more than 4,000 patients with ST-segment elevation MI (STEMI) and multivessel disease to primary PCI of the culprit lesion only or to staged complete revascularization via PCI of all angiographically significant nonculprit lesions. Complete revascularization proved to be the superior strategy, with a 26% reduction in the risk of the composite of cardiovascular death or MI at a median of 3 years (N Engl J Med. 2019 Oct 10;381[15]:1411-21).

The optimal timing of the staged procedure remains unclear, since the study didn’t specify a protocol.

“I’m still a bit uncomfortable doing multivessel PCI at 2 o’clock in the morning in the setting of STEMI in someone I’ve never met before. I don’t think there’s a rush to do anything then. Often in this middle-of-the-night stuff, we miss things or we overinterpret things. I think it’s better to let the patient cool down, get to know them,” according to Dr. Bell.
 

EXCEL

Publication of the 5-year outcomes of the largest-ever randomized trial of PCI versus coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) for left main coronary disease has led to furious controversy, with a few of the surgeons involved in the study opting to publically broadcast allegations of misbehavior on the part of the interventional cardiologist study leadership, charges that have been strongly denied.

The actual results are in line with findings reported from smaller randomized trials. At 5 years in EXCEL, there was no significant difference between the PCI and CABG groups in the primary composite endpoint of death, cerebrovascular accident, or MI (N Engl J Med. 2019 Nov 7;381[19]:1820-30). The all-cause mortality rate was 13% in the PCI arm and 9.9% with CABG, but this finding comes with a caveat.

“I’ll emphasize this trial was never powered to look at mortality. Neither were any of the other randomized trials. On the other hand, I don’t think you can necessarily ignore the finding of an absolute 3.1% difference,” Dr. Bell said.

PCI and CABG are both very good, mature therapies for left main disease, in his view. In the setting of more-complex coronary disease in younger patients, he often views the complete revascularization offered by surgery as the preferred option. On the other hand, in an 80-year-old with severe comorbidities, clearly PCI is attractive.

He considers the highly public nature of this interspecialty spat a regrettable black eye for the entire field of cardiovascular medicine. And he predicted that an ongoing outside neutral-party review of the study data and procedures will conclude, as he has, “there was no malfeasance at all in the trial.”

Dr. Bell reported having no financial conflicts regarding his presentation.

[email protected]

SNOWMASS, COLO. – A repeated theme threading through much of one prominent interventional cardiologist’s personal list of the top five coronary artery disease (CAD) trials of the past year is that aspirin is very often more trouble than it’s worth.

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

“For some years I’ve been concerned that the only thing that aspirin does [in patients after percutaneous coronary intervention] is increase your risk of bleeding. It doesn’t really provide any additional ischemic protection,” Malcolm R. Bell, MBBS, said at the annual Cardiovascular Conference at Snowmass sponsored by the American College of Cardiology.

“I’ll remind you that, when we go back to the early stent days, the combination of clopidogrel and aspirin was never compared in a proper trial to clopidogrel alone. We’ve just inherited this DAPT [dual-antiplatelet therapy] philosophy,” observed Dr. Bell, professor of medicine and vice chair of the department of cardiovascular medicine at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn.

Here are the key takeaway messages from his five most important randomized trials in CAD during the last year.
 

AUGUSTUS

For years, cardiologists have grappled with how to best manage high-cardiovascular-risk patients with atrial fibrillation who seem like they might benefit from triple-antithrombotic therapy. AUGUSTUS supplied the answer: Don’t do it. Skip the aspirin and turn instead to a P2Y12 inhibitor plus a non–vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulant (NOAC), rather than warfarin.

“I would like you to think of triple therapy as a triple threat. That’s really what triple therapy is all about”– a three-pronged threat to patient safety, Dr. Bell commented.

In AUGUSTUS, 4,614 patients with atrial fibrillation and CAD with an acute coronary syndrome (ACS) and/or percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in 33 countries were placed on a P2Y12 inhibitor – most often clopidogrel – and randomized double blind to either apixaban (Eliquis) or warfarin, and further to aspirin or placebo, for 6 months of antithrombotic therapy. The strategy of a P2Y12 inhibitor and apixaban without aspirin was the clear winner, resulting in significantly less major bleeding, mortality, and hospitalizations than treatment with a P2Y12 inhibitor and warfarin, with or without aspirin. Most importantly, ischemic event rates didn’t differ between the apixaban and warfarin groups. And patients randomized to aspirin had rates of ischemic events and death or hospitalization similar to placebo-treated controls, meaning aspirin accomplished nothing (N Engl J Med. 2019 Apr 18;380[16]:1509-24).

Dr. Bell noted that a meta-analysis of AUGUSTUS and three smaller randomized trials including more than 10,000 AUGUSTUS-type patients with atrial fibrillation concluded that a treatment strategy utilizing a NOAC and a P2Y12 inhibitor resulted in less bleeding than warfarin plus DAPT, and at no cost in terms of excess ischemic events. Moreover, regimens without aspirin resulted in less intracranial and other major bleeding without any difference in major adverse cardiovascular events (JAMA Cardiol. 2019 Jun 19. doi: 10.1001/jamacardio.2019.1880).

A key message of these four trials is that a NOAC is preferable to warfarin, so much so that, in high-risk patients who are already on warfarin, it’s worth considering a switch to a NOAC.

“And we should really be avoiding DAPT,” Dr. Bell added.

How soon after an ACS and/or PCI should patients with atrial fibrillation stop taking aspirin?

“In AUGUSTUS, randomization occurred at a median of 6 days, so we know that half the patients stopped their aspirin by then. In our own practice, we’re just dropping the aspirin for the most part before the patient leaves the hospital. I think if you leave them with instructions to stop the aspirin in a week’s time or a month’s time it just leads to confusion. And we should also remember that half of the major bleeding after PCI or ACS happens in the first 30 days, so it doesn’t make a lot of sense to say that we should continue it for a month and then drop it,” according to the cardiologist.
 

SMART-CHOICE and STOPDAPT-2

These two large multicenter studies demonstrate that DAPT can safely be stopped early if needed. SMART-CHOICE from South Korea and STOPDAPT-2 from Japan each randomized roughly 3,000 patients undergoing PCI to 12 months of DAPT or to DAPT for only 3 months or 1 month, respectively, at which point the aspirin was dropped and patients in the abbreviated DAPT arm continued on P2Y12 inhibitor monotherapy, mostly clopidogrel, for the remainder of the 12 months. In the Japanese STOPDAPT-2 trial, 1 month of DAPT proved superior to 12 months of DAPT for the primary composite endpoint of cardiovascular death, MI, stroke, definite stent thrombosis, or major or minor bleeding at 12 months (JAMA. 2019 Jun 25;321[24]:2414-27). In the South Korean SMART-CHOICE trial, 3 months of DAPT was noninferior to 12 months for major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events, and superior in terms of bleeding risk (JAMA. 2019 Jun 25;321[24]:2428-37). Of note, roughly half of patients in the two trials were lower-risk individuals undergoing PCI for stable angina.

Dr. Bell noted that, while the TWILIGHT trial (Ticagrelor With or Without Aspirin in High-Risk Patients After PCI) didn’t make his top-five list, it certainly fits well with the two East Asian studies. The TWILIGHT investigators randomized more than 7,000 patients to 12 months of DAPT or discontinuation of aspirin after 3 months. The result: a lower incidence of clinically relevant bleeding with ticagrelor monotherapy, and with no increased risk of death, MI, or stroke, compared with 12 months of DAPT (N Engl J Med. 2019 Nov 21;381[21]:2032-42).

“Again, I would just question what the added value of aspirin is here,” Dr. Bell commented. “Many interventional cardiologists are absolutely terrified of their patients having stent thrombosis, but with second-generation drug-eluting stents – the stents we’re putting in day in and day out – the risk of stent thrombosis is less than 1%. And in these two trials it was less than 0.5%. There’s more risk of having major bleeding events than there is of ischemia, so I think the balance is in favor of preventing bleeding. We know that major bleeding predicts short- and long-term mortality.”
 

COLCOT

This double-blind trial randomized 4,745 patients within 30 days post MI to low-dose colchicine or placebo on top of excellent rates of background guideline-directed medical therapy. The goal was to see if this anti-inflammatory agent could reduce cardiovascular events independent of any lipid-lowering effect, as was earlier seen with canakinumab in the CANTOS trial. It did so to a statistically significant but relatively modest degree, with a 5.5% rate of the composite cardiovascular events endpoint in the colchicine group and 7.1% in placebo-treated controls (N Engl J Med. 2019 Dec 26;381[26]:2497-505). But Dr. Bell was unimpressed.

“All-cause mortality was identical at 1.8% in both groups. So colchicine is not saving lives. In fact, the only real differences were in stroke – but the study wasn’t powered to look at stroke – and in urgent hospitalization for angina leading to revascularization, which is a soft endpoint,” he observed.

Plus, 2.5% of patients were lost to follow-up, which Dr. Bell considers “a little concerning” in a trial conducted in the current era.

“In my opinion, the evidence that colchicine is effective is weak, and I don’t think really supports the drug’s routine use post MI. We already send these patients out on numerous medications. We have to think about cost/benefit, and if a patient asks me: ‘Is this going to prevent another heart attack or make me live longer?’ I think the unequivocal answer is no,” he said.

These days colchicine is no longer an inexpensive drug, either, at an average cost of $300-$400 per month, the cardiologist added.
 

COMPLETE

This study randomized more than 4,000 patients with ST-segment elevation MI (STEMI) and multivessel disease to primary PCI of the culprit lesion only or to staged complete revascularization via PCI of all angiographically significant nonculprit lesions. Complete revascularization proved to be the superior strategy, with a 26% reduction in the risk of the composite of cardiovascular death or MI at a median of 3 years (N Engl J Med. 2019 Oct 10;381[15]:1411-21).

The optimal timing of the staged procedure remains unclear, since the study didn’t specify a protocol.

“I’m still a bit uncomfortable doing multivessel PCI at 2 o’clock in the morning in the setting of STEMI in someone I’ve never met before. I don’t think there’s a rush to do anything then. Often in this middle-of-the-night stuff, we miss things or we overinterpret things. I think it’s better to let the patient cool down, get to know them,” according to Dr. Bell.
 

EXCEL

Publication of the 5-year outcomes of the largest-ever randomized trial of PCI versus coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) for left main coronary disease has led to furious controversy, with a few of the surgeons involved in the study opting to publically broadcast allegations of misbehavior on the part of the interventional cardiologist study leadership, charges that have been strongly denied.

The actual results are in line with findings reported from smaller randomized trials. At 5 years in EXCEL, there was no significant difference between the PCI and CABG groups in the primary composite endpoint of death, cerebrovascular accident, or MI (N Engl J Med. 2019 Nov 7;381[19]:1820-30). The all-cause mortality rate was 13% in the PCI arm and 9.9% with CABG, but this finding comes with a caveat.

“I’ll emphasize this trial was never powered to look at mortality. Neither were any of the other randomized trials. On the other hand, I don’t think you can necessarily ignore the finding of an absolute 3.1% difference,” Dr. Bell said.

PCI and CABG are both very good, mature therapies for left main disease, in his view. In the setting of more-complex coronary disease in younger patients, he often views the complete revascularization offered by surgery as the preferred option. On the other hand, in an 80-year-old with severe comorbidities, clearly PCI is attractive.

He considers the highly public nature of this interspecialty spat a regrettable black eye for the entire field of cardiovascular medicine. And he predicted that an ongoing outside neutral-party review of the study data and procedures will conclude, as he has, “there was no malfeasance at all in the trial.”

Dr. Bell reported having no financial conflicts regarding his presentation.

[email protected]

SNOWMASS, COLO. – A repeated theme threading through much of one prominent interventional cardiologist’s personal list of the top five coronary artery disease (CAD) trials of the past year is that aspirin is very often more trouble than it’s worth.

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

“For some years I’ve been concerned that the only thing that aspirin does [in patients after percutaneous coronary intervention] is increase your risk of bleeding. It doesn’t really provide any additional ischemic protection,” Malcolm R. Bell, MBBS, said at the annual Cardiovascular Conference at Snowmass sponsored by the American College of Cardiology.

“I’ll remind you that, when we go back to the early stent days, the combination of clopidogrel and aspirin was never compared in a proper trial to clopidogrel alone. We’ve just inherited this DAPT [dual-antiplatelet therapy] philosophy,” observed Dr. Bell, professor of medicine and vice chair of the department of cardiovascular medicine at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn.

Here are the key takeaway messages from his five most important randomized trials in CAD during the last year.
 

AUGUSTUS

For years, cardiologists have grappled with how to best manage high-cardiovascular-risk patients with atrial fibrillation who seem like they might benefit from triple-antithrombotic therapy. AUGUSTUS supplied the answer: Don’t do it. Skip the aspirin and turn instead to a P2Y12 inhibitor plus a non–vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulant (NOAC), rather than warfarin.

“I would like you to think of triple therapy as a triple threat. That’s really what triple therapy is all about”– a three-pronged threat to patient safety, Dr. Bell commented.

In AUGUSTUS, 4,614 patients with atrial fibrillation and CAD with an acute coronary syndrome (ACS) and/or percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in 33 countries were placed on a P2Y12 inhibitor – most often clopidogrel – and randomized double blind to either apixaban (Eliquis) or warfarin, and further to aspirin or placebo, for 6 months of antithrombotic therapy. The strategy of a P2Y12 inhibitor and apixaban without aspirin was the clear winner, resulting in significantly less major bleeding, mortality, and hospitalizations than treatment with a P2Y12 inhibitor and warfarin, with or without aspirin. Most importantly, ischemic event rates didn’t differ between the apixaban and warfarin groups. And patients randomized to aspirin had rates of ischemic events and death or hospitalization similar to placebo-treated controls, meaning aspirin accomplished nothing (N Engl J Med. 2019 Apr 18;380[16]:1509-24).

Dr. Bell noted that a meta-analysis of AUGUSTUS and three smaller randomized trials including more than 10,000 AUGUSTUS-type patients with atrial fibrillation concluded that a treatment strategy utilizing a NOAC and a P2Y12 inhibitor resulted in less bleeding than warfarin plus DAPT, and at no cost in terms of excess ischemic events. Moreover, regimens without aspirin resulted in less intracranial and other major bleeding without any difference in major adverse cardiovascular events (JAMA Cardiol. 2019 Jun 19. doi: 10.1001/jamacardio.2019.1880).

A key message of these four trials is that a NOAC is preferable to warfarin, so much so that, in high-risk patients who are already on warfarin, it’s worth considering a switch to a NOAC.

“And we should really be avoiding DAPT,” Dr. Bell added.

How soon after an ACS and/or PCI should patients with atrial fibrillation stop taking aspirin?

“In AUGUSTUS, randomization occurred at a median of 6 days, so we know that half the patients stopped their aspirin by then. In our own practice, we’re just dropping the aspirin for the most part before the patient leaves the hospital. I think if you leave them with instructions to stop the aspirin in a week’s time or a month’s time it just leads to confusion. And we should also remember that half of the major bleeding after PCI or ACS happens in the first 30 days, so it doesn’t make a lot of sense to say that we should continue it for a month and then drop it,” according to the cardiologist.
 

SMART-CHOICE and STOPDAPT-2

These two large multicenter studies demonstrate that DAPT can safely be stopped early if needed. SMART-CHOICE from South Korea and STOPDAPT-2 from Japan each randomized roughly 3,000 patients undergoing PCI to 12 months of DAPT or to DAPT for only 3 months or 1 month, respectively, at which point the aspirin was dropped and patients in the abbreviated DAPT arm continued on P2Y12 inhibitor monotherapy, mostly clopidogrel, for the remainder of the 12 months. In the Japanese STOPDAPT-2 trial, 1 month of DAPT proved superior to 12 months of DAPT for the primary composite endpoint of cardiovascular death, MI, stroke, definite stent thrombosis, or major or minor bleeding at 12 months (JAMA. 2019 Jun 25;321[24]:2414-27). In the South Korean SMART-CHOICE trial, 3 months of DAPT was noninferior to 12 months for major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events, and superior in terms of bleeding risk (JAMA. 2019 Jun 25;321[24]:2428-37). Of note, roughly half of patients in the two trials were lower-risk individuals undergoing PCI for stable angina.

Dr. Bell noted that, while the TWILIGHT trial (Ticagrelor With or Without Aspirin in High-Risk Patients After PCI) didn’t make his top-five list, it certainly fits well with the two East Asian studies. The TWILIGHT investigators randomized more than 7,000 patients to 12 months of DAPT or discontinuation of aspirin after 3 months. The result: a lower incidence of clinically relevant bleeding with ticagrelor monotherapy, and with no increased risk of death, MI, or stroke, compared with 12 months of DAPT (N Engl J Med. 2019 Nov 21;381[21]:2032-42).

“Again, I would just question what the added value of aspirin is here,” Dr. Bell commented. “Many interventional cardiologists are absolutely terrified of their patients having stent thrombosis, but with second-generation drug-eluting stents – the stents we’re putting in day in and day out – the risk of stent thrombosis is less than 1%. And in these two trials it was less than 0.5%. There’s more risk of having major bleeding events than there is of ischemia, so I think the balance is in favor of preventing bleeding. We know that major bleeding predicts short- and long-term mortality.”
 

COLCOT

This double-blind trial randomized 4,745 patients within 30 days post MI to low-dose colchicine or placebo on top of excellent rates of background guideline-directed medical therapy. The goal was to see if this anti-inflammatory agent could reduce cardiovascular events independent of any lipid-lowering effect, as was earlier seen with canakinumab in the CANTOS trial. It did so to a statistically significant but relatively modest degree, with a 5.5% rate of the composite cardiovascular events endpoint in the colchicine group and 7.1% in placebo-treated controls (N Engl J Med. 2019 Dec 26;381[26]:2497-505). But Dr. Bell was unimpressed.

“All-cause mortality was identical at 1.8% in both groups. So colchicine is not saving lives. In fact, the only real differences were in stroke – but the study wasn’t powered to look at stroke – and in urgent hospitalization for angina leading to revascularization, which is a soft endpoint,” he observed.

Plus, 2.5% of patients were lost to follow-up, which Dr. Bell considers “a little concerning” in a trial conducted in the current era.

“In my opinion, the evidence that colchicine is effective is weak, and I don’t think really supports the drug’s routine use post MI. We already send these patients out on numerous medications. We have to think about cost/benefit, and if a patient asks me: ‘Is this going to prevent another heart attack or make me live longer?’ I think the unequivocal answer is no,” he said.

These days colchicine is no longer an inexpensive drug, either, at an average cost of $300-$400 per month, the cardiologist added.
 

COMPLETE

This study randomized more than 4,000 patients with ST-segment elevation MI (STEMI) and multivessel disease to primary PCI of the culprit lesion only or to staged complete revascularization via PCI of all angiographically significant nonculprit lesions. Complete revascularization proved to be the superior strategy, with a 26% reduction in the risk of the composite of cardiovascular death or MI at a median of 3 years (N Engl J Med. 2019 Oct 10;381[15]:1411-21).

The optimal timing of the staged procedure remains unclear, since the study didn’t specify a protocol.

“I’m still a bit uncomfortable doing multivessel PCI at 2 o’clock in the morning in the setting of STEMI in someone I’ve never met before. I don’t think there’s a rush to do anything then. Often in this middle-of-the-night stuff, we miss things or we overinterpret things. I think it’s better to let the patient cool down, get to know them,” according to Dr. Bell.
 

EXCEL

Publication of the 5-year outcomes of the largest-ever randomized trial of PCI versus coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) for left main coronary disease has led to furious controversy, with a few of the surgeons involved in the study opting to publically broadcast allegations of misbehavior on the part of the interventional cardiologist study leadership, charges that have been strongly denied.

The actual results are in line with findings reported from smaller randomized trials. At 5 years in EXCEL, there was no significant difference between the PCI and CABG groups in the primary composite endpoint of death, cerebrovascular accident, or MI (N Engl J Med. 2019 Nov 7;381[19]:1820-30). The all-cause mortality rate was 13% in the PCI arm and 9.9% with CABG, but this finding comes with a caveat.

“I’ll emphasize this trial was never powered to look at mortality. Neither were any of the other randomized trials. On the other hand, I don’t think you can necessarily ignore the finding of an absolute 3.1% difference,” Dr. Bell said.

PCI and CABG are both very good, mature therapies for left main disease, in his view. In the setting of more-complex coronary disease in younger patients, he often views the complete revascularization offered by surgery as the preferred option. On the other hand, in an 80-year-old with severe comorbidities, clearly PCI is attractive.

He considers the highly public nature of this interspecialty spat a regrettable black eye for the entire field of cardiovascular medicine. And he predicted that an ongoing outside neutral-party review of the study data and procedures will conclude, as he has, “there was no malfeasance at all in the trial.”

Dr. Bell reported having no financial conflicts regarding his presentation.

[email protected]