MDedge Emergency Medicine

The risk for serious liver injury with obeticholic acid (Ocaliva, Intercept Pharmaceuticals) has prompted the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to restrict its use in patients with primary biliary cholangitis (PBC) and advanced cirrhosis.  

The agency has added a new contraindication to the obeticholic acid prescribing information and patient medication guide stating that the drug should not be used in patients with PBC and advanced cirrhosis. 

The boxed warning on the label has also been revised to include this information.

For patients with PBC who do not have advanced cirrhosis, the FDA believes the benefits of Ocaliva outweigh the risks, based on the original clinical trials.

Five years ago, the FDA granted accelerated approval to obeticholic acid in combination with ursodeoxycholic acid (UDCA) in adults who fail to respond adequately to UDCA, or as a monotherapy in adults who cannot tolerate UDCA.  

Since then, the FDA has identified 25 cases of serious liver injury leading to liver decompensation or liver failure in patients with PBC and cirrhosis who were taking obeticholic acid at recommended doses.

According to the FDA, 18 of the cases happened in patients with PBC and compensated cirrhosis who experienced liver injury that led to decompensation. Ten of these patients had evidence or suspicion of portal hypertension at baseline; in the other eight patients, it was unclear whether portal hypertension was present.

PBC was not expected to progress rapidly in these patients, yet they experienced accelerated clinical deterioration within months of starting obeticholic acid, the FDA said.

The median time to liver decompensation after initiating treatment was 4 months (range, 2 weeks to 10 months). Four patients with PBC and compensated cirrhosis needed a liver transplant within 1.3 years after starting obeticholic acid, and one patient died from liver failure.

The other seven cases of serious liver injury occurred in patients with PBC and decompensated cirrhosis, two of whom died. 

Although there was a temporal relationship between starting obeticholic acid and liver injury, it is difficult to distinguish a drug-induced effect from disease progression in the patients with advanced baseline liver disease, the FDA cautioned.

The median time to a new decompensation event after starting the drug was 2.5 months (range, 10 days to 8 months).

Before starting obeticholic acid, clinicians should determine whether a patient with PBC has advanced cirrhosis as the drug is now contraindicated in these patients, the FDA said.

During obeticholic acid treatment, patients should be routinely monitored for progression of PBC with laboratory and clinical assessments to determine whether the drug needs to be discontinued.

The medication should be permanently discontinued in patients with cirrhosis who progress to advanced cirrhosis.

Patients should also be monitored for clinically significant liver-related adverse reactions that may manifest as development of acute-on-chronic liver disease with nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, jaundice, scleral icterus, and/or dark urine.

Obeticholic acid should be stopped permanently in any patient who develops these symptoms, the FDA advised.

Health care professionals are encouraged to report adverse events or side effects related to the use of obeticholic acid to MedWatch, FDA’s adverse event reporting site.

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

The risk for serious liver injury with obeticholic acid (Ocaliva, Intercept Pharmaceuticals) has prompted the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to restrict its use in patients with primary biliary cholangitis (PBC) and advanced cirrhosis.  

The agency has added a new contraindication to the obeticholic acid prescribing information and patient medication guide stating that the drug should not be used in patients with PBC and advanced cirrhosis. 

The boxed warning on the label has also been revised to include this information.

For patients with PBC who do not have advanced cirrhosis, the FDA believes the benefits of Ocaliva outweigh the risks, based on the original clinical trials.

Five years ago, the FDA granted accelerated approval to obeticholic acid in combination with ursodeoxycholic acid (UDCA) in adults who fail to respond adequately to UDCA, or as a monotherapy in adults who cannot tolerate UDCA.  

Since then, the FDA has identified 25 cases of serious liver injury leading to liver decompensation or liver failure in patients with PBC and cirrhosis who were taking obeticholic acid at recommended doses.

According to the FDA, 18 of the cases happened in patients with PBC and compensated cirrhosis who experienced liver injury that led to decompensation. Ten of these patients had evidence or suspicion of portal hypertension at baseline; in the other eight patients, it was unclear whether portal hypertension was present.

PBC was not expected to progress rapidly in these patients, yet they experienced accelerated clinical deterioration within months of starting obeticholic acid, the FDA said.

The median time to liver decompensation after initiating treatment was 4 months (range, 2 weeks to 10 months). Four patients with PBC and compensated cirrhosis needed a liver transplant within 1.3 years after starting obeticholic acid, and one patient died from liver failure.

The other seven cases of serious liver injury occurred in patients with PBC and decompensated cirrhosis, two of whom died. 

Although there was a temporal relationship between starting obeticholic acid and liver injury, it is difficult to distinguish a drug-induced effect from disease progression in the patients with advanced baseline liver disease, the FDA cautioned.

The median time to a new decompensation event after starting the drug was 2.5 months (range, 10 days to 8 months).

Before starting obeticholic acid, clinicians should determine whether a patient with PBC has advanced cirrhosis as the drug is now contraindicated in these patients, the FDA said.

During obeticholic acid treatment, patients should be routinely monitored for progression of PBC with laboratory and clinical assessments to determine whether the drug needs to be discontinued.

The medication should be permanently discontinued in patients with cirrhosis who progress to advanced cirrhosis.

Patients should also be monitored for clinically significant liver-related adverse reactions that may manifest as development of acute-on-chronic liver disease with nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, jaundice, scleral icterus, and/or dark urine.

Obeticholic acid should be stopped permanently in any patient who develops these symptoms, the FDA advised.

Health care professionals are encouraged to report adverse events or side effects related to the use of obeticholic acid to MedWatch, FDA’s adverse event reporting site.

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

The risk for serious liver injury with obeticholic acid (Ocaliva, Intercept Pharmaceuticals) has prompted the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to restrict its use in patients with primary biliary cholangitis (PBC) and advanced cirrhosis.  

The agency has added a new contraindication to the obeticholic acid prescribing information and patient medication guide stating that the drug should not be used in patients with PBC and advanced cirrhosis. 

The boxed warning on the label has also been revised to include this information.

For patients with PBC who do not have advanced cirrhosis, the FDA believes the benefits of Ocaliva outweigh the risks, based on the original clinical trials.

Five years ago, the FDA granted accelerated approval to obeticholic acid in combination with ursodeoxycholic acid (UDCA) in adults who fail to respond adequately to UDCA, or as a monotherapy in adults who cannot tolerate UDCA.  

Since then, the FDA has identified 25 cases of serious liver injury leading to liver decompensation or liver failure in patients with PBC and cirrhosis who were taking obeticholic acid at recommended doses.

According to the FDA, 18 of the cases happened in patients with PBC and compensated cirrhosis who experienced liver injury that led to decompensation. Ten of these patients had evidence or suspicion of portal hypertension at baseline; in the other eight patients, it was unclear whether portal hypertension was present.

PBC was not expected to progress rapidly in these patients, yet they experienced accelerated clinical deterioration within months of starting obeticholic acid, the FDA said.

The median time to liver decompensation after initiating treatment was 4 months (range, 2 weeks to 10 months). Four patients with PBC and compensated cirrhosis needed a liver transplant within 1.3 years after starting obeticholic acid, and one patient died from liver failure.

The other seven cases of serious liver injury occurred in patients with PBC and decompensated cirrhosis, two of whom died. 

Although there was a temporal relationship between starting obeticholic acid and liver injury, it is difficult to distinguish a drug-induced effect from disease progression in the patients with advanced baseline liver disease, the FDA cautioned.

The median time to a new decompensation event after starting the drug was 2.5 months (range, 10 days to 8 months).

Before starting obeticholic acid, clinicians should determine whether a patient with PBC has advanced cirrhosis as the drug is now contraindicated in these patients, the FDA said.

During obeticholic acid treatment, patients should be routinely monitored for progression of PBC with laboratory and clinical assessments to determine whether the drug needs to be discontinued.

The medication should be permanently discontinued in patients with cirrhosis who progress to advanced cirrhosis.

Patients should also be monitored for clinically significant liver-related adverse reactions that may manifest as development of acute-on-chronic liver disease with nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, jaundice, scleral icterus, and/or dark urine.

Obeticholic acid should be stopped permanently in any patient who develops these symptoms, the FDA advised.

Health care professionals are encouraged to report adverse events or side effects related to the use of obeticholic acid to MedWatch, FDA’s adverse event reporting site.

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

Look ma, I’m writing with no hands

Imagine being able to type every thought you had without using your hands, the words just magically appearing on the screen as fast as you can think of writing them down. Well, with the help of a new brain-computer interface (BCI), you can.

In a recent paper published in Nature, a team of researchers described how they developed a whole new way of communicating that blows previous BCIs, which used a method of pointing and clicking on letters, out of the water as far as accuracy and speed are concerned.

Developed for individuals with medical conditions or other disabilities that prevent them from communicating verbally or manually, the technology involves placing tiny sensors on the brain in the areas that control hand and arm movements. All the individual has to do is think of the process of writing and the system does the rest.

©Thinkstock

Chicken noodle salmonella

Chickens and ducks sure are cute, especially babies, but humans should be extra careful around these animals for risk of salmonella. This isn’t a new thing to loyal readers of Livin’ on the MDedge.

As more people keep such creatures at home – Emily Shoop of Penn State University told the N.Y. Times that raising poultry was “the fastest-growing animal-related hobby in the United States” – the ducks and chickens are being treated more like house pets, which is sweet but not safe.

In the latest outbreak, more than 160 people, mostly children under 5 years old, have fallen ill from salmonella poisoning and more than 30 have been hospitalized across 43 states, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention suspects the numbers could be higher because many did not get tested and recovered on their own.

JasonJiron/Thinkstock

This kidney research rocks!

When kids pick teams on the playground, someone is going to get their feelings hurt by being chosen last. There’s no way around it. Someone has to be last.

It’s the same way with research teams. When scientists are trying to cure diseases or pioneer new surgical techniques, they get a team together. And who always gets picked last? That’s right, the geologist, because who needs a geologist when you’re studying brain-computer interfaces?

Turns out, though, that there was a research team that needed a geologist: The one studying kidney stones.

Illinois geology professor Bruce Fouke explains: “The process of kidney stone formation is part of the natural process of the stone formation seen throughout nature. We are bringing together geology, biology, and medicine to map the entire process of kidney stone formation, step by step.”

Mayandi Sivaguru

Gene therapy: What is it good for? Absolutely nothing!

Gene therapy has the potential to permanently cure all sorts of terrible diseases, and one would assume that this would be something we all could agree on. Yes, no more cancer or diabetes or anything like that, no sane person could possibly be against this, right?

Oh, you poor naive fool.

To be fair, the report written by Goldman Sachs does lay out many potential applications for gene therapy, and all the markets it can expand into. But then the writers ask the question that they’re not supposed to say out loud: Is curing patients a sustainable business model?

Pogonic/Getty Images

Look ma, I’m writing with no hands

Imagine being able to type every thought you had without using your hands, the words just magically appearing on the screen as fast as you can think of writing them down. Well, with the help of a new brain-computer interface (BCI), you can.

In a recent paper published in Nature, a team of researchers described how they developed a whole new way of communicating that blows previous BCIs, which used a method of pointing and clicking on letters, out of the water as far as accuracy and speed are concerned.

Developed for individuals with medical conditions or other disabilities that prevent them from communicating verbally or manually, the technology involves placing tiny sensors on the brain in the areas that control hand and arm movements. All the individual has to do is think of the process of writing and the system does the rest.

©Thinkstock

Chicken noodle salmonella

Chickens and ducks sure are cute, especially babies, but humans should be extra careful around these animals for risk of salmonella. This isn’t a new thing to loyal readers of Livin’ on the MDedge.

As more people keep such creatures at home – Emily Shoop of Penn State University told the N.Y. Times that raising poultry was “the fastest-growing animal-related hobby in the United States” – the ducks and chickens are being treated more like house pets, which is sweet but not safe.

In the latest outbreak, more than 160 people, mostly children under 5 years old, have fallen ill from salmonella poisoning and more than 30 have been hospitalized across 43 states, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention suspects the numbers could be higher because many did not get tested and recovered on their own.

JasonJiron/Thinkstock

This kidney research rocks!

When kids pick teams on the playground, someone is going to get their feelings hurt by being chosen last. There’s no way around it. Someone has to be last.

It’s the same way with research teams. When scientists are trying to cure diseases or pioneer new surgical techniques, they get a team together. And who always gets picked last? That’s right, the geologist, because who needs a geologist when you’re studying brain-computer interfaces?

Turns out, though, that there was a research team that needed a geologist: The one studying kidney stones.

Illinois geology professor Bruce Fouke explains: “The process of kidney stone formation is part of the natural process of the stone formation seen throughout nature. We are bringing together geology, biology, and medicine to map the entire process of kidney stone formation, step by step.”

Mayandi Sivaguru

Gene therapy: What is it good for? Absolutely nothing!

Gene therapy has the potential to permanently cure all sorts of terrible diseases, and one would assume that this would be something we all could agree on. Yes, no more cancer or diabetes or anything like that, no sane person could possibly be against this, right?

Oh, you poor naive fool.

To be fair, the report written by Goldman Sachs does lay out many potential applications for gene therapy, and all the markets it can expand into. But then the writers ask the question that they’re not supposed to say out loud: Is curing patients a sustainable business model?

Pogonic/Getty Images

Look ma, I’m writing with no hands

Imagine being able to type every thought you had without using your hands, the words just magically appearing on the screen as fast as you can think of writing them down. Well, with the help of a new brain-computer interface (BCI), you can.

In a recent paper published in Nature, a team of researchers described how they developed a whole new way of communicating that blows previous BCIs, which used a method of pointing and clicking on letters, out of the water as far as accuracy and speed are concerned.

Developed for individuals with medical conditions or other disabilities that prevent them from communicating verbally or manually, the technology involves placing tiny sensors on the brain in the areas that control hand and arm movements. All the individual has to do is think of the process of writing and the system does the rest.

©Thinkstock

Chicken noodle salmonella

Chickens and ducks sure are cute, especially babies, but humans should be extra careful around these animals for risk of salmonella. This isn’t a new thing to loyal readers of Livin’ on the MDedge.

As more people keep such creatures at home – Emily Shoop of Penn State University told the N.Y. Times that raising poultry was “the fastest-growing animal-related hobby in the United States” – the ducks and chickens are being treated more like house pets, which is sweet but not safe.

In the latest outbreak, more than 160 people, mostly children under 5 years old, have fallen ill from salmonella poisoning and more than 30 have been hospitalized across 43 states, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention suspects the numbers could be higher because many did not get tested and recovered on their own.

JasonJiron/Thinkstock

This kidney research rocks!

When kids pick teams on the playground, someone is going to get their feelings hurt by being chosen last. There’s no way around it. Someone has to be last.

It’s the same way with research teams. When scientists are trying to cure diseases or pioneer new surgical techniques, they get a team together. And who always gets picked last? That’s right, the geologist, because who needs a geologist when you’re studying brain-computer interfaces?

Turns out, though, that there was a research team that needed a geologist: The one studying kidney stones.

Illinois geology professor Bruce Fouke explains: “The process of kidney stone formation is part of the natural process of the stone formation seen throughout nature. We are bringing together geology, biology, and medicine to map the entire process of kidney stone formation, step by step.”

Mayandi Sivaguru

Gene therapy: What is it good for? Absolutely nothing!

Gene therapy has the potential to permanently cure all sorts of terrible diseases, and one would assume that this would be something we all could agree on. Yes, no more cancer or diabetes or anything like that, no sane person could possibly be against this, right?

Oh, you poor naive fool.

To be fair, the report written by Goldman Sachs does lay out many potential applications for gene therapy, and all the markets it can expand into. But then the writers ask the question that they’re not supposed to say out loud: Is curing patients a sustainable business model?

Pogonic/Getty Images

After patients with peripheral artery disease undergo lower-extremity revascularization, they are at high risk for major adverse limb events, and new findings from a prespecified analysis of data from the VOYAGER-PAD trial show that treatment with the direct-acting oral anticoagulant rivaroxaban along with aspirin significantly cut the rate of total major adverse limb events in these patients.

courtesy American College of Cardiology

These findings confirm the drop in first major adverse limb events linked to rivaroxaban treatment that was VOYAGER-PAD’s primary result, reported just over a year ago.

The new total-event analysis also provides important insight into the huge magnitude of total major adverse limb events that patients with PAD can develop following lower-extremity revascularization (LER).

The 6,564 patients who all received aspirin and were randomized to either rivaroxaban (Xarelto) or placebo had 4,714 total events during a median follow-up of 2.5 years following their revascularization procedure. This included 1,092 first primary events (a composite of acute limb ischemia, major amputation for vascular causes, MI, ischemic stroke, or cardiovascular death), 522 primary events that occurred as second or subsequent events among patients after a first primary event (a nearly 50% increase from first events only), and 3,100 additional vascular events that did not fit into the primary-event category, most often a peripheral revascularization procedure, Rupert M. Bauersachs, MD, said at the annual scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology.

“We were all astonished by this high event rate,” Dr. Bauersachs said during his report.

The total-event analysis that he reported showed that treatment with rivaroxaban resulted in a significant 14% relative reduction, compared with placebo in the incidence of total primary events, which closely tracks the significant 15% relative reduction in first primary events reported from the VOYAGER-PAD trial in 2020. Treatment with rivaroxaban also significantly linked with a 14% cut in total vascular events, compared with placebo, including the many events not included in the primary endpoint, said Dr. Bauersachs, who until his retirement in May 2021 was director of the Clinic for Vascular Medicine at the Darmstadt (Germany) Clinic. Concurrently with the report, the results appeared online.

“If one focuses only on first events, you miss the totality of disease burden. There is even greater benefit by reducing total events,” Dr. Bauersachs said during a press briefing. Adding rivaroxaban prevented roughly 2.6 first primary events for every 100 patients treated, but it also prevented 4.4 total primary events and 12.5 total vascular events for every 100 treated patients.

An ‘incredibly high’ event rate

“I don’t think any of us imagined the level of morbidity in this population. The event rate is incredibly high,” commented Joshua A. Beckman, MD, professor and director of vascular medicine at Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tenn.

Because treatment with rivaroxaban showed clear efficacy for also preventing subsequent events it should not be considered to have failed in patients who have a vascular event while on rivaroxaban treatment, he added as designated discussant for the report. Treatment with rivaroxaban “should be continued indefinitely,” he concluded.

“It’s quite astonishing to see the magnitude of [total] events in these patients,” commented Sahil A. Parikh, MD, a cardiologist and director of endovascular services at Columbia University Medical Center in New York. “We’ve always known that these are high-risk patients, but exactly how high their risk is was not well understood until these data came to light.”

Dr. Parikh also noted that, despite the clear evidence reported from VOYAGER-PAD more than a year ago proving the efficacy and safety of adding rivaroxaban to aspirin for long-term treatment of patients with PAD following LER, this regimen has not yet become standard U.S. practice.
 

Rivaroxaban use falls short of the expected level

“This paradigm shift has not seen the level of adoption that we would expect based on the data,” he said. “There have been numerous editorials and discussions of this at every major medical meeting” during the past year, but those expert opinions have not translated into changed practice. “Perhaps the pandemic has muted enthusiasm for adoption of a new therapeutic paradigm,” suggested Dr. Parikh, and “on top of that guidelines have yet to be updated,” although he noted that updated guidelines from the ACC and American Heart Association for PAD that include the types of patients enrolled in VOYAGER-PAD are now under review and should be released by the first half of 2022.

“I think the additional data [reported by Dr. Bauersachs] will encourage us to use rivaroxaban in patients with claudication,” Dr. Parikh said. “Perhaps we should use rivaroxaban and aspirin in a broader swath of patients, but it will take time to convince some constituencies.”

VOYAGER-PAD randomized patients with PAD who underwent successful LER within 10 days prior to enrollment at 542 sites in 34 countries during 2015-2018. In addition to every patient receiving 100 mg aspirin daily and either 2.5 mg rivaroxaban twice daily or placebo once daily, patients who received an intra-arterial device such as a stent could also receive the antiplatelet agent clopidogrel for a planned maximum of 30 days after revascularization at the discretion of their physician, and the trial protocol allowed for extending clopidogrel treatment to as many as 60 days.

In addition to the efficacy outcomes, the safety results showed that adding rivaroxaban to aspirin appeared to increase bleeding episodes, but at rates that generally did not reach significance and that were dwarfed by the efficacy benefit. The study’s primary safety outcome was the incidence of Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction (TIMI) major bleeding episodes, which occurred in 2.65% of patients who received rivaroxaban and in 1.87% on those on placebo, a 43% relative increase that fell short of significance (P = .07). The analyses overall indicated that 10,000 similar patients treated for 1 year with rivaroxaban would have 181 fewer primary events, compared with placebo-treated patients at the cost of also having 29 additional TIMI major bleeding events compared with patient on placebo.

Adding clopidogrel adds little except bleeding

Further analysis showed that just over half of enrolled patients also received clopidogrel for a median of 29 days following their LER procedure. This added agent produced no significant added benefit during 3-year follow-up, but did boost bleeding risk, especially in patients who received clopidogrel for more than 30 days. This led the study investigators to suggest that, while rivaroxaban plus aspirin is indicated for long-term treatment, addition of clopidogrel on top of this should be limited to 30 days or fewer to minimize bleeding risk.

“I’m sure there is a bleeding hazard associated with rivaroxaban plus aspirin, but this is attenuated by using dual therapy and not using triple therapy” by also adding clopidogrel, noted Dr. Parikh.

The new VOYAGER-PAD results also showed that the ongoing risk faced by patients with PAD following LER applies globally to their peripheral arteries. Of the 3,034 total peripheral revascularizations performed in the cohort during follow-up, 64% occurred in the index limb and 36% in the contralateral limb. Another striking finding was that the need for ipsilateral repeat revascularization was more common after an index endovascular procedure, 2,329 repeat revascularizations in 4,379 of these patients (53%), compared with 2,185 patients who had surgical revascularization for their index procedure and subsequently 705 of these patients (32%) needed repeat revascularization.

But rivaroxaban treatment appeared to provide little benefit for the much less frequent incidence of first and subsequent events in the coronary and cerebral circulation. During follow-up, the rates of major adverse cardiovascular events – cardiovascular death, nonfatal MI, and nonfatal stroke – were virtually identical in the rivaroxaban and placebo groups.

“This study makes it clear that we are learning about differences in presentation between the vascular beds, and the benefits of specific treatments in each vascular bed,” Dr. Beckman said.

VOYAGER-PAD was sponsored by Bayer and Janssen, the companies that market rivaroxaban (Xarelto). Dr. Bauersachs has received personal fees from Bayer, as well as from Bristol-Myers Squibb, Daiichi Sankyo, and Pfizer, and has received grant support from Aspen Pharma. Dr. Beckman been a consultant to and received honoraria from Janssen, as well as from Amgen, JanOne, Novartis, and Sanofi, and he has served on a data and safety monitoring board for Bayer. Dr. Parikh has been a consultant to and received honoraria from Janssen, as well as from Abbott, Boston Scientific, Cordis, Medtronic, Penumbra, Philips, and Terumo, he has been a speaker on behalf of Inari, and he has received grant support from Abbott, Shockwave Medical, Surmodics, and TriReme Medical.

[email protected]

After patients with peripheral artery disease undergo lower-extremity revascularization, they are at high risk for major adverse limb events, and new findings from a prespecified analysis of data from the VOYAGER-PAD trial show that treatment with the direct-acting oral anticoagulant rivaroxaban along with aspirin significantly cut the rate of total major adverse limb events in these patients.

courtesy American College of Cardiology

These findings confirm the drop in first major adverse limb events linked to rivaroxaban treatment that was VOYAGER-PAD’s primary result, reported just over a year ago.

The new total-event analysis also provides important insight into the huge magnitude of total major adverse limb events that patients with PAD can develop following lower-extremity revascularization (LER).

The 6,564 patients who all received aspirin and were randomized to either rivaroxaban (Xarelto) or placebo had 4,714 total events during a median follow-up of 2.5 years following their revascularization procedure. This included 1,092 first primary events (a composite of acute limb ischemia, major amputation for vascular causes, MI, ischemic stroke, or cardiovascular death), 522 primary events that occurred as second or subsequent events among patients after a first primary event (a nearly 50% increase from first events only), and 3,100 additional vascular events that did not fit into the primary-event category, most often a peripheral revascularization procedure, Rupert M. Bauersachs, MD, said at the annual scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology.

“We were all astonished by this high event rate,” Dr. Bauersachs said during his report.

The total-event analysis that he reported showed that treatment with rivaroxaban resulted in a significant 14% relative reduction, compared with placebo in the incidence of total primary events, which closely tracks the significant 15% relative reduction in first primary events reported from the VOYAGER-PAD trial in 2020. Treatment with rivaroxaban also significantly linked with a 14% cut in total vascular events, compared with placebo, including the many events not included in the primary endpoint, said Dr. Bauersachs, who until his retirement in May 2021 was director of the Clinic for Vascular Medicine at the Darmstadt (Germany) Clinic. Concurrently with the report, the results appeared online.

“If one focuses only on first events, you miss the totality of disease burden. There is even greater benefit by reducing total events,” Dr. Bauersachs said during a press briefing. Adding rivaroxaban prevented roughly 2.6 first primary events for every 100 patients treated, but it also prevented 4.4 total primary events and 12.5 total vascular events for every 100 treated patients.

An ‘incredibly high’ event rate

“I don’t think any of us imagined the level of morbidity in this population. The event rate is incredibly high,” commented Joshua A. Beckman, MD, professor and director of vascular medicine at Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tenn.

Because treatment with rivaroxaban showed clear efficacy for also preventing subsequent events it should not be considered to have failed in patients who have a vascular event while on rivaroxaban treatment, he added as designated discussant for the report. Treatment with rivaroxaban “should be continued indefinitely,” he concluded.

“It’s quite astonishing to see the magnitude of [total] events in these patients,” commented Sahil A. Parikh, MD, a cardiologist and director of endovascular services at Columbia University Medical Center in New York. “We’ve always known that these are high-risk patients, but exactly how high their risk is was not well understood until these data came to light.”

Dr. Parikh also noted that, despite the clear evidence reported from VOYAGER-PAD more than a year ago proving the efficacy and safety of adding rivaroxaban to aspirin for long-term treatment of patients with PAD following LER, this regimen has not yet become standard U.S. practice.
 

Rivaroxaban use falls short of the expected level

“This paradigm shift has not seen the level of adoption that we would expect based on the data,” he said. “There have been numerous editorials and discussions of this at every major medical meeting” during the past year, but those expert opinions have not translated into changed practice. “Perhaps the pandemic has muted enthusiasm for adoption of a new therapeutic paradigm,” suggested Dr. Parikh, and “on top of that guidelines have yet to be updated,” although he noted that updated guidelines from the ACC and American Heart Association for PAD that include the types of patients enrolled in VOYAGER-PAD are now under review and should be released by the first half of 2022.

“I think the additional data [reported by Dr. Bauersachs] will encourage us to use rivaroxaban in patients with claudication,” Dr. Parikh said. “Perhaps we should use rivaroxaban and aspirin in a broader swath of patients, but it will take time to convince some constituencies.”

VOYAGER-PAD randomized patients with PAD who underwent successful LER within 10 days prior to enrollment at 542 sites in 34 countries during 2015-2018. In addition to every patient receiving 100 mg aspirin daily and either 2.5 mg rivaroxaban twice daily or placebo once daily, patients who received an intra-arterial device such as a stent could also receive the antiplatelet agent clopidogrel for a planned maximum of 30 days after revascularization at the discretion of their physician, and the trial protocol allowed for extending clopidogrel treatment to as many as 60 days.

In addition to the efficacy outcomes, the safety results showed that adding rivaroxaban to aspirin appeared to increase bleeding episodes, but at rates that generally did not reach significance and that were dwarfed by the efficacy benefit. The study’s primary safety outcome was the incidence of Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction (TIMI) major bleeding episodes, which occurred in 2.65% of patients who received rivaroxaban and in 1.87% on those on placebo, a 43% relative increase that fell short of significance (P = .07). The analyses overall indicated that 10,000 similar patients treated for 1 year with rivaroxaban would have 181 fewer primary events, compared with placebo-treated patients at the cost of also having 29 additional TIMI major bleeding events compared with patient on placebo.

Adding clopidogrel adds little except bleeding

Further analysis showed that just over half of enrolled patients also received clopidogrel for a median of 29 days following their LER procedure. This added agent produced no significant added benefit during 3-year follow-up, but did boost bleeding risk, especially in patients who received clopidogrel for more than 30 days. This led the study investigators to suggest that, while rivaroxaban plus aspirin is indicated for long-term treatment, addition of clopidogrel on top of this should be limited to 30 days or fewer to minimize bleeding risk.

“I’m sure there is a bleeding hazard associated with rivaroxaban plus aspirin, but this is attenuated by using dual therapy and not using triple therapy” by also adding clopidogrel, noted Dr. Parikh.

The new VOYAGER-PAD results also showed that the ongoing risk faced by patients with PAD following LER applies globally to their peripheral arteries. Of the 3,034 total peripheral revascularizations performed in the cohort during follow-up, 64% occurred in the index limb and 36% in the contralateral limb. Another striking finding was that the need for ipsilateral repeat revascularization was more common after an index endovascular procedure, 2,329 repeat revascularizations in 4,379 of these patients (53%), compared with 2,185 patients who had surgical revascularization for their index procedure and subsequently 705 of these patients (32%) needed repeat revascularization.

But rivaroxaban treatment appeared to provide little benefit for the much less frequent incidence of first and subsequent events in the coronary and cerebral circulation. During follow-up, the rates of major adverse cardiovascular events – cardiovascular death, nonfatal MI, and nonfatal stroke – were virtually identical in the rivaroxaban and placebo groups.

“This study makes it clear that we are learning about differences in presentation between the vascular beds, and the benefits of specific treatments in each vascular bed,” Dr. Beckman said.

VOYAGER-PAD was sponsored by Bayer and Janssen, the companies that market rivaroxaban (Xarelto). Dr. Bauersachs has received personal fees from Bayer, as well as from Bristol-Myers Squibb, Daiichi Sankyo, and Pfizer, and has received grant support from Aspen Pharma. Dr. Beckman been a consultant to and received honoraria from Janssen, as well as from Amgen, JanOne, Novartis, and Sanofi, and he has served on a data and safety monitoring board for Bayer. Dr. Parikh has been a consultant to and received honoraria from Janssen, as well as from Abbott, Boston Scientific, Cordis, Medtronic, Penumbra, Philips, and Terumo, he has been a speaker on behalf of Inari, and he has received grant support from Abbott, Shockwave Medical, Surmodics, and TriReme Medical.

[email protected]

After patients with peripheral artery disease undergo lower-extremity revascularization, they are at high risk for major adverse limb events, and new findings from a prespecified analysis of data from the VOYAGER-PAD trial show that treatment with the direct-acting oral anticoagulant rivaroxaban along with aspirin significantly cut the rate of total major adverse limb events in these patients.

courtesy American College of Cardiology

These findings confirm the drop in first major adverse limb events linked to rivaroxaban treatment that was VOYAGER-PAD’s primary result, reported just over a year ago.

The new total-event analysis also provides important insight into the huge magnitude of total major adverse limb events that patients with PAD can develop following lower-extremity revascularization (LER).

The 6,564 patients who all received aspirin and were randomized to either rivaroxaban (Xarelto) or placebo had 4,714 total events during a median follow-up of 2.5 years following their revascularization procedure. This included 1,092 first primary events (a composite of acute limb ischemia, major amputation for vascular causes, MI, ischemic stroke, or cardiovascular death), 522 primary events that occurred as second or subsequent events among patients after a first primary event (a nearly 50% increase from first events only), and 3,100 additional vascular events that did not fit into the primary-event category, most often a peripheral revascularization procedure, Rupert M. Bauersachs, MD, said at the annual scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology.

“We were all astonished by this high event rate,” Dr. Bauersachs said during his report.

The total-event analysis that he reported showed that treatment with rivaroxaban resulted in a significant 14% relative reduction, compared with placebo in the incidence of total primary events, which closely tracks the significant 15% relative reduction in first primary events reported from the VOYAGER-PAD trial in 2020. Treatment with rivaroxaban also significantly linked with a 14% cut in total vascular events, compared with placebo, including the many events not included in the primary endpoint, said Dr. Bauersachs, who until his retirement in May 2021 was director of the Clinic for Vascular Medicine at the Darmstadt (Germany) Clinic. Concurrently with the report, the results appeared online.

“If one focuses only on first events, you miss the totality of disease burden. There is even greater benefit by reducing total events,” Dr. Bauersachs said during a press briefing. Adding rivaroxaban prevented roughly 2.6 first primary events for every 100 patients treated, but it also prevented 4.4 total primary events and 12.5 total vascular events for every 100 treated patients.

An ‘incredibly high’ event rate

“I don’t think any of us imagined the level of morbidity in this population. The event rate is incredibly high,” commented Joshua A. Beckman, MD, professor and director of vascular medicine at Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tenn.

Because treatment with rivaroxaban showed clear efficacy for also preventing subsequent events it should not be considered to have failed in patients who have a vascular event while on rivaroxaban treatment, he added as designated discussant for the report. Treatment with rivaroxaban “should be continued indefinitely,” he concluded.

“It’s quite astonishing to see the magnitude of [total] events in these patients,” commented Sahil A. Parikh, MD, a cardiologist and director of endovascular services at Columbia University Medical Center in New York. “We’ve always known that these are high-risk patients, but exactly how high their risk is was not well understood until these data came to light.”

Dr. Parikh also noted that, despite the clear evidence reported from VOYAGER-PAD more than a year ago proving the efficacy and safety of adding rivaroxaban to aspirin for long-term treatment of patients with PAD following LER, this regimen has not yet become standard U.S. practice.
 

Rivaroxaban use falls short of the expected level

“This paradigm shift has not seen the level of adoption that we would expect based on the data,” he said. “There have been numerous editorials and discussions of this at every major medical meeting” during the past year, but those expert opinions have not translated into changed practice. “Perhaps the pandemic has muted enthusiasm for adoption of a new therapeutic paradigm,” suggested Dr. Parikh, and “on top of that guidelines have yet to be updated,” although he noted that updated guidelines from the ACC and American Heart Association for PAD that include the types of patients enrolled in VOYAGER-PAD are now under review and should be released by the first half of 2022.

“I think the additional data [reported by Dr. Bauersachs] will encourage us to use rivaroxaban in patients with claudication,” Dr. Parikh said. “Perhaps we should use rivaroxaban and aspirin in a broader swath of patients, but it will take time to convince some constituencies.”

VOYAGER-PAD randomized patients with PAD who underwent successful LER within 10 days prior to enrollment at 542 sites in 34 countries during 2015-2018. In addition to every patient receiving 100 mg aspirin daily and either 2.5 mg rivaroxaban twice daily or placebo once daily, patients who received an intra-arterial device such as a stent could also receive the antiplatelet agent clopidogrel for a planned maximum of 30 days after revascularization at the discretion of their physician, and the trial protocol allowed for extending clopidogrel treatment to as many as 60 days.

In addition to the efficacy outcomes, the safety results showed that adding rivaroxaban to aspirin appeared to increase bleeding episodes, but at rates that generally did not reach significance and that were dwarfed by the efficacy benefit. The study’s primary safety outcome was the incidence of Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction (TIMI) major bleeding episodes, which occurred in 2.65% of patients who received rivaroxaban and in 1.87% on those on placebo, a 43% relative increase that fell short of significance (P = .07). The analyses overall indicated that 10,000 similar patients treated for 1 year with rivaroxaban would have 181 fewer primary events, compared with placebo-treated patients at the cost of also having 29 additional TIMI major bleeding events compared with patient on placebo.

Adding clopidogrel adds little except bleeding

Further analysis showed that just over half of enrolled patients also received clopidogrel for a median of 29 days following their LER procedure. This added agent produced no significant added benefit during 3-year follow-up, but did boost bleeding risk, especially in patients who received clopidogrel for more than 30 days. This led the study investigators to suggest that, while rivaroxaban plus aspirin is indicated for long-term treatment, addition of clopidogrel on top of this should be limited to 30 days or fewer to minimize bleeding risk.

“I’m sure there is a bleeding hazard associated with rivaroxaban plus aspirin, but this is attenuated by using dual therapy and not using triple therapy” by also adding clopidogrel, noted Dr. Parikh.

The new VOYAGER-PAD results also showed that the ongoing risk faced by patients with PAD following LER applies globally to their peripheral arteries. Of the 3,034 total peripheral revascularizations performed in the cohort during follow-up, 64% occurred in the index limb and 36% in the contralateral limb. Another striking finding was that the need for ipsilateral repeat revascularization was more common after an index endovascular procedure, 2,329 repeat revascularizations in 4,379 of these patients (53%), compared with 2,185 patients who had surgical revascularization for their index procedure and subsequently 705 of these patients (32%) needed repeat revascularization.

But rivaroxaban treatment appeared to provide little benefit for the much less frequent incidence of first and subsequent events in the coronary and cerebral circulation. During follow-up, the rates of major adverse cardiovascular events – cardiovascular death, nonfatal MI, and nonfatal stroke – were virtually identical in the rivaroxaban and placebo groups.

“This study makes it clear that we are learning about differences in presentation between the vascular beds, and the benefits of specific treatments in each vascular bed,” Dr. Beckman said.

VOYAGER-PAD was sponsored by Bayer and Janssen, the companies that market rivaroxaban (Xarelto). Dr. Bauersachs has received personal fees from Bayer, as well as from Bristol-Myers Squibb, Daiichi Sankyo, and Pfizer, and has received grant support from Aspen Pharma. Dr. Beckman been a consultant to and received honoraria from Janssen, as well as from Amgen, JanOne, Novartis, and Sanofi, and he has served on a data and safety monitoring board for Bayer. Dr. Parikh has been a consultant to and received honoraria from Janssen, as well as from Abbott, Boston Scientific, Cordis, Medtronic, Penumbra, Philips, and Terumo, he has been a speaker on behalf of Inari, and he has received grant support from Abbott, Shockwave Medical, Surmodics, and TriReme Medical.

[email protected]

Drinking one cup of coffee each day lowered individual risk for developing type 2 diabetes 4%-6%, according to data from a pair of large, population-based cohorts.

Coffee had previously been associated with a lower risk of type 2 diabetes, said Carolina Ochoa-Rosales, PhD, of Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands. However, the potential impact of coffee consumption on the subclinical inflammation associated with type 2 diabetes has not been well studied, she said.

amenic181/Getty Images

Large cohort adds credibility

Although the associations between coffee and type 2 diabetes have been previously reported, “this study offers important findings due to the carefully standardized analyses on these two major data sources,” Linda Van Horn, PhD, RD, said in an interview.

But what makes this study different is that “these investigators hypothesized that this association could be due to an anti-inflammatory benefit,” she said. 

The take-home message for clinicians is that drinking moderate amounts of filtered coffee offers a potentially reduced risk of developing type 2 diabetes, said Dr. Van Horn, of Northwestern University, Chicago. However, additional research is needed to account for the total amount of coffee per day, and whether additions such as cream or sugar or other additives make a difference in outcomes, she added.

“Also, the risk vs. benefit of drinking coffee over the life course, including childhood, pregnancy, and older age, with possible adverse drug-nutrient interactions, remain unexplored,” she noted.

Dr. Ochoa-Rosales disclosed study funding from the Institute for Scientific Information on Coffee but had no other financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Van Horn had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Drinking one cup of coffee each day lowered individual risk for developing type 2 diabetes 4%-6%, according to data from a pair of large, population-based cohorts.

Coffee had previously been associated with a lower risk of type 2 diabetes, said Carolina Ochoa-Rosales, PhD, of Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands. However, the potential impact of coffee consumption on the subclinical inflammation associated with type 2 diabetes has not been well studied, she said.

amenic181/Getty Images

Large cohort adds credibility

Although the associations between coffee and type 2 diabetes have been previously reported, “this study offers important findings due to the carefully standardized analyses on these two major data sources,” Linda Van Horn, PhD, RD, said in an interview.

But what makes this study different is that “these investigators hypothesized that this association could be due to an anti-inflammatory benefit,” she said. 

The take-home message for clinicians is that drinking moderate amounts of filtered coffee offers a potentially reduced risk of developing type 2 diabetes, said Dr. Van Horn, of Northwestern University, Chicago. However, additional research is needed to account for the total amount of coffee per day, and whether additions such as cream or sugar or other additives make a difference in outcomes, she added.

“Also, the risk vs. benefit of drinking coffee over the life course, including childhood, pregnancy, and older age, with possible adverse drug-nutrient interactions, remain unexplored,” she noted.

Dr. Ochoa-Rosales disclosed study funding from the Institute for Scientific Information on Coffee but had no other financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Van Horn had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Drinking one cup of coffee each day lowered individual risk for developing type 2 diabetes 4%-6%, according to data from a pair of large, population-based cohorts.

Coffee had previously been associated with a lower risk of type 2 diabetes, said Carolina Ochoa-Rosales, PhD, of Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands. However, the potential impact of coffee consumption on the subclinical inflammation associated with type 2 diabetes has not been well studied, she said.

amenic181/Getty Images

Large cohort adds credibility

Although the associations between coffee and type 2 diabetes have been previously reported, “this study offers important findings due to the carefully standardized analyses on these two major data sources,” Linda Van Horn, PhD, RD, said in an interview.

But what makes this study different is that “these investigators hypothesized that this association could be due to an anti-inflammatory benefit,” she said. 

The take-home message for clinicians is that drinking moderate amounts of filtered coffee offers a potentially reduced risk of developing type 2 diabetes, said Dr. Van Horn, of Northwestern University, Chicago. However, additional research is needed to account for the total amount of coffee per day, and whether additions such as cream or sugar or other additives make a difference in outcomes, she added.

“Also, the risk vs. benefit of drinking coffee over the life course, including childhood, pregnancy, and older age, with possible adverse drug-nutrient interactions, remain unexplored,” she noted.

Dr. Ochoa-Rosales disclosed study funding from the Institute for Scientific Information on Coffee but had no other financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Van Horn had no financial conflicts to disclose.

The first randomized controlled trial to compare specific temperatures for therapeutic hypothermia in comatose survivors of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest showed no differences in major outcomes, according to a single-center, double-blind study.

In the CAPITAL-CHILL trial, cooling temperatures of 31° C and 34° C were compared to explore the hypothesis that a lower temperature would improve major outcomes, explained Michel Le May, MD.

No differences for the primary composite outcome of all-cause mortality or poor neurologic outcome at 180 days were observed, he reported at the annual scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology.

The study was completed over a period of almost 7 years in patients presumed to have had an out-of-hospital cardiac arrest and who were unconscious when they reached a center affiliated with the Ottawa Heart Institute, where Dr. Le May directs the regional STEMI (ST-elevation myocardial infarction) program. The initial rhythm at the time of the cardiac arrest was not an entry criterion.

Of 389 patients enrolled, the intention-to-treat analysis included 184 randomized to a cooling temperature of 31° C group and 183 to a temperature of 34° C. The assigned target temperature, reached with an endovascular device, was known only by the managing nurses.
 

31° C and 34° C are equivalent

There was a small numerical disadvantage for the lower temperature assignment, but none reached statistical significance. This was true of the primary outcome (48.4% vs. 45.4% for the higher temperature) and its components of mortality (43.5% vs. 41.0%) and poor neurologic outcome (4.9% vs. 4.4%). Poor neurologic outcome was defined as a Disability Rating Scale score of greater than 5.

Deaths were most common in the early part of the 180-day follow-up in both arms. On a Kaplan-Meier survival graph, Dr. Le May showed curves that he characterized as “almost superimposable.”

There were no significant differences for any subgroup stratifications, such as age 75 years or older versus younger, males versus females, presence versus absence or an initial shockable rhythm, percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) within 24 hours versus later, and STEMI versus non-STEMI. In these analyses, the higher temperature was associated with a potential trend for benefit among females and those with a shockable rhythm.

There was no signal for a difference in neurologic outcomes on the Disability Rating Scale or the Modified Rankin Scale. On the latter, for example, 46% of those in the 31° C group and 44% of these in the 34° C group had a score of four or greater at the end of follow-up.

The baseline characteristics of the two groups were similar. About 80% were male; the average age was roughly 62 years. More than 80% of the cardiac arrests were witnessed with CPR being administered by bystanders in nearly 70%. Nearly 40% had a STEMI.

Interventions were similar. Almost all patients underwent coronary angiography, of which nearly 60% received a percutaneous coronary intervention. More than 50% received a stent. The time from arrest to randomization was slightly longer in the 31° C group (228 vs. 204 minutes). The time to balloon inflation from arrival at the cardiac center was also slightly longer (73 vs. 60 minutes).

There was a trend for an increased rate of seizures in the 31° C group (12.5% vs. 7.1%; P = .08), but other secondary outcomes, including pneumonia (67.8% vs. 63.4%), renal replacement therapy (9.2% vs. 9.3%), and stroke (4.4% vs. 1.6%), were similar in the 31° C and 34° C groups, respectively.

Bleeding, whether measured by transfusion (19.6% vs. 22.4%) or TIMI major bleed (23.4% vs. 19.7%) were similar in the 31° C and 34° C groups, respectively. Thrombosis, whether measured by stent thrombosis (1.2% vs. 2.2%) or deep venous thrombosis (11.4% vs. 10.9%) were similar in these two groups, respectively.

The length of stay in the cardiac intensive care unit was significantly greater in the 31° C group (10 vs. 7 days; P = .004). Some of this increased length of stay can be attributed to the longer rewarming process required for the greater cooling, according to Dr. Le May, but he acknowledged that it is not clear this provides a full explanation.
 

More trials like CAPITAL-CHILL needed

The validity of these findings is supported by several strengths of the methodology, according to Jeanne E. Poole, MD, director of the arrhythmia service and electrophysiology laboratory, University of Washington, Seattle. This includes the reliance of an endovascular device, which can accelerate the time to the target temperature and assure the precision with which it is reached and maintained.

Dr. Poole did note that many of the primary and secondary measures, including the rates of stroke, seizures, and major bleeds, even though not significantly different, favored the higher temperature. The slightly longer door-to-balloon times might have been a factor. For the higher rate of pneumonia in the 31° C group, she questioned whether the longer period of ventilation linked to a longer period of rewarming might have been a factor.

However, Dr. Poole praised the CAPITAL-CHILL trial for drawing attention to a group of patients for whom survival rates remain “dismally low.” She indicated that these types of high-level trials are needed to look for strategies to improve outcomes.

Dr. Le May and Dr. Poole report no potential conflicts of interest.

The first randomized controlled trial to compare specific temperatures for therapeutic hypothermia in comatose survivors of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest showed no differences in major outcomes, according to a single-center, double-blind study.

In the CAPITAL-CHILL trial, cooling temperatures of 31° C and 34° C were compared to explore the hypothesis that a lower temperature would improve major outcomes, explained Michel Le May, MD.

No differences for the primary composite outcome of all-cause mortality or poor neurologic outcome at 180 days were observed, he reported at the annual scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology.

The study was completed over a period of almost 7 years in patients presumed to have had an out-of-hospital cardiac arrest and who were unconscious when they reached a center affiliated with the Ottawa Heart Institute, where Dr. Le May directs the regional STEMI (ST-elevation myocardial infarction) program. The initial rhythm at the time of the cardiac arrest was not an entry criterion.

Of 389 patients enrolled, the intention-to-treat analysis included 184 randomized to a cooling temperature of 31° C group and 183 to a temperature of 34° C. The assigned target temperature, reached with an endovascular device, was known only by the managing nurses.
 

31° C and 34° C are equivalent

There was a small numerical disadvantage for the lower temperature assignment, but none reached statistical significance. This was true of the primary outcome (48.4% vs. 45.4% for the higher temperature) and its components of mortality (43.5% vs. 41.0%) and poor neurologic outcome (4.9% vs. 4.4%). Poor neurologic outcome was defined as a Disability Rating Scale score of greater than 5.

Deaths were most common in the early part of the 180-day follow-up in both arms. On a Kaplan-Meier survival graph, Dr. Le May showed curves that he characterized as “almost superimposable.”

There were no significant differences for any subgroup stratifications, such as age 75 years or older versus younger, males versus females, presence versus absence or an initial shockable rhythm, percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) within 24 hours versus later, and STEMI versus non-STEMI. In these analyses, the higher temperature was associated with a potential trend for benefit among females and those with a shockable rhythm.

There was no signal for a difference in neurologic outcomes on the Disability Rating Scale or the Modified Rankin Scale. On the latter, for example, 46% of those in the 31° C group and 44% of these in the 34° C group had a score of four or greater at the end of follow-up.

The baseline characteristics of the two groups were similar. About 80% were male; the average age was roughly 62 years. More than 80% of the cardiac arrests were witnessed with CPR being administered by bystanders in nearly 70%. Nearly 40% had a STEMI.

Interventions were similar. Almost all patients underwent coronary angiography, of which nearly 60% received a percutaneous coronary intervention. More than 50% received a stent. The time from arrest to randomization was slightly longer in the 31° C group (228 vs. 204 minutes). The time to balloon inflation from arrival at the cardiac center was also slightly longer (73 vs. 60 minutes).

There was a trend for an increased rate of seizures in the 31° C group (12.5% vs. 7.1%; P = .08), but other secondary outcomes, including pneumonia (67.8% vs. 63.4%), renal replacement therapy (9.2% vs. 9.3%), and stroke (4.4% vs. 1.6%), were similar in the 31° C and 34° C groups, respectively.

Bleeding, whether measured by transfusion (19.6% vs. 22.4%) or TIMI major bleed (23.4% vs. 19.7%) were similar in the 31° C and 34° C groups, respectively. Thrombosis, whether measured by stent thrombosis (1.2% vs. 2.2%) or deep venous thrombosis (11.4% vs. 10.9%) were similar in these two groups, respectively.

The length of stay in the cardiac intensive care unit was significantly greater in the 31° C group (10 vs. 7 days; P = .004). Some of this increased length of stay can be attributed to the longer rewarming process required for the greater cooling, according to Dr. Le May, but he acknowledged that it is not clear this provides a full explanation.
 

More trials like CAPITAL-CHILL needed

The validity of these findings is supported by several strengths of the methodology, according to Jeanne E. Poole, MD, director of the arrhythmia service and electrophysiology laboratory, University of Washington, Seattle. This includes the reliance of an endovascular device, which can accelerate the time to the target temperature and assure the precision with which it is reached and maintained.

Dr. Poole did note that many of the primary and secondary measures, including the rates of stroke, seizures, and major bleeds, even though not significantly different, favored the higher temperature. The slightly longer door-to-balloon times might have been a factor. For the higher rate of pneumonia in the 31° C group, she questioned whether the longer period of ventilation linked to a longer period of rewarming might have been a factor.

However, Dr. Poole praised the CAPITAL-CHILL trial for drawing attention to a group of patients for whom survival rates remain “dismally low.” She indicated that these types of high-level trials are needed to look for strategies to improve outcomes.

Dr. Le May and Dr. Poole report no potential conflicts of interest.

The first randomized controlled trial to compare specific temperatures for therapeutic hypothermia in comatose survivors of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest showed no differences in major outcomes, according to a single-center, double-blind study.

In the CAPITAL-CHILL trial, cooling temperatures of 31° C and 34° C were compared to explore the hypothesis that a lower temperature would improve major outcomes, explained Michel Le May, MD.

No differences for the primary composite outcome of all-cause mortality or poor neurologic outcome at 180 days were observed, he reported at the annual scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology.

The study was completed over a period of almost 7 years in patients presumed to have had an out-of-hospital cardiac arrest and who were unconscious when they reached a center affiliated with the Ottawa Heart Institute, where Dr. Le May directs the regional STEMI (ST-elevation myocardial infarction) program. The initial rhythm at the time of the cardiac arrest was not an entry criterion.

Of 389 patients enrolled, the intention-to-treat analysis included 184 randomized to a cooling temperature of 31° C group and 183 to a temperature of 34° C. The assigned target temperature, reached with an endovascular device, was known only by the managing nurses.
 

31° C and 34° C are equivalent

There was a small numerical disadvantage for the lower temperature assignment, but none reached statistical significance. This was true of the primary outcome (48.4% vs. 45.4% for the higher temperature) and its components of mortality (43.5% vs. 41.0%) and poor neurologic outcome (4.9% vs. 4.4%). Poor neurologic outcome was defined as a Disability Rating Scale score of greater than 5.

Deaths were most common in the early part of the 180-day follow-up in both arms. On a Kaplan-Meier survival graph, Dr. Le May showed curves that he characterized as “almost superimposable.”

There were no significant differences for any subgroup stratifications, such as age 75 years or older versus younger, males versus females, presence versus absence or an initial shockable rhythm, percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) within 24 hours versus later, and STEMI versus non-STEMI. In these analyses, the higher temperature was associated with a potential trend for benefit among females and those with a shockable rhythm.

There was no signal for a difference in neurologic outcomes on the Disability Rating Scale or the Modified Rankin Scale. On the latter, for example, 46% of those in the 31° C group and 44% of these in the 34° C group had a score of four or greater at the end of follow-up.

The baseline characteristics of the two groups were similar. About 80% were male; the average age was roughly 62 years. More than 80% of the cardiac arrests were witnessed with CPR being administered by bystanders in nearly 70%. Nearly 40% had a STEMI.

Interventions were similar. Almost all patients underwent coronary angiography, of which nearly 60% received a percutaneous coronary intervention. More than 50% received a stent. The time from arrest to randomization was slightly longer in the 31° C group (228 vs. 204 minutes). The time to balloon inflation from arrival at the cardiac center was also slightly longer (73 vs. 60 minutes).

There was a trend for an increased rate of seizures in the 31° C group (12.5% vs. 7.1%; P = .08), but other secondary outcomes, including pneumonia (67.8% vs. 63.4%), renal replacement therapy (9.2% vs. 9.3%), and stroke (4.4% vs. 1.6%), were similar in the 31° C and 34° C groups, respectively.

Bleeding, whether measured by transfusion (19.6% vs. 22.4%) or TIMI major bleed (23.4% vs. 19.7%) were similar in the 31° C and 34° C groups, respectively. Thrombosis, whether measured by stent thrombosis (1.2% vs. 2.2%) or deep venous thrombosis (11.4% vs. 10.9%) were similar in these two groups, respectively.

The length of stay in the cardiac intensive care unit was significantly greater in the 31° C group (10 vs. 7 days; P = .004). Some of this increased length of stay can be attributed to the longer rewarming process required for the greater cooling, according to Dr. Le May, but he acknowledged that it is not clear this provides a full explanation.
 

More trials like CAPITAL-CHILL needed

The validity of these findings is supported by several strengths of the methodology, according to Jeanne E. Poole, MD, director of the arrhythmia service and electrophysiology laboratory, University of Washington, Seattle. This includes the reliance of an endovascular device, which can accelerate the time to the target temperature and assure the precision with which it is reached and maintained.

Dr. Poole did note that many of the primary and secondary measures, including the rates of stroke, seizures, and major bleeds, even though not significantly different, favored the higher temperature. The slightly longer door-to-balloon times might have been a factor. For the higher rate of pneumonia in the 31° C group, she questioned whether the longer period of ventilation linked to a longer period of rewarming might have been a factor.

However, Dr. Poole praised the CAPITAL-CHILL trial for drawing attention to a group of patients for whom survival rates remain “dismally low.” She indicated that these types of high-level trials are needed to look for strategies to improve outcomes.

Dr. Le May and Dr. Poole report no potential conflicts of interest.

The benefits of COVID-19 vaccination “enormously outweigh” the rare possible risk for heart-related complications, including myocarditis, the American Heart Association/American Stroke Association (ASA) says in new statement.

The message follows a Centers for Disease Control and Prevention report that the agency is monitoring the Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS) and the Vaccine Safety Datalink (VSD) for cases of myocarditis that have been associated with the mRNA vaccines against SARS-CoV-2 from Pfizer and Moderna.

The “relatively few” reported cases myocarditis in adolescents or young adults have involved males more often than females, more often followed the second dose rather than the first, and were usually seen in the 4 days after vaccination, the CDC’s COVID-19 Vaccine Safety Technical Work Group (VaST) found.

“Most cases appear to be mild, and follow-up of cases is ongoing,” the CDC says. “Within CDC safety monitoring systems, rates of myocarditis reports in the window following COVID-19 vaccination have not differed from expected baseline rates.”

In their statement, the AHA/ASA “strongly urge” all adults and children 12 years and older to receive a COVID-19 vaccine as soon as possible.

“The evidence continues to indicate that the COVID-19 vaccines are nearly 100% effective at preventing death and hospitalization due to COVID-19 infection,” the groups say.

Although the investigation of cases of myocarditis related to COVID-19 vaccination is ongoing, the AHA/ASA notes that myocarditis is typically the result of an actual viral infection, “and it is yet to be determined if these cases have any correlation to receiving a COVID-19 vaccine.”

“We’ve lost hundreds of children, and there have been thousands who have been hospitalized, thousands who developed an inflammatory syndrome, and one of the pieces of that can be myocarditis,” Richard Besser, MD, president and CEO of the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation (RWJF), said today on ABC’s Good Morning America.

Still, “from my perspective, the risk of COVID is so much greater than any theoretical risk from the vaccine,” said Dr. Besser, former acting director of the CDC.

The symptoms that can occur after COVID-19 vaccination include tiredness, headache, muscle pain, chills, fever, and nausea, reminds the AHA/ASA statement. Such symptoms would “typically appear within 24-48 hours and usually pass within 36-48 hours after receiving the vaccine.”

All health care providers should be aware of the “very rare” adverse events that could be related to a COVID-19 vaccine, including myocarditis, blood clots, low platelets, and symptoms of severe inflammation, it says.

“Health care professionals should strongly consider inquiring about the timing of any recent COVID vaccination among patients presenting with these conditions, as needed, in order to provide appropriate treatment quickly,” the statement advises.

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

The benefits of COVID-19 vaccination “enormously outweigh” the rare possible risk for heart-related complications, including myocarditis, the American Heart Association/American Stroke Association (ASA) says in new statement.

The message follows a Centers for Disease Control and Prevention report that the agency is monitoring the Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS) and the Vaccine Safety Datalink (VSD) for cases of myocarditis that have been associated with the mRNA vaccines against SARS-CoV-2 from Pfizer and Moderna.

The “relatively few” reported cases myocarditis in adolescents or young adults have involved males more often than females, more often followed the second dose rather than the first, and were usually seen in the 4 days after vaccination, the CDC’s COVID-19 Vaccine Safety Technical Work Group (VaST) found.

“Most cases appear to be mild, and follow-up of cases is ongoing,” the CDC says. “Within CDC safety monitoring systems, rates of myocarditis reports in the window following COVID-19 vaccination have not differed from expected baseline rates.”

In their statement, the AHA/ASA “strongly urge” all adults and children 12 years and older to receive a COVID-19 vaccine as soon as possible.

“The evidence continues to indicate that the COVID-19 vaccines are nearly 100% effective at preventing death and hospitalization due to COVID-19 infection,” the groups say.

Although the investigation of cases of myocarditis related to COVID-19 vaccination is ongoing, the AHA/ASA notes that myocarditis is typically the result of an actual viral infection, “and it is yet to be determined if these cases have any correlation to receiving a COVID-19 vaccine.”

“We’ve lost hundreds of children, and there have been thousands who have been hospitalized, thousands who developed an inflammatory syndrome, and one of the pieces of that can be myocarditis,” Richard Besser, MD, president and CEO of the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation (RWJF), said today on ABC’s Good Morning America.

Still, “from my perspective, the risk of COVID is so much greater than any theoretical risk from the vaccine,” said Dr. Besser, former acting director of the CDC.

The symptoms that can occur after COVID-19 vaccination include tiredness, headache, muscle pain, chills, fever, and nausea, reminds the AHA/ASA statement. Such symptoms would “typically appear within 24-48 hours and usually pass within 36-48 hours after receiving the vaccine.”

All health care providers should be aware of the “very rare” adverse events that could be related to a COVID-19 vaccine, including myocarditis, blood clots, low platelets, and symptoms of severe inflammation, it says.

“Health care professionals should strongly consider inquiring about the timing of any recent COVID vaccination among patients presenting with these conditions, as needed, in order to provide appropriate treatment quickly,” the statement advises.

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

The benefits of COVID-19 vaccination “enormously outweigh” the rare possible risk for heart-related complications, including myocarditis, the American Heart Association/American Stroke Association (ASA) says in new statement.

The message follows a Centers for Disease Control and Prevention report that the agency is monitoring the Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS) and the Vaccine Safety Datalink (VSD) for cases of myocarditis that have been associated with the mRNA vaccines against SARS-CoV-2 from Pfizer and Moderna.

The “relatively few” reported cases myocarditis in adolescents or young adults have involved males more often than females, more often followed the second dose rather than the first, and were usually seen in the 4 days after vaccination, the CDC’s COVID-19 Vaccine Safety Technical Work Group (VaST) found.

“Most cases appear to be mild, and follow-up of cases is ongoing,” the CDC says. “Within CDC safety monitoring systems, rates of myocarditis reports in the window following COVID-19 vaccination have not differed from expected baseline rates.”

In their statement, the AHA/ASA “strongly urge” all adults and children 12 years and older to receive a COVID-19 vaccine as soon as possible.

“The evidence continues to indicate that the COVID-19 vaccines are nearly 100% effective at preventing death and hospitalization due to COVID-19 infection,” the groups say.

Although the investigation of cases of myocarditis related to COVID-19 vaccination is ongoing, the AHA/ASA notes that myocarditis is typically the result of an actual viral infection, “and it is yet to be determined if these cases have any correlation to receiving a COVID-19 vaccine.”

“We’ve lost hundreds of children, and there have been thousands who have been hospitalized, thousands who developed an inflammatory syndrome, and one of the pieces of that can be myocarditis,” Richard Besser, MD, president and CEO of the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation (RWJF), said today on ABC’s Good Morning America.

Still, “from my perspective, the risk of COVID is so much greater than any theoretical risk from the vaccine,” said Dr. Besser, former acting director of the CDC.

The symptoms that can occur after COVID-19 vaccination include tiredness, headache, muscle pain, chills, fever, and nausea, reminds the AHA/ASA statement. Such symptoms would “typically appear within 24-48 hours and usually pass within 36-48 hours after receiving the vaccine.”

All health care providers should be aware of the “very rare” adverse events that could be related to a COVID-19 vaccine, including myocarditis, blood clots, low platelets, and symptoms of severe inflammation, it says.

“Health care professionals should strongly consider inquiring about the timing of any recent COVID vaccination among patients presenting with these conditions, as needed, in order to provide appropriate treatment quickly,” the statement advises.

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

Physicians’ trust in health care system leaders has taken a steep drop during the COVID-19 pandemic, according to a survey conducted by NORC at the University of Chicago on behalf of the American Board of Internal Medicine Foundation.

Survey results, released May 21, indicate that 30% of physicians say their trust in the U.S. health care system and health care leadership has decreased during the pandemic. Only 18% reported an increase in trust.

Physicians, however, have great trust in their fellow clinicians.

In the survey of 600 physicians, 94% said they trust doctors within their practice; 85% trusted doctors outside of their practice; and 89% trusted nurses. That trust increased during the pandemic, with 41% saying their trust in fellow physicians rose and 37% saying their trust in nurses did.

In a separate survey, NORC asked patients about their trust in various aspects of health care. Among 2,069 respondents, a wide majority reported that they trust doctors (84%) and nurses (85%), but only 64% trusted the health care system as a whole. One in three consumers (32%) said their trust in the health care system decreased during the pandemic, compared with 11% who said their trust increased.

The ABIM Foundation released the research findings on May 21 as part of Building Trust, a national campaign that aims to boost trust among patients, clinicians, system leaders, researchers, and others.

Richard J. Baron, MD, president and chief executive officer of the ABIM Foundation, said in an interview, “Clearly there’s lower trust in health care organization leaders and executives, and that’s troubling.

“Science by itself is not enough,” he said. “Becoming trustworthy has to be a core project of everybody in health care.”

Deterioration in physicians’ trust during the pandemic comes in part from failed promises of adequate personal protective equipment and some physicians’ loss of income as a result of the crisis, Dr. Baron said.

He added that the vaccine rollout was very uneven and that policies as to which elective procedures could be performed were handled differently in different parts of the country.

He also noted that, early on, transparency was lacking as to how many COVID patients hospitals were treating, which may have contributed to the decrease in trust in the system.
 

Fear of being known as ‘the COVID hospital’

Hospitals were afraid of being known as “the COVID hospital” and losing patients who were afraid to come there, Dr. Baron said.

He said the COVID-19 epidemic exacerbated problems regarding trust, but that trust has been declining for some time. The Building Trust campaign will focus on solutions in breaches of trust as physicians move increasingly toward being employees of huge systems, according to Dr. Baron.

However, trust works both ways, Dr. Baron notes. Physicians can be champions for their health care system or “throw the system under the bus,” he said.

For example, if a patient complains about the appointment system, clinicians who trust their institutions may say the system usually works and that they will try to make sure the patient has a better experience next time. Clinicians without trust may say they agree that the health care system doesn’t know what it is doing, and patients may further lose confidence when physicians validate their complaint, and patients may then go elsewhere.
 

78% of patients trust primary care doctor

When asked whether they trust their primary care physician, 78% of patients said yes. However, trust in doctors was higher among people who were older (90%), White (82%), or had high income (89%). Among people reporting lower trust, 25% said their physician spends too little time with them, and 14% said their doctor does not know or listen to them.

The survey shows that government agencies have work to do to earn trust. Responses indicate that 43% of physicians said they have “complete trust” in government health care agencies, such as the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, which is substantially higher than other parts of the health care system. However, trust in agencies declined for 43% of physician respondents and increased for 21%.

Dhruv Khullar, MD, MPP, of the department of health policy and economics at Weill Cornell Medical College in New York, told this news organization the survey results match what he sees anecdotally in medicine – that physicians have been losing trust in the system but not in their colleagues.

He said the sample size of 600 is enough to be influential, though he said he would like to know the response rate, which was not calculated for this survey.

He added that, in large part, physicians’ lack of trust in their systems may come from generally being asked to see more patients and to meet more metrics during the same or shorter periods.

Physicians’ lack of trust in the system can have significant consequences, he said. It can lead to burnout, which has been linked with poorer quality of care and physician turnover, he noted.

COVID-19 led some physicians to wonder whether their system had their best interests at heart, insofar as access to adequate medicines and supplies as well as emotional support were inconsistent, Dr. Khullar said.

He said that to regain trust health care systems need to ask themselves questions in three areas. The first is whether their goals are focused on the best interest of the organization or the best interest of the patient.

“Next is competency,” Dr. Khullar said. “Maybe your motives are right, but are you able to deliver? Are you delivering a good product, whether clinical services or something else?”

The third area is transparency, he said. “Are you going to be honest and forthright in what we’re doing and where we’re going?”

Caroline Pearson, senior vice president of health care strategy for NORC, said the emailed survey was conducted between Dec. 29, 2020, and Feb. 5, 2021, with a health care survey partner that maintains a nationwide panel of physicians across specialties.

She said this report is fairly novel insofar as surveys are more typically conducted regarding patients’ trust of their doctors or of the health care system.

Ms. Pearson said because health care is delivered in teams, understanding the level of trust among the entities helps ensure that care will be delivered effectively and seamlessly with high quality.

“We want our patients to trust our doctors, but we really want doctors to trust each other and trust the hospitals and systems in which they’re working,” she said.

Dr. Baron, Ms. Pearson, and Dr. Khullar report no relevant financial relationships.

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

Physicians’ trust in health care system leaders has taken a steep drop during the COVID-19 pandemic, according to a survey conducted by NORC at the University of Chicago on behalf of the American Board of Internal Medicine Foundation.

Survey results, released May 21, indicate that 30% of physicians say their trust in the U.S. health care system and health care leadership has decreased during the pandemic. Only 18% reported an increase in trust.

Physicians, however, have great trust in their fellow clinicians.

In the survey of 600 physicians, 94% said they trust doctors within their practice; 85% trusted doctors outside of their practice; and 89% trusted nurses. That trust increased during the pandemic, with 41% saying their trust in fellow physicians rose and 37% saying their trust in nurses did.

In a separate survey, NORC asked patients about their trust in various aspects of health care. Among 2,069 respondents, a wide majority reported that they trust doctors (84%) and nurses (85%), but only 64% trusted the health care system as a whole. One in three consumers (32%) said their trust in the health care system decreased during the pandemic, compared with 11% who said their trust increased.

The ABIM Foundation released the research findings on May 21 as part of Building Trust, a national campaign that aims to boost trust among patients, clinicians, system leaders, researchers, and others.

Richard J. Baron, MD, president and chief executive officer of the ABIM Foundation, said in an interview, “Clearly there’s lower trust in health care organization leaders and executives, and that’s troubling.

“Science by itself is not enough,” he said. “Becoming trustworthy has to be a core project of everybody in health care.”

Deterioration in physicians’ trust during the pandemic comes in part from failed promises of adequate personal protective equipment and some physicians’ loss of income as a result of the crisis, Dr. Baron said.

He added that the vaccine rollout was very uneven and that policies as to which elective procedures could be performed were handled differently in different parts of the country.

He also noted that, early on, transparency was lacking as to how many COVID patients hospitals were treating, which may have contributed to the decrease in trust in the system.
 

Fear of being known as ‘the COVID hospital’

Hospitals were afraid of being known as “the COVID hospital” and losing patients who were afraid to come there, Dr. Baron said.

He said the COVID-19 epidemic exacerbated problems regarding trust, but that trust has been declining for some time. The Building Trust campaign will focus on solutions in breaches of trust as physicians move increasingly toward being employees of huge systems, according to Dr. Baron.

However, trust works both ways, Dr. Baron notes. Physicians can be champions for their health care system or “throw the system under the bus,” he said.

For example, if a patient complains about the appointment system, clinicians who trust their institutions may say the system usually works and that they will try to make sure the patient has a better experience next time. Clinicians without trust may say they agree that the health care system doesn’t know what it is doing, and patients may further lose confidence when physicians validate their complaint, and patients may then go elsewhere.
 

78% of patients trust primary care doctor

When asked whether they trust their primary care physician, 78% of patients said yes. However, trust in doctors was higher among people who were older (90%), White (82%), or had high income (89%). Among people reporting lower trust, 25% said their physician spends too little time with them, and 14% said their doctor does not know or listen to them.

The survey shows that government agencies have work to do to earn trust. Responses indicate that 43% of physicians said they have “complete trust” in government health care agencies, such as the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, which is substantially higher than other parts of the health care system. However, trust in agencies declined for 43% of physician respondents and increased for 21%.

Dhruv Khullar, MD, MPP, of the department of health policy and economics at Weill Cornell Medical College in New York, told this news organization the survey results match what he sees anecdotally in medicine – that physicians have been losing trust in the system but not in their colleagues.

He said the sample size of 600 is enough to be influential, though he said he would like to know the response rate, which was not calculated for this survey.

He added that, in large part, physicians’ lack of trust in their systems may come from generally being asked to see more patients and to meet more metrics during the same or shorter periods.

Physicians’ lack of trust in the system can have significant consequences, he said. It can lead to burnout, which has been linked with poorer quality of care and physician turnover, he noted.

COVID-19 led some physicians to wonder whether their system had their best interests at heart, insofar as access to adequate medicines and supplies as well as emotional support were inconsistent, Dr. Khullar said.

He said that to regain trust health care systems need to ask themselves questions in three areas. The first is whether their goals are focused on the best interest of the organization or the best interest of the patient.

“Next is competency,” Dr. Khullar said. “Maybe your motives are right, but are you able to deliver? Are you delivering a good product, whether clinical services or something else?”

The third area is transparency, he said. “Are you going to be honest and forthright in what we’re doing and where we’re going?”

Caroline Pearson, senior vice president of health care strategy for NORC, said the emailed survey was conducted between Dec. 29, 2020, and Feb. 5, 2021, with a health care survey partner that maintains a nationwide panel of physicians across specialties.

She said this report is fairly novel insofar as surveys are more typically conducted regarding patients’ trust of their doctors or of the health care system.

Ms. Pearson said because health care is delivered in teams, understanding the level of trust among the entities helps ensure that care will be delivered effectively and seamlessly with high quality.

“We want our patients to trust our doctors, but we really want doctors to trust each other and trust the hospitals and systems in which they’re working,” she said.

Dr. Baron, Ms. Pearson, and Dr. Khullar report no relevant financial relationships.

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

Physicians’ trust in health care system leaders has taken a steep drop during the COVID-19 pandemic, according to a survey conducted by NORC at the University of Chicago on behalf of the American Board of Internal Medicine Foundation.

Survey results, released May 21, indicate that 30% of physicians say their trust in the U.S. health care system and health care leadership has decreased during the pandemic. Only 18% reported an increase in trust.

Physicians, however, have great trust in their fellow clinicians.

In the survey of 600 physicians, 94% said they trust doctors within their practice; 85% trusted doctors outside of their practice; and 89% trusted nurses. That trust increased during the pandemic, with 41% saying their trust in fellow physicians rose and 37% saying their trust in nurses did.

In a separate survey, NORC asked patients about their trust in various aspects of health care. Among 2,069 respondents, a wide majority reported that they trust doctors (84%) and nurses (85%), but only 64% trusted the health care system as a whole. One in three consumers (32%) said their trust in the health care system decreased during the pandemic, compared with 11% who said their trust increased.

The ABIM Foundation released the research findings on May 21 as part of Building Trust, a national campaign that aims to boost trust among patients, clinicians, system leaders, researchers, and others.

Richard J. Baron, MD, president and chief executive officer of the ABIM Foundation, said in an interview, “Clearly there’s lower trust in health care organization leaders and executives, and that’s troubling.

“Science by itself is not enough,” he said. “Becoming trustworthy has to be a core project of everybody in health care.”

Deterioration in physicians’ trust during the pandemic comes in part from failed promises of adequate personal protective equipment and some physicians’ loss of income as a result of the crisis, Dr. Baron said.

He added that the vaccine rollout was very uneven and that policies as to which elective procedures could be performed were handled differently in different parts of the country.

He also noted that, early on, transparency was lacking as to how many COVID patients hospitals were treating, which may have contributed to the decrease in trust in the system.
 

Fear of being known as ‘the COVID hospital’

Hospitals were afraid of being known as “the COVID hospital” and losing patients who were afraid to come there, Dr. Baron said.

He said the COVID-19 epidemic exacerbated problems regarding trust, but that trust has been declining for some time. The Building Trust campaign will focus on solutions in breaches of trust as physicians move increasingly toward being employees of huge systems, according to Dr. Baron.

However, trust works both ways, Dr. Baron notes. Physicians can be champions for their health care system or “throw the system under the bus,” he said.

For example, if a patient complains about the appointment system, clinicians who trust their institutions may say the system usually works and that they will try to make sure the patient has a better experience next time. Clinicians without trust may say they agree that the health care system doesn’t know what it is doing, and patients may further lose confidence when physicians validate their complaint, and patients may then go elsewhere.
 

78% of patients trust primary care doctor

When asked whether they trust their primary care physician, 78% of patients said yes. However, trust in doctors was higher among people who were older (90%), White (82%), or had high income (89%). Among people reporting lower trust, 25% said their physician spends too little time with them, and 14% said their doctor does not know or listen to them.

The survey shows that government agencies have work to do to earn trust. Responses indicate that 43% of physicians said they have “complete trust” in government health care agencies, such as the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, which is substantially higher than other parts of the health care system. However, trust in agencies declined for 43% of physician respondents and increased for 21%.

Dhruv Khullar, MD, MPP, of the department of health policy and economics at Weill Cornell Medical College in New York, told this news organization the survey results match what he sees anecdotally in medicine – that physicians have been losing trust in the system but not in their colleagues.

He said the sample size of 600 is enough to be influential, though he said he would like to know the response rate, which was not calculated for this survey.

He added that, in large part, physicians’ lack of trust in their systems may come from generally being asked to see more patients and to meet more metrics during the same or shorter periods.

Physicians’ lack of trust in the system can have significant consequences, he said. It can lead to burnout, which has been linked with poorer quality of care and physician turnover, he noted.

COVID-19 led some physicians to wonder whether their system had their best interests at heart, insofar as access to adequate medicines and supplies as well as emotional support were inconsistent, Dr. Khullar said.

He said that to regain trust health care systems need to ask themselves questions in three areas. The first is whether their goals are focused on the best interest of the organization or the best interest of the patient.

“Next is competency,” Dr. Khullar said. “Maybe your motives are right, but are you able to deliver? Are you delivering a good product, whether clinical services or something else?”

The third area is transparency, he said. “Are you going to be honest and forthright in what we’re doing and where we’re going?”

Caroline Pearson, senior vice president of health care strategy for NORC, said the emailed survey was conducted between Dec. 29, 2020, and Feb. 5, 2021, with a health care survey partner that maintains a nationwide panel of physicians across specialties.

She said this report is fairly novel insofar as surveys are more typically conducted regarding patients’ trust of their doctors or of the health care system.

Ms. Pearson said because health care is delivered in teams, understanding the level of trust among the entities helps ensure that care will be delivered effectively and seamlessly with high quality.

“We want our patients to trust our doctors, but we really want doctors to trust each other and trust the hospitals and systems in which they’re working,” she said.

Dr. Baron, Ms. Pearson, and Dr. Khullar report no relevant financial relationships.

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

The greatest relative benefit from omecamtiv mecarbil, a member of the novel myotropic drug class that improves cardiac performance, is produced in heart failure patients with the lowest left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), a new analysis of the recently published phase 3 GALACTIC-HF trial has found.

The findings reinforce the potential for this drug to be helpful in the management of the most advanced stages of heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), reported John R. Teerlink, MD, director of heart failure at San Francisco Veterans Affairs Medical Center, at the annual scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology.

The phase 3 multinational GALACTIC-HF trial, published earlier this year, linked omecamtiv mecarbil with an 8% reduction in the risk of a heart failure–related events or cardiovascular death, relative to placebo, which was the primary outcome. For entry, HFrEF patients were required to have a LVEF of 35% or less.

Drilling down on ejection fraction

The new analysis divided participants into quartiles of baseline LVEF and then compared relative outcomes and safety.

In the lowest quartile, defined by a LVEF of 22% or lower, the reduction in risk of events reached 17% (hazard ratio, 0.83; 95% confidence interval, 0.73-0.95) for omecamtiv mecarbil relative to placebo. In the highest, defined by a LVEF of 33% or greater, the benefit fell short of significance (HR 0.99; 95% CI, 0.84-1.16). Across quartiles, LVEF was the “strongest modifier of the treatment effect,” emerging in this analysis as a statistically significant (P = .004) continuous variable.

The comparison by LVEF quartiles also provided an opportunity to show that omecamtiv mecarbil was as safe and well tolerated in those with the most advanced disease as in those less sick. At the lowest levels of LVEF, like the higher levels, omecamtiv mecarbil did not produce any adverse effects on blood pressure, heart rate, potassium homeostasis, or renal function.

In GALACTIC-HF, 8,256 HFrEF patients with LVEF 35% or less were randomized to omecamtiv mecarbil or placebo. The primary composite outcome of hospitalization or urgent visit for heart failure or death from cardiovascular causes was evaluated after a median of 21.8 months on therapy.

When incidence rate per 100 patient years was graphed against the range of LVEF, the relative advantage of omecamtiv mecarbil became visible just below an LVEF of 30%, climbing steadily even to the lowest LVEF, which reached 10%.

Perhaps relevant to the reduction in events, there were also greater relative reductions in NT-proBNP (NT-proB-type natriuretic peptide) for omecamtiv mecarbil at lower relative to higher LVEF. Although omecamtiv mecarbil is not associated with any direct vascular, electrophysiologic, or neurohormonal effects, according to Dr. Teerlink, the indirect effects of selective binding to cardiac myosin has been associated with lower NT-proBNP and other biomarkers of cardiac remodeling in prior clinical studies.

Although Dr. Teerlink acknowledged that relatively few patients in GALACTIC-HF received an angiotensin-receptor neprilysin inhibitor (ARNI) or a sodium glucose cotransporter-2 (SGLT2) inhibitor, he said there is “every reason to believe that omecamtiv mecarbil would be complementary to these therapies.” He said the mechanism of action of omecamtiv mecarbil, which improves systolic function, has no overlap with these drugs.

Importantly, there is a particular need for new treatment options in patients with advanced LVEF, according to Dr. Teerlink, who cited evidence, for example, that “the beneficial effect of [the ARNI] sacubitril valsartan, while still significant, decreases in patients with LVEF less than 35%.”

Overall, based on these results, “we believe that omecamtiv mecarbil represents a novel therapy that holds the promise of improving clinical outcomes in patients with severely reduced ejection fraction, which are the very patients that are most challenging for us to treat,” Dr. Teerlink said.
 

Omecamtiv mecarbil may ‘buy you some time’

Ileana Piña, MD, clinical professor of medicine, Central Michigan University, Mount Pleasant, Mich., agreed. She said that omecamtiv mecarbil, if approved, will be an option for the type of HFrEF patients who are being considered for heart transplant or mechanical-assist devices.

“We are very loath to use inotropes in this population, because we know that ultimately the inotrope is not going to do well,” said Dr. Piña, calling these therapies a “Band-Aid.” Based on the evidence from GALACTIC-HF, she thinks that omecamtiv mecarbil will be more versatile.

“This drug does not increase myocardial oxygen demand as do the inotropes, and it can be given in the outpatient setting if need be, so I see this as a real advance,” Dr. Piña said. Although Dr. Piña acknowledged that omecamtiv mecarbil did not reduce mortality in the GALACTIC-HF trial, “at least it will buy you some time.”

Dr. Teerlink has financial relationships with multiple pharmaceutical companies, including Amgen, Cytogenetics, and Servier, which provided funding for the GALACTIC-HF trial. Dr. Piña reports no potential conflicts of interest.

The greatest relative benefit from omecamtiv mecarbil, a member of the novel myotropic drug class that improves cardiac performance, is produced in heart failure patients with the lowest left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), a new analysis of the recently published phase 3 GALACTIC-HF trial has found.

The findings reinforce the potential for this drug to be helpful in the management of the most advanced stages of heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), reported John R. Teerlink, MD, director of heart failure at San Francisco Veterans Affairs Medical Center, at the annual scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology.

The phase 3 multinational GALACTIC-HF trial, published earlier this year, linked omecamtiv mecarbil with an 8% reduction in the risk of a heart failure–related events or cardiovascular death, relative to placebo, which was the primary outcome. For entry, HFrEF patients were required to have a LVEF of 35% or less.

Drilling down on ejection fraction

The new analysis divided participants into quartiles of baseline LVEF and then compared relative outcomes and safety.

In the lowest quartile, defined by a LVEF of 22% or lower, the reduction in risk of events reached 17% (hazard ratio, 0.83; 95% confidence interval, 0.73-0.95) for omecamtiv mecarbil relative to placebo. In the highest, defined by a LVEF of 33% or greater, the benefit fell short of significance (HR 0.99; 95% CI, 0.84-1.16). Across quartiles, LVEF was the “strongest modifier of the treatment effect,” emerging in this analysis as a statistically significant (P = .004) continuous variable.

The comparison by LVEF quartiles also provided an opportunity to show that omecamtiv mecarbil was as safe and well tolerated in those with the most advanced disease as in those less sick. At the lowest levels of LVEF, like the higher levels, omecamtiv mecarbil did not produce any adverse effects on blood pressure, heart rate, potassium homeostasis, or renal function.

In GALACTIC-HF, 8,256 HFrEF patients with LVEF 35% or less were randomized to omecamtiv mecarbil or placebo. The primary composite outcome of hospitalization or urgent visit for heart failure or death from cardiovascular causes was evaluated after a median of 21.8 months on therapy.

When incidence rate per 100 patient years was graphed against the range of LVEF, the relative advantage of omecamtiv mecarbil became visible just below an LVEF of 30%, climbing steadily even to the lowest LVEF, which reached 10%.

Perhaps relevant to the reduction in events, there were also greater relative reductions in NT-proBNP (NT-proB-type natriuretic peptide) for omecamtiv mecarbil at lower relative to higher LVEF. Although omecamtiv mecarbil is not associated with any direct vascular, electrophysiologic, or neurohormonal effects, according to Dr. Teerlink, the indirect effects of selective binding to cardiac myosin has been associated with lower NT-proBNP and other biomarkers of cardiac remodeling in prior clinical studies.

Although Dr. Teerlink acknowledged that relatively few patients in GALACTIC-HF received an angiotensin-receptor neprilysin inhibitor (ARNI) or a sodium glucose cotransporter-2 (SGLT2) inhibitor, he said there is “every reason to believe that omecamtiv mecarbil would be complementary to these therapies.” He said the mechanism of action of omecamtiv mecarbil, which improves systolic function, has no overlap with these drugs.

Importantly, there is a particular need for new treatment options in patients with advanced LVEF, according to Dr. Teerlink, who cited evidence, for example, that “the beneficial effect of [the ARNI] sacubitril valsartan, while still significant, decreases in patients with LVEF less than 35%.”

Overall, based on these results, “we believe that omecamtiv mecarbil represents a novel therapy that holds the promise of improving clinical outcomes in patients with severely reduced ejection fraction, which are the very patients that are most challenging for us to treat,” Dr. Teerlink said.
 

Omecamtiv mecarbil may ‘buy you some time’

Ileana Piña, MD, clinical professor of medicine, Central Michigan University, Mount Pleasant, Mich., agreed. She said that omecamtiv mecarbil, if approved, will be an option for the type of HFrEF patients who are being considered for heart transplant or mechanical-assist devices.

“We are very loath to use inotropes in this population, because we know that ultimately the inotrope is not going to do well,” said Dr. Piña, calling these therapies a “Band-Aid.” Based on the evidence from GALACTIC-HF, she thinks that omecamtiv mecarbil will be more versatile.

“This drug does not increase myocardial oxygen demand as do the inotropes, and it can be given in the outpatient setting if need be, so I see this as a real advance,” Dr. Piña said. Although Dr. Piña acknowledged that omecamtiv mecarbil did not reduce mortality in the GALACTIC-HF trial, “at least it will buy you some time.”

Dr. Teerlink has financial relationships with multiple pharmaceutical companies, including Amgen, Cytogenetics, and Servier, which provided funding for the GALACTIC-HF trial. Dr. Piña reports no potential conflicts of interest.

The greatest relative benefit from omecamtiv mecarbil, a member of the novel myotropic drug class that improves cardiac performance, is produced in heart failure patients with the lowest left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), a new analysis of the recently published phase 3 GALACTIC-HF trial has found.

The findings reinforce the potential for this drug to be helpful in the management of the most advanced stages of heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), reported John R. Teerlink, MD, director of heart failure at San Francisco Veterans Affairs Medical Center, at the annual scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology.

The phase 3 multinational GALACTIC-HF trial, published earlier this year, linked omecamtiv mecarbil with an 8% reduction in the risk of a heart failure–related events or cardiovascular death, relative to placebo, which was the primary outcome. For entry, HFrEF patients were required to have a LVEF of 35% or less.

Drilling down on ejection fraction

The new analysis divided participants into quartiles of baseline LVEF and then compared relative outcomes and safety.

In the lowest quartile, defined by a LVEF of 22% or lower, the reduction in risk of events reached 17% (hazard ratio, 0.83; 95% confidence interval, 0.73-0.95) for omecamtiv mecarbil relative to placebo. In the highest, defined by a LVEF of 33% or greater, the benefit fell short of significance (HR 0.99; 95% CI, 0.84-1.16). Across quartiles, LVEF was the “strongest modifier of the treatment effect,” emerging in this analysis as a statistically significant (P = .004) continuous variable.

The comparison by LVEF quartiles also provided an opportunity to show that omecamtiv mecarbil was as safe and well tolerated in those with the most advanced disease as in those less sick. At the lowest levels of LVEF, like the higher levels, omecamtiv mecarbil did not produce any adverse effects on blood pressure, heart rate, potassium homeostasis, or renal function.

In GALACTIC-HF, 8,256 HFrEF patients with LVEF 35% or less were randomized to omecamtiv mecarbil or placebo. The primary composite outcome of hospitalization or urgent visit for heart failure or death from cardiovascular causes was evaluated after a median of 21.8 months on therapy.

When incidence rate per 100 patient years was graphed against the range of LVEF, the relative advantage of omecamtiv mecarbil became visible just below an LVEF of 30%, climbing steadily even to the lowest LVEF, which reached 10%.

Perhaps relevant to the reduction in events, there were also greater relative reductions in NT-proBNP (NT-proB-type natriuretic peptide) for omecamtiv mecarbil at lower relative to higher LVEF. Although omecamtiv mecarbil is not associated with any direct vascular, electrophysiologic, or neurohormonal effects, according to Dr. Teerlink, the indirect effects of selective binding to cardiac myosin has been associated with lower NT-proBNP and other biomarkers of cardiac remodeling in prior clinical studies.

Although Dr. Teerlink acknowledged that relatively few patients in GALACTIC-HF received an angiotensin-receptor neprilysin inhibitor (ARNI) or a sodium glucose cotransporter-2 (SGLT2) inhibitor, he said there is “every reason to believe that omecamtiv mecarbil would be complementary to these therapies.” He said the mechanism of action of omecamtiv mecarbil, which improves systolic function, has no overlap with these drugs.

Importantly, there is a particular need for new treatment options in patients with advanced LVEF, according to Dr. Teerlink, who cited evidence, for example, that “the beneficial effect of [the ARNI] sacubitril valsartan, while still significant, decreases in patients with LVEF less than 35%.”

Overall, based on these results, “we believe that omecamtiv mecarbil represents a novel therapy that holds the promise of improving clinical outcomes in patients with severely reduced ejection fraction, which are the very patients that are most challenging for us to treat,” Dr. Teerlink said.
 

Omecamtiv mecarbil may ‘buy you some time’

Ileana Piña, MD, clinical professor of medicine, Central Michigan University, Mount Pleasant, Mich., agreed. She said that omecamtiv mecarbil, if approved, will be an option for the type of HFrEF patients who are being considered for heart transplant or mechanical-assist devices.

“We are very loath to use inotropes in this population, because we know that ultimately the inotrope is not going to do well,” said Dr. Piña, calling these therapies a “Band-Aid.” Based on the evidence from GALACTIC-HF, she thinks that omecamtiv mecarbil will be more versatile.

“This drug does not increase myocardial oxygen demand as do the inotropes, and it can be given in the outpatient setting if need be, so I see this as a real advance,” Dr. Piña said. Although Dr. Piña acknowledged that omecamtiv mecarbil did not reduce mortality in the GALACTIC-HF trial, “at least it will buy you some time.”

Dr. Teerlink has financial relationships with multiple pharmaceutical companies, including Amgen, Cytogenetics, and Servier, which provided funding for the GALACTIC-HF trial. Dr. Piña reports no potential conflicts of interest.

It’s now official: The investigational sodium-glucose cotransporter (SGLT) 1/2 inhibitor sotagliflozin is the first agent clearly shown in a prespecified analysis of randomized trials to improve clinical outcomes in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFpEF).

Researchers who ran the SCORED and SOLOIST-WHF pivotal trials for sotagliflozin first made that claim in November 2020 when reporting top-line results from a prespecified meta-analysis of the two trials during the American Heart Association annual scientific sessions. A follow-up report during the annual scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology fleshed out the evidence and firmed up their landmark conclusion.

The meta-analysis (Abstract 410-08) included 4,500 patients with type 2 diabetes and diagnosed heart failure at entry; its primary endpoint, which was the same in both trials, was the combined incidence of cardiovascular death and the total number of either hospitalization for heart failure or urgent outpatient visits for heart failure.

Compared with placebo, treatment with sotagliflozin for a median of about 15 months dropped this composite endpoint by a relative 33% among the 1,931 who began the study with a left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) of at least 50% (HFpEF), by a relative 22% in the 1,758 patients who entered with an LVEF of less than 40% (patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction), and by a relative 43% among the 811 patients who began with an LVEF of 40%-49% (patients with heart failure with mid-range ejection fraction). The relative risk reductions were significant for all three subgroups, Deepak L. Bhatt, MD, reported at the meeting.
 

Equally effective ‘across the full range of LVEFs.’

Perhaps as notable and unprecedented was the further finding that the clinical benefits seen with treatment of patients with type 2 diabetes with sotagliflozin was consistent regardless of the ejection fraction they had at entry. Enrolled patients with baseline LVEFs in the range of 25% received a relative benefit from sotagliflozin treatment that was statistically no different from the benefit seen in patients who entered with an LVEF in the neighborhood of 45%, 65%, or at any other level across the LVEF spectrum, a finding that Dr. Bhatt called “remarkable” during a press briefing. “The results show the benefit of sotagliflozin across the full range of LVEFs.”

“We are very excited in the heart failure world by the SGLT2 inhibitors; we’ve been impressed by their reduction in heart failure hospitalizations, but we wonder about the patients with HFpEF, where we haven’t had a blockbuster drug to give,” said Ileana L. Piña, MD, a heart failure specialist and medical officer with the Food and Drug Administration.

The new findings “look like they could pose a regulatory indication [for sotagliflozin] for patients with type 2 diabetes and heart failure across the entire spectrum of heart failure,” said Christopher M. O’Connor, MD, a heart failure specialist and president of the Inova Heart & Vascular institute in Falls Church, Va., and designated discussant for Dr. Bhatt’s report.

A significant on-treatment reduction in CV death

Other new, notable findings from the meta-analysis included the observation that while treatment with sotagliflozin failed to produce a significant reduction in cardiovascular death, compared with placebo, in the intent-to-treat analysis of all patients and of those with heart failure at baseline (it produced nonsignificant point-estimate reductions of 11% compared with placebo for all patients, and of 23% for patients who began the study with heart failure), it did result in a significant 23% relative risk reduction when the researchers focused on patients while they remained adherent to their sotagliflozin regimen (the on-treatment analysis). This 23% relative reduction appeared among all enrolled patients, as well as in the subgroup that started with diagnosed heart failure.

“Given the totality of data from the SGLT2 inhibitors, I think this is a real finding,” Dr. Bhatt said.

Additional analyses also showed that, among women, treatment with sotagliflozin was linked with significant relative reductions in the primary endpoint of roughly 30% compared with placebo among all patients, and also among those with heart failure at baseline. “HFpEF is a problem particularly in older women, and we showed that the benefit was consistent in men and women,” Dr. Bhatt said.

He acknowledged that results are expected soon from two pivotal trials that are examining two different SGLT2 inhibitors, dapagliflozin and empagliflozin, in patients with HFpEF. “I think there will be a class effect for both SGLT2 inhibitors and sotagliflozin for reducing heart failure events in patients with HFpEF, and I predict that the dapagliflozin and empagliflozin trials will have positive results,” Dr. Bhatt said.

Sotagliflozin differs from the SGLT2 inhibitors by also inhibiting SGLT1, an enzyme found in the gastrointestinal system that, when inhibited, results in increased glucose excretion from the gut and a cut in bloodstream levels of postprandial glucose levels. The Food and Drug Administration accepted data from SCORED and SOLOIST-WHF as part of the evidence the agency is now considering for granting a new drug approval to sotagliflozin.

SCORED and SOLOIST-WHF were initially sponsored by Sanofi, and later by Lexicon Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Bhatt’s institution, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, has received funding from Sanofi and Lexicon Pharmaceuticals. He has been a consultant to and received honoraria from K₂P, Level Ex, and MJH Life Sciences; he has been an adviser to Cardax, Cereno Scientific, Myokardia, Novo Nordisk, Phase Bio, and PLx Pharma; and he has received research funding from numerous companies. Dr. Piña has no relevant disclosures. Dr. O’Connor has been a consultant to Arena, Bayer, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck, and Windtree, and he has an ownership interest in Biscardia.

[email protected]

It’s now official: The investigational sodium-glucose cotransporter (SGLT) 1/2 inhibitor sotagliflozin is the first agent clearly shown in a prespecified analysis of randomized trials to improve clinical outcomes in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFpEF).

Researchers who ran the SCORED and SOLOIST-WHF pivotal trials for sotagliflozin first made that claim in November 2020 when reporting top-line results from a prespecified meta-analysis of the two trials during the American Heart Association annual scientific sessions. A follow-up report during the annual scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology fleshed out the evidence and firmed up their landmark conclusion.

The meta-analysis (Abstract 410-08) included 4,500 patients with type 2 diabetes and diagnosed heart failure at entry; its primary endpoint, which was the same in both trials, was the combined incidence of cardiovascular death and the total number of either hospitalization for heart failure or urgent outpatient visits for heart failure.

Compared with placebo, treatment with sotagliflozin for a median of about 15 months dropped this composite endpoint by a relative 33% among the 1,931 who began the study with a left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) of at least 50% (HFpEF), by a relative 22% in the 1,758 patients who entered with an LVEF of less than 40% (patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction), and by a relative 43% among the 811 patients who began with an LVEF of 40%-49% (patients with heart failure with mid-range ejection fraction). The relative risk reductions were significant for all three subgroups, Deepak L. Bhatt, MD, reported at the meeting.
 

Equally effective ‘across the full range of LVEFs.’

Perhaps as notable and unprecedented was the further finding that the clinical benefits seen with treatment of patients with type 2 diabetes with sotagliflozin was consistent regardless of the ejection fraction they had at entry. Enrolled patients with baseline LVEFs in the range of 25% received a relative benefit from sotagliflozin treatment that was statistically no different from the benefit seen in patients who entered with an LVEF in the neighborhood of 45%, 65%, or at any other level across the LVEF spectrum, a finding that Dr. Bhatt called “remarkable” during a press briefing. “The results show the benefit of sotagliflozin across the full range of LVEFs.”

“We are very excited in the heart failure world by the SGLT2 inhibitors; we’ve been impressed by their reduction in heart failure hospitalizations, but we wonder about the patients with HFpEF, where we haven’t had a blockbuster drug to give,” said Ileana L. Piña, MD, a heart failure specialist and medical officer with the Food and Drug Administration.

The new findings “look like they could pose a regulatory indication [for sotagliflozin] for patients with type 2 diabetes and heart failure across the entire spectrum of heart failure,” said Christopher M. O’Connor, MD, a heart failure specialist and president of the Inova Heart & Vascular institute in Falls Church, Va., and designated discussant for Dr. Bhatt’s report.

A significant on-treatment reduction in CV death

Other new, notable findings from the meta-analysis included the observation that while treatment with sotagliflozin failed to produce a significant reduction in cardiovascular death, compared with placebo, in the intent-to-treat analysis of all patients and of those with heart failure at baseline (it produced nonsignificant point-estimate reductions of 11% compared with placebo for all patients, and of 23% for patients who began the study with heart failure), it did result in a significant 23% relative risk reduction when the researchers focused on patients while they remained adherent to their sotagliflozin regimen (the on-treatment analysis). This 23% relative reduction appeared among all enrolled patients, as well as in the subgroup that started with diagnosed heart failure.

“Given the totality of data from the SGLT2 inhibitors, I think this is a real finding,” Dr. Bhatt said.

Additional analyses also showed that, among women, treatment with sotagliflozin was linked with significant relative reductions in the primary endpoint of roughly 30% compared with placebo among all patients, and also among those with heart failure at baseline. “HFpEF is a problem particularly in older women, and we showed that the benefit was consistent in men and women,” Dr. Bhatt said.

He acknowledged that results are expected soon from two pivotal trials that are examining two different SGLT2 inhibitors, dapagliflozin and empagliflozin, in patients with HFpEF. “I think there will be a class effect for both SGLT2 inhibitors and sotagliflozin for reducing heart failure events in patients with HFpEF, and I predict that the dapagliflozin and empagliflozin trials will have positive results,” Dr. Bhatt said.

Sotagliflozin differs from the SGLT2 inhibitors by also inhibiting SGLT1, an enzyme found in the gastrointestinal system that, when inhibited, results in increased glucose excretion from the gut and a cut in bloodstream levels of postprandial glucose levels. The Food and Drug Administration accepted data from SCORED and SOLOIST-WHF as part of the evidence the agency is now considering for granting a new drug approval to sotagliflozin.

SCORED and SOLOIST-WHF were initially sponsored by Sanofi, and later by Lexicon Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Bhatt’s institution, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, has received funding from Sanofi and Lexicon Pharmaceuticals. He has been a consultant to and received honoraria from K₂P, Level Ex, and MJH Life Sciences; he has been an adviser to Cardax, Cereno Scientific, Myokardia, Novo Nordisk, Phase Bio, and PLx Pharma; and he has received research funding from numerous companies. Dr. Piña has no relevant disclosures. Dr. O’Connor has been a consultant to Arena, Bayer, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck, and Windtree, and he has an ownership interest in Biscardia.

[email protected]

It’s now official: The investigational sodium-glucose cotransporter (SGLT) 1/2 inhibitor sotagliflozin is the first agent clearly shown in a prespecified analysis of randomized trials to improve clinical outcomes in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFpEF).

Researchers who ran the SCORED and SOLOIST-WHF pivotal trials for sotagliflozin first made that claim in November 2020 when reporting top-line results from a prespecified meta-analysis of the two trials during the American Heart Association annual scientific sessions. A follow-up report during the annual scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology fleshed out the evidence and firmed up their landmark conclusion.

The meta-analysis (Abstract 410-08) included 4,500 patients with type 2 diabetes and diagnosed heart failure at entry; its primary endpoint, which was the same in both trials, was the combined incidence of cardiovascular death and the total number of either hospitalization for heart failure or urgent outpatient visits for heart failure.

Compared with placebo, treatment with sotagliflozin for a median of about 15 months dropped this composite endpoint by a relative 33% among the 1,931 who began the study with a left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) of at least 50% (HFpEF), by a relative 22% in the 1,758 patients who entered with an LVEF of less than 40% (patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction), and by a relative 43% among the 811 patients who began with an LVEF of 40%-49% (patients with heart failure with mid-range ejection fraction). The relative risk reductions were significant for all three subgroups, Deepak L. Bhatt, MD, reported at the meeting.
 

Equally effective ‘across the full range of LVEFs.’

Perhaps as notable and unprecedented was the further finding that the clinical benefits seen with treatment of patients with type 2 diabetes with sotagliflozin was consistent regardless of the ejection fraction they had at entry. Enrolled patients with baseline LVEFs in the range of 25% received a relative benefit from sotagliflozin treatment that was statistically no different from the benefit seen in patients who entered with an LVEF in the neighborhood of 45%, 65%, or at any other level across the LVEF spectrum, a finding that Dr. Bhatt called “remarkable” during a press briefing. “The results show the benefit of sotagliflozin across the full range of LVEFs.”

“We are very excited in the heart failure world by the SGLT2 inhibitors; we’ve been impressed by their reduction in heart failure hospitalizations, but we wonder about the patients with HFpEF, where we haven’t had a blockbuster drug to give,” said Ileana L. Piña, MD, a heart failure specialist and medical officer with the Food and Drug Administration.

The new findings “look like they could pose a regulatory indication [for sotagliflozin] for patients with type 2 diabetes and heart failure across the entire spectrum of heart failure,” said Christopher M. O’Connor, MD, a heart failure specialist and president of the Inova Heart & Vascular institute in Falls Church, Va., and designated discussant for Dr. Bhatt’s report.

A significant on-treatment reduction in CV death

Other new, notable findings from the meta-analysis included the observation that while treatment with sotagliflozin failed to produce a significant reduction in cardiovascular death, compared with placebo, in the intent-to-treat analysis of all patients and of those with heart failure at baseline (it produced nonsignificant point-estimate reductions of 11% compared with placebo for all patients, and of 23% for patients who began the study with heart failure), it did result in a significant 23% relative risk reduction when the researchers focused on patients while they remained adherent to their sotagliflozin regimen (the on-treatment analysis). This 23% relative reduction appeared among all enrolled patients, as well as in the subgroup that started with diagnosed heart failure.

“Given the totality of data from the SGLT2 inhibitors, I think this is a real finding,” Dr. Bhatt said.

Additional analyses also showed that, among women, treatment with sotagliflozin was linked with significant relative reductions in the primary endpoint of roughly 30% compared with placebo among all patients, and also among those with heart failure at baseline. “HFpEF is a problem particularly in older women, and we showed that the benefit was consistent in men and women,” Dr. Bhatt said.

He acknowledged that results are expected soon from two pivotal trials that are examining two different SGLT2 inhibitors, dapagliflozin and empagliflozin, in patients with HFpEF. “I think there will be a class effect for both SGLT2 inhibitors and sotagliflozin for reducing heart failure events in patients with HFpEF, and I predict that the dapagliflozin and empagliflozin trials will have positive results,” Dr. Bhatt said.

Sotagliflozin differs from the SGLT2 inhibitors by also inhibiting SGLT1, an enzyme found in the gastrointestinal system that, when inhibited, results in increased glucose excretion from the gut and a cut in bloodstream levels of postprandial glucose levels. The Food and Drug Administration accepted data from SCORED and SOLOIST-WHF as part of the evidence the agency is now considering for granting a new drug approval to sotagliflozin.

SCORED and SOLOIST-WHF were initially sponsored by Sanofi, and later by Lexicon Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Bhatt’s institution, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, has received funding from Sanofi and Lexicon Pharmaceuticals. He has been a consultant to and received honoraria from K₂P, Level Ex, and MJH Life Sciences; he has been an adviser to Cardax, Cereno Scientific, Myokardia, Novo Nordisk, Phase Bio, and PLx Pharma; and he has received research funding from numerous companies. Dr. Piña has no relevant disclosures. Dr. O’Connor has been a consultant to Arena, Bayer, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck, and Windtree, and he has an ownership interest in Biscardia.

[email protected]

A new analysis from the TWILIGHT study has shown that, in the high-risk population undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) enrolled in the study, the benefits of early aspirin withdrawal and continuation on ticagrelor monotherapy were similar in women and men.

But there were some interesting observations in the analysis suggesting possible additional benefits of this strategy for women.

“These data support the use of ticagrelor monotherapy in women and men, and importantly show that the absolute risk reduction of bleeding was higher in women, as their bleeding rates were higher,” senior author Roxana Mehran, MD, the Zena and Michael A. Wiener Cardiovascular Institute, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, said in an interview.

“These data also support the need for prospective dual antiplatelet therapy deescalation studies in women,” Dr. Mehran added.

The main results of the TWILIGHT study showed that after a short period of dual antiplatelet therapy, a strategy of ticagrelor monotherapy, compared with continued dual therapy led to reduced bleeding without an increase in ischemic events among patients at high risk for bleeding or ischemic events after PCI.

The new gender-based analysis was presented by Birgit Vogel, MD, on May 15 at the annual scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology. It was also published online in JAMA Cardiology to coincide with the ACC presentation.

Dr. Vogel, also from Wiener Cardiovascular Institute, explained that the current analysis was undertaken to investigate whether the TWILIGHT results varied in relation to sex, given that women are believed to have an increased risk for bleeding after PCI, compared with men.

“The current analysis showed that, while women did have a higher bleeding risk, compared to men, this was no longer significant after adjustment for baseline characteristics; and ischemic events were similar between the two sexes,” she reported.

“Results showed that withdrawing aspirin while continuing ticagrelor after 3 months of dual antiplatelet therapy was associated with a reduction in bleeding and preserved ischemic benefits in both women and men,” she added.

The TWILIGHT trial randomized 7,119 patients at high risk of ischemic or bleeding events who had undergone successful PCI with at least one drug-eluting stent and had completed 3 months of dual antiplatelet therapy to aspirin or placebo for an additional 12 months plus open-label ticagrelor.

The main results showed that the primary endpoint of Bleeding Academic Research Consortium (BARC) 2, 3, or 5 bleeding at 1 year was almost halved with ticagrelor monotherapy, occurring in 4% of these patients, compared with 7.1% of the ticagrelor/aspirin group (hazard ratio, 0.56). Ischemic events were similar in the two groups.

The current analysis focused on whether these effects varied in relation to sex.

Dr. Vogel noted that women made up 23.9% of the study population, were older than the men, and were more likely to have diabetes, chronic kidney disease, anemia and hypertension, while the men were more likely to be current smokers. Men had a higher incidence of coronary heart disease history, while women were more likely to have an ACS indication for PCI.

Unadjusted results showed a higher rate of BARC 2, 3, or 5 bleeding at 1 year in women (6.8%) versus men (5.2%), giving an HR of 1.32 (95% CI, 1.06-1.64).

But after adjustment for baseline characteristics, this became nonsignificant (HR, 1.20; 95% CI, 0.95-1.52).

Dr. Vogel pointed out that the most severe type of bleeding (BARC 3 and 5) was not attenuated as much by adjustment for baseline characteristics, with the HR reducing from 1.57 to 1.49.

The ischemic endpoint of death/stroke or MI was similar in men (4.0%) and women (3.5%), and this did not change after adjustment for baseline characteristics.

In terms of the two treatment groups, BARC 2, 3, or 5 bleeding was reduced to a similar extent with ticagrelor monotherapy in both men and women. This endpoint decreased from 8.6% in women on dual-antiplatelet therapy to 5.0% in women on ticagrelor alone (adjusted HR, 0.62) and from 6.6% to 3.7% in men (aHR, 0.57). But she noted that the absolute risk reduction in bleeding was greater in women (3.6%) versus men (2.9%).

“If we have a relative risk reduction in bleeding with early withdrawal of aspirin that is similar between the sexes but an overall higher risk of bleeding in women, that results in a greater absolute risk reduction,” Dr. Vogel commented.

The primary ischemic endpoint of death/MI/stroke was not increased in the ticagrelor group vs the dual antiplatelet group in either men (aHR, 1.06) or women (aHR, 1.04).
 

Greater reduction in mortality in women?

However, Dr. Vogel reported that there was a suggestion of a greater reduction in all-cause mortality with ticagrelor monotherapy in women versus men. “We found a significant interaction for treatment effect and sex for all-cause mortality, a prespecified endpoint, which was significantly lower in women treated with ticagrelor monotherapy, compared to dual antiplatelet therapy, but this was not the case in men.”

However, this observation was based on few events and should not be considered definitive, she added.

Dr. Vogel noted that the analysis had the limitations of the study not being powered to show differences in men versus women, and the results are only applicable to the population studied who were at high risk of bleeding post PCI.

Commenting on the study at the ACC session, Jacqueline Tamis-Holland, MD, associate professor of medicine at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, described the presentation as “very interesting.”

“We know that women notoriously have higher bleeding risk than men, but this particular study did not show a difference in bleeding risk after adjusting for other confounding variables,” she said.

“In fact, one would think that the relative benefit of a treatment designed to decrease bleeding would be more favorable to women, but this analysis didn’t show that,” she added.

Dr. Vogel replied that the HR of the most serious type of bleeding (BARC 3 and 5) in women versus men was only reduced minimally after adjustment for baseline characteristics, “which still makes us think that there are additional factors that might be important and contribute to an increased risk for bleeding and especially more serous types of bleeding in women.”

She pointed out that, while there was a similar risk reduction in bleeding in women and men, there was a potential mortality benefit in women. “The question is whether this mortality benefit is due to reduced bleeding that might be greater in women than men, and the reality is we don’t have a lot of data on that.”

Dr. Vogel added: “We know about the relationship between bleeding and mortality very well but the impact of sex on this is really not well investigated. It would be worth investigating this further to come up with bleeding reduction strategies for women because this is a really important issue.”

This work was supported by an investigator-initiated grant from AstraZeneca. Dr. Mehran reported grants and personal fees (paid to the institution) from Abbott, Abiomed, Bayer, Beth Israel Deaconess, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Chiesi, Concept Medical Research, Medtronic, Novartis and DSI Research; grants from Applied Therapeutics, AstraZeneca, Cerecor, CSL Behring, OrbusNeich, and Zoll; personal fees from Boston Scientific, California Institute for Regenerative Medicine, Cine-Med Research, Janssen Scientific Affairs, ACC, and WebMD; personal fees paid to the institution from CardiaWave, Duke University, and Idorsia Pharmaceuticals; serving as a consultant or committee or advisory board member for Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions, the American Medical Association, and Regeneron Pharmaceuticals; and owning stock in ControlRad, Elixir Medical, and STEL outside the submitted work. Dr. Vogel disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

A new analysis from the TWILIGHT study has shown that, in the high-risk population undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) enrolled in the study, the benefits of early aspirin withdrawal and continuation on ticagrelor monotherapy were similar in women and men.

But there were some interesting observations in the analysis suggesting possible additional benefits of this strategy for women.

“These data support the use of ticagrelor monotherapy in women and men, and importantly show that the absolute risk reduction of bleeding was higher in women, as their bleeding rates were higher,” senior author Roxana Mehran, MD, the Zena and Michael A. Wiener Cardiovascular Institute, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, said in an interview.

“These data also support the need for prospective dual antiplatelet therapy deescalation studies in women,” Dr. Mehran added.

The main results of the TWILIGHT study showed that after a short period of dual antiplatelet therapy, a strategy of ticagrelor monotherapy, compared with continued dual therapy led to reduced bleeding without an increase in ischemic events among patients at high risk for bleeding or ischemic events after PCI.

The new gender-based analysis was presented by Birgit Vogel, MD, on May 15 at the annual scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology. It was also published online in JAMA Cardiology to coincide with the ACC presentation.

Dr. Vogel, also from Wiener Cardiovascular Institute, explained that the current analysis was undertaken to investigate whether the TWILIGHT results varied in relation to sex, given that women are believed to have an increased risk for bleeding after PCI, compared with men.

“The current analysis showed that, while women did have a higher bleeding risk, compared to men, this was no longer significant after adjustment for baseline characteristics; and ischemic events were similar between the two sexes,” she reported.

“Results showed that withdrawing aspirin while continuing ticagrelor after 3 months of dual antiplatelet therapy was associated with a reduction in bleeding and preserved ischemic benefits in both women and men,” she added.

The TWILIGHT trial randomized 7,119 patients at high risk of ischemic or bleeding events who had undergone successful PCI with at least one drug-eluting stent and had completed 3 months of dual antiplatelet therapy to aspirin or placebo for an additional 12 months plus open-label ticagrelor.

The main results showed that the primary endpoint of Bleeding Academic Research Consortium (BARC) 2, 3, or 5 bleeding at 1 year was almost halved with ticagrelor monotherapy, occurring in 4% of these patients, compared with 7.1% of the ticagrelor/aspirin group (hazard ratio, 0.56). Ischemic events were similar in the two groups.

The current analysis focused on whether these effects varied in relation to sex.

Dr. Vogel noted that women made up 23.9% of the study population, were older than the men, and were more likely to have diabetes, chronic kidney disease, anemia and hypertension, while the men were more likely to be current smokers. Men had a higher incidence of coronary heart disease history, while women were more likely to have an ACS indication for PCI.

Unadjusted results showed a higher rate of BARC 2, 3, or 5 bleeding at 1 year in women (6.8%) versus men (5.2%), giving an HR of 1.32 (95% CI, 1.06-1.64).

But after adjustment for baseline characteristics, this became nonsignificant (HR, 1.20; 95% CI, 0.95-1.52).

Dr. Vogel pointed out that the most severe type of bleeding (BARC 3 and 5) was not attenuated as much by adjustment for baseline characteristics, with the HR reducing from 1.57 to 1.49.

The ischemic endpoint of death/stroke or MI was similar in men (4.0%) and women (3.5%), and this did not change after adjustment for baseline characteristics.

In terms of the two treatment groups, BARC 2, 3, or 5 bleeding was reduced to a similar extent with ticagrelor monotherapy in both men and women. This endpoint decreased from 8.6% in women on dual-antiplatelet therapy to 5.0% in women on ticagrelor alone (adjusted HR, 0.62) and from 6.6% to 3.7% in men (aHR, 0.57). But she noted that the absolute risk reduction in bleeding was greater in women (3.6%) versus men (2.9%).

“If we have a relative risk reduction in bleeding with early withdrawal of aspirin that is similar between the sexes but an overall higher risk of bleeding in women, that results in a greater absolute risk reduction,” Dr. Vogel commented.

The primary ischemic endpoint of death/MI/stroke was not increased in the ticagrelor group vs the dual antiplatelet group in either men (aHR, 1.06) or women (aHR, 1.04).
 

Greater reduction in mortality in women?

However, Dr. Vogel reported that there was a suggestion of a greater reduction in all-cause mortality with ticagrelor monotherapy in women versus men. “We found a significant interaction for treatment effect and sex for all-cause mortality, a prespecified endpoint, which was significantly lower in women treated with ticagrelor monotherapy, compared to dual antiplatelet therapy, but this was not the case in men.”

However, this observation was based on few events and should not be considered definitive, she added.

Dr. Vogel noted that the analysis had the limitations of the study not being powered to show differences in men versus women, and the results are only applicable to the population studied who were at high risk of bleeding post PCI.

Commenting on the study at the ACC session, Jacqueline Tamis-Holland, MD, associate professor of medicine at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, described the presentation as “very interesting.”

“We know that women notoriously have higher bleeding risk than men, but this particular study did not show a difference in bleeding risk after adjusting for other confounding variables,” she said.

“In fact, one would think that the relative benefit of a treatment designed to decrease bleeding would be more favorable to women, but this analysis didn’t show that,” she added.

Dr. Vogel replied that the HR of the most serious type of bleeding (BARC 3 and 5) in women versus men was only reduced minimally after adjustment for baseline characteristics, “which still makes us think that there are additional factors that might be important and contribute to an increased risk for bleeding and especially more serous types of bleeding in women.”

She pointed out that, while there was a similar risk reduction in bleeding in women and men, there was a potential mortality benefit in women. “The question is whether this mortality benefit is due to reduced bleeding that might be greater in women than men, and the reality is we don’t have a lot of data on that.”

Dr. Vogel added: “We know about the relationship between bleeding and mortality very well but the impact of sex on this is really not well investigated. It would be worth investigating this further to come up with bleeding reduction strategies for women because this is a really important issue.”

This work was supported by an investigator-initiated grant from AstraZeneca. Dr. Mehran reported grants and personal fees (paid to the institution) from Abbott, Abiomed, Bayer, Beth Israel Deaconess, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Chiesi, Concept Medical Research, Medtronic, Novartis and DSI Research; grants from Applied Therapeutics, AstraZeneca, Cerecor, CSL Behring, OrbusNeich, and Zoll; personal fees from Boston Scientific, California Institute for Regenerative Medicine, Cine-Med Research, Janssen Scientific Affairs, ACC, and WebMD; personal fees paid to the institution from CardiaWave, Duke University, and Idorsia Pharmaceuticals; serving as a consultant or committee or advisory board member for Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions, the American Medical Association, and Regeneron Pharmaceuticals; and owning stock in ControlRad, Elixir Medical, and STEL outside the submitted work. Dr. Vogel disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

A new analysis from the TWILIGHT study has shown that, in the high-risk population undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) enrolled in the study, the benefits of early aspirin withdrawal and continuation on ticagrelor monotherapy were similar in women and men.

But there were some interesting observations in the analysis suggesting possible additional benefits of this strategy for women.

“These data support the use of ticagrelor monotherapy in women and men, and importantly show that the absolute risk reduction of bleeding was higher in women, as their bleeding rates were higher,” senior author Roxana Mehran, MD, the Zena and Michael A. Wiener Cardiovascular Institute, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, said in an interview.

“These data also support the need for prospective dual antiplatelet therapy deescalation studies in women,” Dr. Mehran added.

The main results of the TWILIGHT study showed that after a short period of dual antiplatelet therapy, a strategy of ticagrelor monotherapy, compared with continued dual therapy led to reduced bleeding without an increase in ischemic events among patients at high risk for bleeding or ischemic events after PCI.

The new gender-based analysis was presented by Birgit Vogel, MD, on May 15 at the annual scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology. It was also published online in JAMA Cardiology to coincide with the ACC presentation.

Dr. Vogel, also from Wiener Cardiovascular Institute, explained that the current analysis was undertaken to investigate whether the TWILIGHT results varied in relation to sex, given that women are believed to have an increased risk for bleeding after PCI, compared with men.

“The current analysis showed that, while women did have a higher bleeding risk, compared to men, this was no longer significant after adjustment for baseline characteristics; and ischemic events were similar between the two sexes,” she reported.

“Results showed that withdrawing aspirin while continuing ticagrelor after 3 months of dual antiplatelet therapy was associated with a reduction in bleeding and preserved ischemic benefits in both women and men,” she added.

The TWILIGHT trial randomized 7,119 patients at high risk of ischemic or bleeding events who had undergone successful PCI with at least one drug-eluting stent and had completed 3 months of dual antiplatelet therapy to aspirin or placebo for an additional 12 months plus open-label ticagrelor.

The main results showed that the primary endpoint of Bleeding Academic Research Consortium (BARC) 2, 3, or 5 bleeding at 1 year was almost halved with ticagrelor monotherapy, occurring in 4% of these patients, compared with 7.1% of the ticagrelor/aspirin group (hazard ratio, 0.56). Ischemic events were similar in the two groups.

The current analysis focused on whether these effects varied in relation to sex.

Dr. Vogel noted that women made up 23.9% of the study population, were older than the men, and were more likely to have diabetes, chronic kidney disease, anemia and hypertension, while the men were more likely to be current smokers. Men had a higher incidence of coronary heart disease history, while women were more likely to have an ACS indication for PCI.

Unadjusted results showed a higher rate of BARC 2, 3, or 5 bleeding at 1 year in women (6.8%) versus men (5.2%), giving an HR of 1.32 (95% CI, 1.06-1.64).

But after adjustment for baseline characteristics, this became nonsignificant (HR, 1.20; 95% CI, 0.95-1.52).

Dr. Vogel pointed out that the most severe type of bleeding (BARC 3 and 5) was not attenuated as much by adjustment for baseline characteristics, with the HR reducing from 1.57 to 1.49.

The ischemic endpoint of death/stroke or MI was similar in men (4.0%) and women (3.5%), and this did not change after adjustment for baseline characteristics.

In terms of the two treatment groups, BARC 2, 3, or 5 bleeding was reduced to a similar extent with ticagrelor monotherapy in both men and women. This endpoint decreased from 8.6% in women on dual-antiplatelet therapy to 5.0% in women on ticagrelor alone (adjusted HR, 0.62) and from 6.6% to 3.7% in men (aHR, 0.57). But she noted that the absolute risk reduction in bleeding was greater in women (3.6%) versus men (2.9%).

“If we have a relative risk reduction in bleeding with early withdrawal of aspirin that is similar between the sexes but an overall higher risk of bleeding in women, that results in a greater absolute risk reduction,” Dr. Vogel commented.

The primary ischemic endpoint of death/MI/stroke was not increased in the ticagrelor group vs the dual antiplatelet group in either men (aHR, 1.06) or women (aHR, 1.04).
 

Greater reduction in mortality in women?

However, Dr. Vogel reported that there was a suggestion of a greater reduction in all-cause mortality with ticagrelor monotherapy in women versus men. “We found a significant interaction for treatment effect and sex for all-cause mortality, a prespecified endpoint, which was significantly lower in women treated with ticagrelor monotherapy, compared to dual antiplatelet therapy, but this was not the case in men.”

However, this observation was based on few events and should not be considered definitive, she added.

Dr. Vogel noted that the analysis had the limitations of the study not being powered to show differences in men versus women, and the results are only applicable to the population studied who were at high risk of bleeding post PCI.

Commenting on the study at the ACC session, Jacqueline Tamis-Holland, MD, associate professor of medicine at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, described the presentation as “very interesting.”

“We know that women notoriously have higher bleeding risk than men, but this particular study did not show a difference in bleeding risk after adjusting for other confounding variables,” she said.

“In fact, one would think that the relative benefit of a treatment designed to decrease bleeding would be more favorable to women, but this analysis didn’t show that,” she added.

Dr. Vogel replied that the HR of the most serious type of bleeding (BARC 3 and 5) in women versus men was only reduced minimally after adjustment for baseline characteristics, “which still makes us think that there are additional factors that might be important and contribute to an increased risk for bleeding and especially more serous types of bleeding in women.”

She pointed out that, while there was a similar risk reduction in bleeding in women and men, there was a potential mortality benefit in women. “The question is whether this mortality benefit is due to reduced bleeding that might be greater in women than men, and the reality is we don’t have a lot of data on that.”

Dr. Vogel added: “We know about the relationship between bleeding and mortality very well but the impact of sex on this is really not well investigated. It would be worth investigating this further to come up with bleeding reduction strategies for women because this is a really important issue.”

This work was supported by an investigator-initiated grant from AstraZeneca. Dr. Mehran reported grants and personal fees (paid to the institution) from Abbott, Abiomed, Bayer, Beth Israel Deaconess, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Chiesi, Concept Medical Research, Medtronic, Novartis and DSI Research; grants from Applied Therapeutics, AstraZeneca, Cerecor, CSL Behring, OrbusNeich, and Zoll; personal fees from Boston Scientific, California Institute for Regenerative Medicine, Cine-Med Research, Janssen Scientific Affairs, ACC, and WebMD; personal fees paid to the institution from CardiaWave, Duke University, and Idorsia Pharmaceuticals; serving as a consultant or committee or advisory board member for Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions, the American Medical Association, and Regeneron Pharmaceuticals; and owning stock in ControlRad, Elixir Medical, and STEL outside the submitted work. Dr. Vogel disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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