MDedge Emergency Medicine

Patients on antithrombotics after an acute MI will face a greater risk for bleeding and secondary cardiovascular (CV) events if they start taking any nonaspirin NSAID, confirms a large observational study.

Like other research before it, the new study suggests those risks will be much lower for some nonaspirin NSAIDs than others. But it may also challenge at least some conventional thinking about the safety of these drugs, and is based solely on a large cohort in South Korea, a group for which such NSAID data has been in short supply.

“It was intriguing that our study presented better safety profiles with celecoxib and meloxicam versus other subtypes of NSAIDs,” noted the report, published online July 27 in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

Most of the NSAIDs included in the analysis, “including naproxen, conferred a significantly higher risk for cardiovascular and bleeding events, compared with celecoxib and meloxicam,” wrote the authors, led by Dong Oh Kang, MD, Korea University Guro Hospital, Seoul, South Korea.

A main contribution of the study “is the thorough and comprehensive evaluation of the Korean population by use of the nationwide prescription claims database that reflects real-world clinical practice,” senior author Cheol Ung Choi, MD, PhD, of the same institution, said in an interview.

“Because we included the largest number of patients of any comparable clinical studies on NSAID treatment after MI thus far, our study may allow the generalizability of the adverse events of NSAIDs to all patients by constituting global evidence encompassing different population groups,” Dr. Choi said.

The analysis has limitations along with its strengths, the authors acknowledged, including its observational design and potential for confounding not addressed in statistical adjustments.

Observers of the study concurred, but some cited evidence pointing to such confounding that is serious enough to question the entire study’s validity.

Among the cohort of more than 100,000 patients followed for an average of about 2.3 years after their MI, the adjusted risk of thromboembolic CV events went up almost 7 times for those who took any NSAID for at least 4 consecutive weeks, compared with those who didn’t take NSAIDs, based on prescription records.

Their adjusted risk of bleeding events – which included gastrointestinal, intracranial, respiratory, or urinary tract bleeding or posthemorrhagic anemia, the group writes – was increased 300%.

There was wide variance in the adjusted hazard ratios for outcomes by type of NSAID. The risk of CV events climbed from a low of about 3 with meloxicam and almost 5 for celecoxib to more than 10 and 12 for naproxen and dexibuprofen, respectively.

The hazard ratios for bleeding ranged from about 3 for both meloxicam and celecoxib to more than 6 for naproxen.

Of note, celecoxib and meloxicam both preferentially target the cyclooxygenase type 2 (COX-2) pathway, and naproxen among NSAIDs once had a reputation for relative cardiac safety, although subsequent studies have challenged that notion.

“On the basis of the contemporary guidelines, NSAID treatment should be limited as much as possible after MI; however, our data suggest that celecoxib and meloxicam could be considered possible alternative choices in patients with MI when NSAID prescription is unavoidable,” the group wrote.

They acknowledged some limitations of the analysis, including an observational design and the possibility of unidentified confounders; that mortality outcomes were not available from the National Health Insurance Service database used in the study; and that the 2009-2013 span for the data didn’t allow consideration of more contemporary antiplatelet agents and direct oral anticoagulants.

Also, NSAID use was based on prescriptions without regard to over-the-counter usage. Although use of over-the-counter NSAIDs is common in Korea, “most MI patients in Korea are prescribed most medications, including NSAIDs, in the hospital. So I think that usage of over-the-counter NSAIDs did not change the results,” Dr. Choi said.

“This study breaks new ground by demonstrating cardiovascular safety of meloxicam (and not only of celecoxib), probably because of its higher COX-2 selectivity,” wrote the authors of an accompanying editorial, Juan J. Badimon, PhD, and Carlos G. Santos-Gallego, MD, both of the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York.

Notably, “this paper rejects the cardiovascular safety of naproxen, which had been suggested classically and in the previous Danish data, but that was not evident in this study.” The finding is consistent with the PRECISION trial, in which both bleeding and CV risk were increased with naproxen versus other NSAIDs, observed Dr. Badimon and Dr. Santos-Gallego.

They agreed with the authors in recommending that, “although NSAID treatment should be avoided in patients with MI, if the use of NSAIDs is inevitable due to comorbidities, the prescription of celecoxib and meloxicam could be considered as alternative options.”

But, “as no study is perfect, this article also presents some limitations,” the editorial agreed, citing some of the same issues noted by Dr. Kang and associates, along with potential confounding by indication and the lack of “clinical information to adjust (e.g., angiographic features, left ventricular function).”

“There’s undoubtedly residual confounding,” James M. Brophy, MD, PhD, a pharmacoepidemiologist at McGill University, Montreal, said in an interview.

The 400%-900% relative risks for CV events “are just too far in left field, compared to everything else we know,” he said. “There has never been a class of drugs that have shown this sort of magnitude of effect for adverse events.”

Even in PRECISION with its more than 24,000 high-coronary-risk patients randomized and followed for 5 years, Dr. Brophy observed, relative risks for the different NSAIDs varied by an order of magnitude of only 1-2.

“You should be interpreting things in the context of what is already known,” Dr. Brophy said. “The only conclusion I would draw is the paper is fatally flawed.”

The registry included 108,232 primarily male patients followed from their first diagnosed MI for CV and bleeding events. About 1.9% were prescribed at least one NSAID for 4 or more consecutive weeks during the follow-up period averaging 2.3 years, the group reported.

The most frequently prescribed NSAID was diclofenac, at about 72% of prescribed NSAIDs in the analysis for CV events and about 69% in the bleeding-event analysis.

Adding any NSAID to post-MI antithrombotic therapy led to an adjusted HR of 6.96 (P < .001) for CV events and 4.08 (P < .001) for bleeding events, compared with no NSAID treatment.

The 88% of the cohort who were on dual-antiplatelet therapy with aspirin and clopidogrel showed very nearly the same risk increases for both endpoints.

Further studies are needed to confirm the results “and ensure their generalizability to other populations,” Dr. Choi said. They should be validated especially using the claims data bases of countries near Korea, “such as Japan and Taiwan, to examine the reproducibility of the results in similar ethnic populations.”

That the study focused on a cohort in Korea is a strength, contended the authors as well as Dr. Badimon and Dr. Santos-Gallego, given “that most data about NSAIDs were extracted from Western populations, but the risk of thrombosis/bleeding post-MI varies according to ethnicity,” according to the editorial

Dr. Brophy agreed, but doubted that ethnic differences are responsible for variation in relative risks between the current results and other studies. “There are pharmacogenomic differences between different ethnicities as to how they activate these drugs. But I suspect that sort of difference is really minor. Maybe it leads to a 2% or a 5% difference in risks.”

Dr. Kang and associates, Dr. Badimon, Dr. Santos-Gallego, and Dr. Brophy disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Patients on antithrombotics after an acute MI will face a greater risk for bleeding and secondary cardiovascular (CV) events if they start taking any nonaspirin NSAID, confirms a large observational study.

Like other research before it, the new study suggests those risks will be much lower for some nonaspirin NSAIDs than others. But it may also challenge at least some conventional thinking about the safety of these drugs, and is based solely on a large cohort in South Korea, a group for which such NSAID data has been in short supply.

“It was intriguing that our study presented better safety profiles with celecoxib and meloxicam versus other subtypes of NSAIDs,” noted the report, published online July 27 in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

Most of the NSAIDs included in the analysis, “including naproxen, conferred a significantly higher risk for cardiovascular and bleeding events, compared with celecoxib and meloxicam,” wrote the authors, led by Dong Oh Kang, MD, Korea University Guro Hospital, Seoul, South Korea.

A main contribution of the study “is the thorough and comprehensive evaluation of the Korean population by use of the nationwide prescription claims database that reflects real-world clinical practice,” senior author Cheol Ung Choi, MD, PhD, of the same institution, said in an interview.

“Because we included the largest number of patients of any comparable clinical studies on NSAID treatment after MI thus far, our study may allow the generalizability of the adverse events of NSAIDs to all patients by constituting global evidence encompassing different population groups,” Dr. Choi said.

The analysis has limitations along with its strengths, the authors acknowledged, including its observational design and potential for confounding not addressed in statistical adjustments.

Observers of the study concurred, but some cited evidence pointing to such confounding that is serious enough to question the entire study’s validity.

Among the cohort of more than 100,000 patients followed for an average of about 2.3 years after their MI, the adjusted risk of thromboembolic CV events went up almost 7 times for those who took any NSAID for at least 4 consecutive weeks, compared with those who didn’t take NSAIDs, based on prescription records.

Their adjusted risk of bleeding events – which included gastrointestinal, intracranial, respiratory, or urinary tract bleeding or posthemorrhagic anemia, the group writes – was increased 300%.

There was wide variance in the adjusted hazard ratios for outcomes by type of NSAID. The risk of CV events climbed from a low of about 3 with meloxicam and almost 5 for celecoxib to more than 10 and 12 for naproxen and dexibuprofen, respectively.

The hazard ratios for bleeding ranged from about 3 for both meloxicam and celecoxib to more than 6 for naproxen.

Of note, celecoxib and meloxicam both preferentially target the cyclooxygenase type 2 (COX-2) pathway, and naproxen among NSAIDs once had a reputation for relative cardiac safety, although subsequent studies have challenged that notion.

“On the basis of the contemporary guidelines, NSAID treatment should be limited as much as possible after MI; however, our data suggest that celecoxib and meloxicam could be considered possible alternative choices in patients with MI when NSAID prescription is unavoidable,” the group wrote.

They acknowledged some limitations of the analysis, including an observational design and the possibility of unidentified confounders; that mortality outcomes were not available from the National Health Insurance Service database used in the study; and that the 2009-2013 span for the data didn’t allow consideration of more contemporary antiplatelet agents and direct oral anticoagulants.

Also, NSAID use was based on prescriptions without regard to over-the-counter usage. Although use of over-the-counter NSAIDs is common in Korea, “most MI patients in Korea are prescribed most medications, including NSAIDs, in the hospital. So I think that usage of over-the-counter NSAIDs did not change the results,” Dr. Choi said.

“This study breaks new ground by demonstrating cardiovascular safety of meloxicam (and not only of celecoxib), probably because of its higher COX-2 selectivity,” wrote the authors of an accompanying editorial, Juan J. Badimon, PhD, and Carlos G. Santos-Gallego, MD, both of the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York.

Notably, “this paper rejects the cardiovascular safety of naproxen, which had been suggested classically and in the previous Danish data, but that was not evident in this study.” The finding is consistent with the PRECISION trial, in which both bleeding and CV risk were increased with naproxen versus other NSAIDs, observed Dr. Badimon and Dr. Santos-Gallego.

They agreed with the authors in recommending that, “although NSAID treatment should be avoided in patients with MI, if the use of NSAIDs is inevitable due to comorbidities, the prescription of celecoxib and meloxicam could be considered as alternative options.”

But, “as no study is perfect, this article also presents some limitations,” the editorial agreed, citing some of the same issues noted by Dr. Kang and associates, along with potential confounding by indication and the lack of “clinical information to adjust (e.g., angiographic features, left ventricular function).”

“There’s undoubtedly residual confounding,” James M. Brophy, MD, PhD, a pharmacoepidemiologist at McGill University, Montreal, said in an interview.

The 400%-900% relative risks for CV events “are just too far in left field, compared to everything else we know,” he said. “There has never been a class of drugs that have shown this sort of magnitude of effect for adverse events.”

Even in PRECISION with its more than 24,000 high-coronary-risk patients randomized and followed for 5 years, Dr. Brophy observed, relative risks for the different NSAIDs varied by an order of magnitude of only 1-2.

“You should be interpreting things in the context of what is already known,” Dr. Brophy said. “The only conclusion I would draw is the paper is fatally flawed.”

The registry included 108,232 primarily male patients followed from their first diagnosed MI for CV and bleeding events. About 1.9% were prescribed at least one NSAID for 4 or more consecutive weeks during the follow-up period averaging 2.3 years, the group reported.

The most frequently prescribed NSAID was diclofenac, at about 72% of prescribed NSAIDs in the analysis for CV events and about 69% in the bleeding-event analysis.

Adding any NSAID to post-MI antithrombotic therapy led to an adjusted HR of 6.96 (P < .001) for CV events and 4.08 (P < .001) for bleeding events, compared with no NSAID treatment.

The 88% of the cohort who were on dual-antiplatelet therapy with aspirin and clopidogrel showed very nearly the same risk increases for both endpoints.

Further studies are needed to confirm the results “and ensure their generalizability to other populations,” Dr. Choi said. They should be validated especially using the claims data bases of countries near Korea, “such as Japan and Taiwan, to examine the reproducibility of the results in similar ethnic populations.”

That the study focused on a cohort in Korea is a strength, contended the authors as well as Dr. Badimon and Dr. Santos-Gallego, given “that most data about NSAIDs were extracted from Western populations, but the risk of thrombosis/bleeding post-MI varies according to ethnicity,” according to the editorial

Dr. Brophy agreed, but doubted that ethnic differences are responsible for variation in relative risks between the current results and other studies. “There are pharmacogenomic differences between different ethnicities as to how they activate these drugs. But I suspect that sort of difference is really minor. Maybe it leads to a 2% or a 5% difference in risks.”

Dr. Kang and associates, Dr. Badimon, Dr. Santos-Gallego, and Dr. Brophy disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Patients on antithrombotics after an acute MI will face a greater risk for bleeding and secondary cardiovascular (CV) events if they start taking any nonaspirin NSAID, confirms a large observational study.

Like other research before it, the new study suggests those risks will be much lower for some nonaspirin NSAIDs than others. But it may also challenge at least some conventional thinking about the safety of these drugs, and is based solely on a large cohort in South Korea, a group for which such NSAID data has been in short supply.

“It was intriguing that our study presented better safety profiles with celecoxib and meloxicam versus other subtypes of NSAIDs,” noted the report, published online July 27 in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

Most of the NSAIDs included in the analysis, “including naproxen, conferred a significantly higher risk for cardiovascular and bleeding events, compared with celecoxib and meloxicam,” wrote the authors, led by Dong Oh Kang, MD, Korea University Guro Hospital, Seoul, South Korea.

A main contribution of the study “is the thorough and comprehensive evaluation of the Korean population by use of the nationwide prescription claims database that reflects real-world clinical practice,” senior author Cheol Ung Choi, MD, PhD, of the same institution, said in an interview.

“Because we included the largest number of patients of any comparable clinical studies on NSAID treatment after MI thus far, our study may allow the generalizability of the adverse events of NSAIDs to all patients by constituting global evidence encompassing different population groups,” Dr. Choi said.

The analysis has limitations along with its strengths, the authors acknowledged, including its observational design and potential for confounding not addressed in statistical adjustments.

Observers of the study concurred, but some cited evidence pointing to such confounding that is serious enough to question the entire study’s validity.

Among the cohort of more than 100,000 patients followed for an average of about 2.3 years after their MI, the adjusted risk of thromboembolic CV events went up almost 7 times for those who took any NSAID for at least 4 consecutive weeks, compared with those who didn’t take NSAIDs, based on prescription records.

Their adjusted risk of bleeding events – which included gastrointestinal, intracranial, respiratory, or urinary tract bleeding or posthemorrhagic anemia, the group writes – was increased 300%.

There was wide variance in the adjusted hazard ratios for outcomes by type of NSAID. The risk of CV events climbed from a low of about 3 with meloxicam and almost 5 for celecoxib to more than 10 and 12 for naproxen and dexibuprofen, respectively.

The hazard ratios for bleeding ranged from about 3 for both meloxicam and celecoxib to more than 6 for naproxen.

Of note, celecoxib and meloxicam both preferentially target the cyclooxygenase type 2 (COX-2) pathway, and naproxen among NSAIDs once had a reputation for relative cardiac safety, although subsequent studies have challenged that notion.

“On the basis of the contemporary guidelines, NSAID treatment should be limited as much as possible after MI; however, our data suggest that celecoxib and meloxicam could be considered possible alternative choices in patients with MI when NSAID prescription is unavoidable,” the group wrote.

They acknowledged some limitations of the analysis, including an observational design and the possibility of unidentified confounders; that mortality outcomes were not available from the National Health Insurance Service database used in the study; and that the 2009-2013 span for the data didn’t allow consideration of more contemporary antiplatelet agents and direct oral anticoagulants.

Also, NSAID use was based on prescriptions without regard to over-the-counter usage. Although use of over-the-counter NSAIDs is common in Korea, “most MI patients in Korea are prescribed most medications, including NSAIDs, in the hospital. So I think that usage of over-the-counter NSAIDs did not change the results,” Dr. Choi said.

“This study breaks new ground by demonstrating cardiovascular safety of meloxicam (and not only of celecoxib), probably because of its higher COX-2 selectivity,” wrote the authors of an accompanying editorial, Juan J. Badimon, PhD, and Carlos G. Santos-Gallego, MD, both of the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York.

Notably, “this paper rejects the cardiovascular safety of naproxen, which had been suggested classically and in the previous Danish data, but that was not evident in this study.” The finding is consistent with the PRECISION trial, in which both bleeding and CV risk were increased with naproxen versus other NSAIDs, observed Dr. Badimon and Dr. Santos-Gallego.

They agreed with the authors in recommending that, “although NSAID treatment should be avoided in patients with MI, if the use of NSAIDs is inevitable due to comorbidities, the prescription of celecoxib and meloxicam could be considered as alternative options.”

But, “as no study is perfect, this article also presents some limitations,” the editorial agreed, citing some of the same issues noted by Dr. Kang and associates, along with potential confounding by indication and the lack of “clinical information to adjust (e.g., angiographic features, left ventricular function).”

“There’s undoubtedly residual confounding,” James M. Brophy, MD, PhD, a pharmacoepidemiologist at McGill University, Montreal, said in an interview.

The 400%-900% relative risks for CV events “are just too far in left field, compared to everything else we know,” he said. “There has never been a class of drugs that have shown this sort of magnitude of effect for adverse events.”

Even in PRECISION with its more than 24,000 high-coronary-risk patients randomized and followed for 5 years, Dr. Brophy observed, relative risks for the different NSAIDs varied by an order of magnitude of only 1-2.

“You should be interpreting things in the context of what is already known,” Dr. Brophy said. “The only conclusion I would draw is the paper is fatally flawed.”

The registry included 108,232 primarily male patients followed from their first diagnosed MI for CV and bleeding events. About 1.9% were prescribed at least one NSAID for 4 or more consecutive weeks during the follow-up period averaging 2.3 years, the group reported.

The most frequently prescribed NSAID was diclofenac, at about 72% of prescribed NSAIDs in the analysis for CV events and about 69% in the bleeding-event analysis.

Adding any NSAID to post-MI antithrombotic therapy led to an adjusted HR of 6.96 (P < .001) for CV events and 4.08 (P < .001) for bleeding events, compared with no NSAID treatment.

The 88% of the cohort who were on dual-antiplatelet therapy with aspirin and clopidogrel showed very nearly the same risk increases for both endpoints.

Further studies are needed to confirm the results “and ensure their generalizability to other populations,” Dr. Choi said. They should be validated especially using the claims data bases of countries near Korea, “such as Japan and Taiwan, to examine the reproducibility of the results in similar ethnic populations.”

That the study focused on a cohort in Korea is a strength, contended the authors as well as Dr. Badimon and Dr. Santos-Gallego, given “that most data about NSAIDs were extracted from Western populations, but the risk of thrombosis/bleeding post-MI varies according to ethnicity,” according to the editorial

Dr. Brophy agreed, but doubted that ethnic differences are responsible for variation in relative risks between the current results and other studies. “There are pharmacogenomic differences between different ethnicities as to how they activate these drugs. But I suspect that sort of difference is really minor. Maybe it leads to a 2% or a 5% difference in risks.”

Dr. Kang and associates, Dr. Badimon, Dr. Santos-Gallego, and Dr. Brophy disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Most interventional cardiologists still rely solely upon angiography in making revascularization decisions about intermediate stenoses in the setting of stable coronary artery disease – and in doing so they end up making the wrong call nearly 40% of the time, according to the results of an international survey presented at the virtual annual meeting of the European Association of Percutaneous Cardiovascular Interventions.

“We saw a strong tendency to visually overestimate the percent diameter stenosis,” reported Gabor G. Toth, MD, an interventional cardiologist at the Medical University of Graz (Austria).

The same tendency has been highlighted in numerous randomized trials and observational studies. That’s why both European and U.S. guidelines now strongly recommend invasive functional assessment, such as fractional-flow reserve (FFR) testing, in evaluating the significance of intermediate stenoses in the absence of noninvasive evidence of ischemia. The new survey findings point to an important disconnect between these guideline recommendations and current clinical practice, he noted.

Dr. Toth presented the results of the second web-based, international survey on interventional decision-making strategy sponsored by the European Association of Percutaneous Cardiovascular Interventions. He contrasted the findings with those of the previously reported first international online survey, conducted 6 years earlier, for which he was first author (Circ Cardiovasc Interv. 2014 Dec;7[6]:751-9).

The two surveys were identically designed. In both, participants answered questions that enabled investigators to place them into one of four categories based upon the extent of their experience in interventional cardiology. The participants were also presented with 5 angiograms of focal intermediate stenoses and asked to determine the stenosis significance of each lesion. No information on the functional significance of the stenoses was included; however, the respondents could request additional diagnostic information by “ordering” adjunctive invasive functional assessment tests, including FFR, quantitative coronary angiography, intravascular ultrasound, or optical coherence tomography. Importantly, participating cardiologists were asked to make their decisions based upon best possible clinical practice in a hypothetical scenario where financial constraints had no role.

The second international survey was conducted during the latter half of 2019. The 334 interventional cardiologists who responded performed a total of 978 case evaluations including 2,054 coronary lesion assessments.

About 59% of all decisions were made solely on the basis of angiographic appearance without any information as to the functional significance of a given stenosis: Indeed, 13% of all stenoses were thereby declared to be “certainly” nonsignificant, and 46% were deemed “certainly” significant. In total, that figure was down significantly from the 71% rate in the first survey. In the first survey, 47% of decisions based upon angiographic appearance alone were discordant with FFR results known to the investigators, compared with a 39% discordance rate in the second survey.

Of the physician decisions made in the second survey, 10% involved a request for intravascular imaging, essentially unchanged from the 9% rate in the first survey. However, there was a significant increase over time in requests for invasive functional assessment tests: 25% in the first survey, rising to 31% in the second. This increase was entirely driven by additional requests for data on nonhyperemic pressure ratios; there was no difference in requests for FFR testing between the 2013 and 2019 surveys.

Clinician experience played an interesting role in decision-making: “Experience does not have an impact on the accuracy of angiographically based decisions, but experience does have an impact on understanding the need for adjunctive functional diagnostic testing,” Dr. Toth explained.

Indeed, 21% of decisions made by the least-experienced interventional cardiologists involved a request for adjunctive invasive functional assessment, compared with 24% of decisions by physicians in the third quartile of experience, 32% in the second, and 37% of decisions made by the most experienced clinicians.

Discussant Michael Haude, MD, PhD, said that “these results clearly show that eyeball angioguidance is still the dominant tool used in decision-making, and that this eyeball angioguidance continuously overestimates the stenosis when you compare the results to quantitative coronary angiography.

“These results, surprisingly for me, show a quite low uptake of the invasive functional assessments despite overwhelming scientific data leading to clear guideline-based recommendations. Why is this the case, even after financial constraints are ruled out? Probably because FFR is still a complex invasive procedure. Maybe, in the future, quantitative flow-ratio angiography [which requires no pressure wire] or CT-based FFR will be more popular,” said Dr. Haude, an interventional cardiologist at the Rheinland Clinic in Neuss, Germany.

He reported receiving research grants from Biotronik and serving as a paid consultant to that company as well as Cardiac Dimensions, Orbus Neich, and Philips. Dr. Toth reported having no financial conflicts regarding the international survey.

[email protected]

Most interventional cardiologists still rely solely upon angiography in making revascularization decisions about intermediate stenoses in the setting of stable coronary artery disease – and in doing so they end up making the wrong call nearly 40% of the time, according to the results of an international survey presented at the virtual annual meeting of the European Association of Percutaneous Cardiovascular Interventions.

“We saw a strong tendency to visually overestimate the percent diameter stenosis,” reported Gabor G. Toth, MD, an interventional cardiologist at the Medical University of Graz (Austria).

The same tendency has been highlighted in numerous randomized trials and observational studies. That’s why both European and U.S. guidelines now strongly recommend invasive functional assessment, such as fractional-flow reserve (FFR) testing, in evaluating the significance of intermediate stenoses in the absence of noninvasive evidence of ischemia. The new survey findings point to an important disconnect between these guideline recommendations and current clinical practice, he noted.

Dr. Toth presented the results of the second web-based, international survey on interventional decision-making strategy sponsored by the European Association of Percutaneous Cardiovascular Interventions. He contrasted the findings with those of the previously reported first international online survey, conducted 6 years earlier, for which he was first author (Circ Cardiovasc Interv. 2014 Dec;7[6]:751-9).

The two surveys were identically designed. In both, participants answered questions that enabled investigators to place them into one of four categories based upon the extent of their experience in interventional cardiology. The participants were also presented with 5 angiograms of focal intermediate stenoses and asked to determine the stenosis significance of each lesion. No information on the functional significance of the stenoses was included; however, the respondents could request additional diagnostic information by “ordering” adjunctive invasive functional assessment tests, including FFR, quantitative coronary angiography, intravascular ultrasound, or optical coherence tomography. Importantly, participating cardiologists were asked to make their decisions based upon best possible clinical practice in a hypothetical scenario where financial constraints had no role.

The second international survey was conducted during the latter half of 2019. The 334 interventional cardiologists who responded performed a total of 978 case evaluations including 2,054 coronary lesion assessments.

About 59% of all decisions were made solely on the basis of angiographic appearance without any information as to the functional significance of a given stenosis: Indeed, 13% of all stenoses were thereby declared to be “certainly” nonsignificant, and 46% were deemed “certainly” significant. In total, that figure was down significantly from the 71% rate in the first survey. In the first survey, 47% of decisions based upon angiographic appearance alone were discordant with FFR results known to the investigators, compared with a 39% discordance rate in the second survey.

Of the physician decisions made in the second survey, 10% involved a request for intravascular imaging, essentially unchanged from the 9% rate in the first survey. However, there was a significant increase over time in requests for invasive functional assessment tests: 25% in the first survey, rising to 31% in the second. This increase was entirely driven by additional requests for data on nonhyperemic pressure ratios; there was no difference in requests for FFR testing between the 2013 and 2019 surveys.

Clinician experience played an interesting role in decision-making: “Experience does not have an impact on the accuracy of angiographically based decisions, but experience does have an impact on understanding the need for adjunctive functional diagnostic testing,” Dr. Toth explained.

Indeed, 21% of decisions made by the least-experienced interventional cardiologists involved a request for adjunctive invasive functional assessment, compared with 24% of decisions by physicians in the third quartile of experience, 32% in the second, and 37% of decisions made by the most experienced clinicians.

Discussant Michael Haude, MD, PhD, said that “these results clearly show that eyeball angioguidance is still the dominant tool used in decision-making, and that this eyeball angioguidance continuously overestimates the stenosis when you compare the results to quantitative coronary angiography.

“These results, surprisingly for me, show a quite low uptake of the invasive functional assessments despite overwhelming scientific data leading to clear guideline-based recommendations. Why is this the case, even after financial constraints are ruled out? Probably because FFR is still a complex invasive procedure. Maybe, in the future, quantitative flow-ratio angiography [which requires no pressure wire] or CT-based FFR will be more popular,” said Dr. Haude, an interventional cardiologist at the Rheinland Clinic in Neuss, Germany.

He reported receiving research grants from Biotronik and serving as a paid consultant to that company as well as Cardiac Dimensions, Orbus Neich, and Philips. Dr. Toth reported having no financial conflicts regarding the international survey.

[email protected]

Most interventional cardiologists still rely solely upon angiography in making revascularization decisions about intermediate stenoses in the setting of stable coronary artery disease – and in doing so they end up making the wrong call nearly 40% of the time, according to the results of an international survey presented at the virtual annual meeting of the European Association of Percutaneous Cardiovascular Interventions.

“We saw a strong tendency to visually overestimate the percent diameter stenosis,” reported Gabor G. Toth, MD, an interventional cardiologist at the Medical University of Graz (Austria).

The same tendency has been highlighted in numerous randomized trials and observational studies. That’s why both European and U.S. guidelines now strongly recommend invasive functional assessment, such as fractional-flow reserve (FFR) testing, in evaluating the significance of intermediate stenoses in the absence of noninvasive evidence of ischemia. The new survey findings point to an important disconnect between these guideline recommendations and current clinical practice, he noted.

Dr. Toth presented the results of the second web-based, international survey on interventional decision-making strategy sponsored by the European Association of Percutaneous Cardiovascular Interventions. He contrasted the findings with those of the previously reported first international online survey, conducted 6 years earlier, for which he was first author (Circ Cardiovasc Interv. 2014 Dec;7[6]:751-9).

The two surveys were identically designed. In both, participants answered questions that enabled investigators to place them into one of four categories based upon the extent of their experience in interventional cardiology. The participants were also presented with 5 angiograms of focal intermediate stenoses and asked to determine the stenosis significance of each lesion. No information on the functional significance of the stenoses was included; however, the respondents could request additional diagnostic information by “ordering” adjunctive invasive functional assessment tests, including FFR, quantitative coronary angiography, intravascular ultrasound, or optical coherence tomography. Importantly, participating cardiologists were asked to make their decisions based upon best possible clinical practice in a hypothetical scenario where financial constraints had no role.

The second international survey was conducted during the latter half of 2019. The 334 interventional cardiologists who responded performed a total of 978 case evaluations including 2,054 coronary lesion assessments.

About 59% of all decisions were made solely on the basis of angiographic appearance without any information as to the functional significance of a given stenosis: Indeed, 13% of all stenoses were thereby declared to be “certainly” nonsignificant, and 46% were deemed “certainly” significant. In total, that figure was down significantly from the 71% rate in the first survey. In the first survey, 47% of decisions based upon angiographic appearance alone were discordant with FFR results known to the investigators, compared with a 39% discordance rate in the second survey.

Of the physician decisions made in the second survey, 10% involved a request for intravascular imaging, essentially unchanged from the 9% rate in the first survey. However, there was a significant increase over time in requests for invasive functional assessment tests: 25% in the first survey, rising to 31% in the second. This increase was entirely driven by additional requests for data on nonhyperemic pressure ratios; there was no difference in requests for FFR testing between the 2013 and 2019 surveys.

Clinician experience played an interesting role in decision-making: “Experience does not have an impact on the accuracy of angiographically based decisions, but experience does have an impact on understanding the need for adjunctive functional diagnostic testing,” Dr. Toth explained.

Indeed, 21% of decisions made by the least-experienced interventional cardiologists involved a request for adjunctive invasive functional assessment, compared with 24% of decisions by physicians in the third quartile of experience, 32% in the second, and 37% of decisions made by the most experienced clinicians.

Discussant Michael Haude, MD, PhD, said that “these results clearly show that eyeball angioguidance is still the dominant tool used in decision-making, and that this eyeball angioguidance continuously overestimates the stenosis when you compare the results to quantitative coronary angiography.

“These results, surprisingly for me, show a quite low uptake of the invasive functional assessments despite overwhelming scientific data leading to clear guideline-based recommendations. Why is this the case, even after financial constraints are ruled out? Probably because FFR is still a complex invasive procedure. Maybe, in the future, quantitative flow-ratio angiography [which requires no pressure wire] or CT-based FFR will be more popular,” said Dr. Haude, an interventional cardiologist at the Rheinland Clinic in Neuss, Germany.

He reported receiving research grants from Biotronik and serving as a paid consultant to that company as well as Cardiac Dimensions, Orbus Neich, and Philips. Dr. Toth reported having no financial conflicts regarding the international survey.

[email protected]

For some palliative care professionals, the COVID-19 pandemic, particularly in viral hot spots like New York City, represents a “moment” that could lead to greater awareness of what this service offers to seriously ill patients in a crisis.

They say it has provided an opportunity to show what palliative care teams can contribute to the difficult circumstances of patients with severe symptoms, isolated and alone in quarantined hospitals, with poor survival rates, perhaps sedated for extended stays on scarce ventilators – and for their family members, who are able to visit them only virtually via telephone or tablet.

But it has also highlighted gaps – including insufficient staffing for some palliative care teams. Hospitalists and other clinicians in the hospital need to learn the basics of primary palliative care, such as how to communicate bad news, initiate goals of care conversations, and address common symptoms of serious illness, such as pain. That way, they could shoulder more of the demand for this kind of care when palliative care specialists are in short supply.

Hospitalists, some of whom also have pursued a specialization in palliative care, have played key roles in clarifying and redefining the new role for palliative care, whom it is meant for, and who should provide it. Central to this new role is the greater use of telemedicine – for talking to hospitalized patients without increasing viral exposure, for linking up with family members who can’t visit their loved ones in the hospital, and for helping frontline hospital staff who need a palliative care consultation – or just a chance to debrief on what they are seeing.

A pandemic wake-up call

Elizabeth Gundersen, MD, FHM, FAAHPM, director of the hospice and palliative medicine fellowship program at the Charles E. Schmidt College of Medicine at Florida Atlantic University (FAU) in Boca Raton, practiced hospital medicine for 10 years before pursuing a fellowship in hospice and palliative medicine and working as an academic palliative medicine physician. She calls the pandemic a wake-up call for gaps in care and all the things that weren’t working well in the health care system.

“Now we are seeing more clearly what’s lacking – or broken – and what we will carry forward from this experience into the post-COVID world,” she said. Some hospitalists do palliative care very well, and others don’t feel as comfortable in having these difficult conversations with patients. But in the uncertain course of the virus they get thrust into it.

Although FAU’s associated hospitals were not as inundated with COVID-19 patients in the early weeks of the pandemic as were other regions, the volume of other patients plummeted, Dr. Gundersen said, adding that “there’s still been incredible intensity and worry about the virus. For me, the basic role of palliative care hasn’t changed, and the phrase I have always used when introducing myself – ‘we’re an extra layer of support for the patient and family’ – still holds true,” she said.

“I try to make it clear to people that palliative care is not synonymous with end-of-life care. We don’t want people to think that a palliative care referral implies imminent death. The goal is not to get more people to have a do not attempt resuscitation (DNAR) order, but to determine the patient and family’s treatment goals and whether a DNAR order fits those goals.”

The tough conversations

Dr. Gundersen is cochair of SHM’s Palliative Care Special Interest Group, along with Rab Razzak, MD, clinical director of palliative medicine at University Hospitals Cleveland Medical Center, one of the hospitals affiliated with Case Western University in Cleveland. (Connect with them on Twitter: @Top_Gundersen and @rabrazzak.)

Kim Fatica, University Hospitals Cleveland Medical Center

Dr. Razzak also transitioned from hospital medicine to palliative medicine 10 years ago. “As a hospitalist, I enjoyed the tough conversations and bringing the human element into my health care interactions,” he explained. “To me, palliative care is a philosophy of care that puts the person we call the patient at the center of the interaction, while we try to figure out how to best care for them as a person.”

When the pandemic hit, University Hospitals made 20 ICU beds available for COVID-19 patients, Dr. Razzak said. This unit has since been full but not overflowing, while overall hospital census went down. The palliative care team at the hospital includes four inpatient doctors, nurse practitioners, and a chaplain, as well as an outpatient team primarily focused on oncology.

“In some settings, palliative care has been at the forefront of difficult conversations, when things aren’t going well for the patient and there’s much uncertainty,” Dr. Razzak said. The interface between hospital medicine and palliative care can be complementary, he added. “We talk about primary palliative care, which we want every discipline to be able to do – lead meaningful conversations, help manage symptoms.”

The take-home message for hospitalists, he said, is to get training in how to have these discussions, using such resources as VitalTalk (https://www.vitaltalk.org/), a nonprofit organization that disseminates education in communication skills for difficult conversations, and the Center to Advance Palliative Care (www.capc.org) at Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York City. “Once you’ve mastered the conversation, it will get easier. But ask for help when you need it, and learn how to know when you need it.”

Dr. Gundersen added that hospital medicine groups and palliative care teams could reach out to each other and talk about what they did in the crisis and how they can work together in the future. She recommends frequent ongoing support and collaboration that could range from formal conferences or training sessions to informal team interactions, perhaps with sandwiches in the doctor’s lounge – provided that there’s room for social distancing. She has recently started giving talks in the community and grand rounds presentations in hospitals about palliative care.
 

Other approaches and applications

In New York City, the initial epicenter for the pandemic in the United States, the adult palliative care service of Columbia University Medical Center (CUMC) experienced a sevenfold increase in consultation requests at the apex of the crisis, said its director, Craig Blinderman, MD. That demand was impossible to meet with existing staff. So Dr. Blinderman and colleagues established a virtual consultation model, recruiting and deploying volunteer out-of-state palliative care specialists to staff it.

An eight-bed palliative care unit was opened at CUMC for COVID-19 patients whose surrogates had opted not to initiate or continue intubation or life-sustaining treatments. This helped to relieve some of the pressures on the ICUs while making it possible for in-person visits to the hospice unit by families – in full PPE. Palliative care staff were embedded in various units in the hospital.

A palliative care response team composed of a hospice and palliative medicine fellow and four psychiatry residents or fellows, based in the emergency department and with supervision from the palliative care team, provided time-critical goals of care conversations with families using telemedicine – and a forum for listening to their suffering. Dr. Blinderman and colleagues also have found time to write up their experience for medical journals.^1,2

There’s no reason to think that hospitalists, with a little basic training, couldn’t be having these same goals of care conversations, Dr. Blinderman said. “But the fact that hospitalists, at the pandemic’s peak, along with ICU doctors, were seeing an unprecedented magnitude of dying on a daily basis generated a lot of moral distress for them.”

Palliative care professionals, because they engage with these issues in a different way, may be somewhat better equipped to deal with the sheer emotional demands when so many are dying, as at the peak of the surge in New York. “We don’t see dying as a failure on our part but an opportunity to relieve suffering,” Dr. Blinderman said. And the palliative care field also emphasizes the importance of self-care for its practitioners.

“How do we meet the incredible palliative care needs in the epicenter of a pandemic? That question also applies to other kinds of crises we could imagine, for example, climate-related disasters,” Dr. Blinderman said. “What lessons have we learned about the value of palliative care and how to start incorporating it more integrally into the delivery of hospital care? Here we showed that we could work collaboratively with our colleagues at other major medical centers, bringing together their expertise to help us when we didn’t have the bandwidth to meet the demand,” he said.
 

Scripts can help

“Also, it won’t make sense to just go back to normal (after the crisis fades),” Dr. Blinderman said. “We need to take a close look at how our society is functioning in the wake of the pandemic and the ways the health care system has failed us. We have learned that we’re all interconnected and we need to work together to serve our communities – locally and nationally – applying basic distributive justice.”

Could there be, for example, a national infrastructure for mobilizing and deploying palliative care resources to areas of greatest need, similar to what was done in New York?

At Northwestern Medicine in Chicago, a number of palliative care clinicians at the system’s hospitals worked together to develop scripts designed to help other clinicians start goals of care conversations with patients and families, for use in the hospital as well as in outpatient primary care and other settings, with results integrated into the system’s electronic health record.

Front-line clinicians may not have the time to ask for formal consults from palliative care because of high volume and rapidly changing patient status, explained Eytan Szmuilowicz, MD, director of the section of palliative medicine at Northwestern Memorial Hospital. Or they may not have access to specialty-level palliative care in their settings.

The scripts are aimed at primary care, emergency physicians, and hospitalists needing to consider critical care placement or attempted resuscitation and to ICU clinicians helping families make decisions about life-sustaining treatments. They also can help facilitate advance care planning discussions. An example is “CALMER,” a six-step mnemonic guide to promote goals of care discussions with hospitalized patients. For more information on these scripts, contact Dr. Szmuilowicz: [email protected].

Eerily quiet

The COVID-19 crisis has been quite a whirlwind for hospital medicine, said Jeanie Youngwerth, MD, a hospitalist and program director of the palliative care service at the University of Colorado in Denver, which was a significant viral hotspot early on.

“When it first started, things seemed to change almost overnight – starting on Friday, March 13. People had to take action right away to develop work flows and the technology to allow us to see as many patients as possible,” she said. By the time Monday came, it was a whole new ballgame.

Dr. Youngwerth and two colleagues worked quickly to develop inpatient telemedicine capacity where none existed. “We knew we would not be going into patients’ rooms, but most of our team showed up in the hospital to work with the primary care teams. Our job was to see what we could do that actually made a difference,” she said.

“The hospital became a very strange place. You’d walk down the hallway and it was eerily quiet. Everybody you came across was being so nice to each other.” Televisits became a powerful way to bring the human connection back to medical care.

“What we learned from families was that they were thirsting to have some kind of connection with their loved one, and to be able to talk about their loved one and who they were as a person,” she said. “We’d contact the family through video visits and then, when the family meeting ended, the nurse would bring an iPad into the patient’s room so the family could see their loved one on a ventilator. They would immediately start communicating with their loved one, praying aloud, singing, playing music. It would make a huge difference for the family – and for the staff.”
 

References

1. Nakagawa S et al. Pandemic palliative care consultations spanning state and institutional borders. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2020 May 22. doi: 10.1111/jgs.16643.

2. Lee J Abrukin L, Flores S. Early intervention of palliative care in the emergency department during the COVID-19 pandemic. JAMA Intern Med. 2020 Jun 5. doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2020.2713.

For some palliative care professionals, the COVID-19 pandemic, particularly in viral hot spots like New York City, represents a “moment” that could lead to greater awareness of what this service offers to seriously ill patients in a crisis.

They say it has provided an opportunity to show what palliative care teams can contribute to the difficult circumstances of patients with severe symptoms, isolated and alone in quarantined hospitals, with poor survival rates, perhaps sedated for extended stays on scarce ventilators – and for their family members, who are able to visit them only virtually via telephone or tablet.

But it has also highlighted gaps – including insufficient staffing for some palliative care teams. Hospitalists and other clinicians in the hospital need to learn the basics of primary palliative care, such as how to communicate bad news, initiate goals of care conversations, and address common symptoms of serious illness, such as pain. That way, they could shoulder more of the demand for this kind of care when palliative care specialists are in short supply.

Hospitalists, some of whom also have pursued a specialization in palliative care, have played key roles in clarifying and redefining the new role for palliative care, whom it is meant for, and who should provide it. Central to this new role is the greater use of telemedicine – for talking to hospitalized patients without increasing viral exposure, for linking up with family members who can’t visit their loved ones in the hospital, and for helping frontline hospital staff who need a palliative care consultation – or just a chance to debrief on what they are seeing.

A pandemic wake-up call

Elizabeth Gundersen, MD, FHM, FAAHPM, director of the hospice and palliative medicine fellowship program at the Charles E. Schmidt College of Medicine at Florida Atlantic University (FAU) in Boca Raton, practiced hospital medicine for 10 years before pursuing a fellowship in hospice and palliative medicine and working as an academic palliative medicine physician. She calls the pandemic a wake-up call for gaps in care and all the things that weren’t working well in the health care system.

“Now we are seeing more clearly what’s lacking – or broken – and what we will carry forward from this experience into the post-COVID world,” she said. Some hospitalists do palliative care very well, and others don’t feel as comfortable in having these difficult conversations with patients. But in the uncertain course of the virus they get thrust into it.

Although FAU’s associated hospitals were not as inundated with COVID-19 patients in the early weeks of the pandemic as were other regions, the volume of other patients plummeted, Dr. Gundersen said, adding that “there’s still been incredible intensity and worry about the virus. For me, the basic role of palliative care hasn’t changed, and the phrase I have always used when introducing myself – ‘we’re an extra layer of support for the patient and family’ – still holds true,” she said.

“I try to make it clear to people that palliative care is not synonymous with end-of-life care. We don’t want people to think that a palliative care referral implies imminent death. The goal is not to get more people to have a do not attempt resuscitation (DNAR) order, but to determine the patient and family’s treatment goals and whether a DNAR order fits those goals.”

The tough conversations

Dr. Gundersen is cochair of SHM’s Palliative Care Special Interest Group, along with Rab Razzak, MD, clinical director of palliative medicine at University Hospitals Cleveland Medical Center, one of the hospitals affiliated with Case Western University in Cleveland. (Connect with them on Twitter: @Top_Gundersen and @rabrazzak.)

Kim Fatica, University Hospitals Cleveland Medical Center

Dr. Razzak also transitioned from hospital medicine to palliative medicine 10 years ago. “As a hospitalist, I enjoyed the tough conversations and bringing the human element into my health care interactions,” he explained. “To me, palliative care is a philosophy of care that puts the person we call the patient at the center of the interaction, while we try to figure out how to best care for them as a person.”

When the pandemic hit, University Hospitals made 20 ICU beds available for COVID-19 patients, Dr. Razzak said. This unit has since been full but not overflowing, while overall hospital census went down. The palliative care team at the hospital includes four inpatient doctors, nurse practitioners, and a chaplain, as well as an outpatient team primarily focused on oncology.

“In some settings, palliative care has been at the forefront of difficult conversations, when things aren’t going well for the patient and there’s much uncertainty,” Dr. Razzak said. The interface between hospital medicine and palliative care can be complementary, he added. “We talk about primary palliative care, which we want every discipline to be able to do – lead meaningful conversations, help manage symptoms.”

The take-home message for hospitalists, he said, is to get training in how to have these discussions, using such resources as VitalTalk (https://www.vitaltalk.org/), a nonprofit organization that disseminates education in communication skills for difficult conversations, and the Center to Advance Palliative Care (www.capc.org) at Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York City. “Once you’ve mastered the conversation, it will get easier. But ask for help when you need it, and learn how to know when you need it.”

Dr. Gundersen added that hospital medicine groups and palliative care teams could reach out to each other and talk about what they did in the crisis and how they can work together in the future. She recommends frequent ongoing support and collaboration that could range from formal conferences or training sessions to informal team interactions, perhaps with sandwiches in the doctor’s lounge – provided that there’s room for social distancing. She has recently started giving talks in the community and grand rounds presentations in hospitals about palliative care.
 

Other approaches and applications

In New York City, the initial epicenter for the pandemic in the United States, the adult palliative care service of Columbia University Medical Center (CUMC) experienced a sevenfold increase in consultation requests at the apex of the crisis, said its director, Craig Blinderman, MD. That demand was impossible to meet with existing staff. So Dr. Blinderman and colleagues established a virtual consultation model, recruiting and deploying volunteer out-of-state palliative care specialists to staff it.

An eight-bed palliative care unit was opened at CUMC for COVID-19 patients whose surrogates had opted not to initiate or continue intubation or life-sustaining treatments. This helped to relieve some of the pressures on the ICUs while making it possible for in-person visits to the hospice unit by families – in full PPE. Palliative care staff were embedded in various units in the hospital.

A palliative care response team composed of a hospice and palliative medicine fellow and four psychiatry residents or fellows, based in the emergency department and with supervision from the palliative care team, provided time-critical goals of care conversations with families using telemedicine – and a forum for listening to their suffering. Dr. Blinderman and colleagues also have found time to write up their experience for medical journals.^1,2

There’s no reason to think that hospitalists, with a little basic training, couldn’t be having these same goals of care conversations, Dr. Blinderman said. “But the fact that hospitalists, at the pandemic’s peak, along with ICU doctors, were seeing an unprecedented magnitude of dying on a daily basis generated a lot of moral distress for them.”

Palliative care professionals, because they engage with these issues in a different way, may be somewhat better equipped to deal with the sheer emotional demands when so many are dying, as at the peak of the surge in New York. “We don’t see dying as a failure on our part but an opportunity to relieve suffering,” Dr. Blinderman said. And the palliative care field also emphasizes the importance of self-care for its practitioners.

“How do we meet the incredible palliative care needs in the epicenter of a pandemic? That question also applies to other kinds of crises we could imagine, for example, climate-related disasters,” Dr. Blinderman said. “What lessons have we learned about the value of palliative care and how to start incorporating it more integrally into the delivery of hospital care? Here we showed that we could work collaboratively with our colleagues at other major medical centers, bringing together their expertise to help us when we didn’t have the bandwidth to meet the demand,” he said.
 

Scripts can help

“Also, it won’t make sense to just go back to normal (after the crisis fades),” Dr. Blinderman said. “We need to take a close look at how our society is functioning in the wake of the pandemic and the ways the health care system has failed us. We have learned that we’re all interconnected and we need to work together to serve our communities – locally and nationally – applying basic distributive justice.”

Could there be, for example, a national infrastructure for mobilizing and deploying palliative care resources to areas of greatest need, similar to what was done in New York?

At Northwestern Medicine in Chicago, a number of palliative care clinicians at the system’s hospitals worked together to develop scripts designed to help other clinicians start goals of care conversations with patients and families, for use in the hospital as well as in outpatient primary care and other settings, with results integrated into the system’s electronic health record.

Front-line clinicians may not have the time to ask for formal consults from palliative care because of high volume and rapidly changing patient status, explained Eytan Szmuilowicz, MD, director of the section of palliative medicine at Northwestern Memorial Hospital. Or they may not have access to specialty-level palliative care in their settings.

The scripts are aimed at primary care, emergency physicians, and hospitalists needing to consider critical care placement or attempted resuscitation and to ICU clinicians helping families make decisions about life-sustaining treatments. They also can help facilitate advance care planning discussions. An example is “CALMER,” a six-step mnemonic guide to promote goals of care discussions with hospitalized patients. For more information on these scripts, contact Dr. Szmuilowicz: [email protected].

Eerily quiet

The COVID-19 crisis has been quite a whirlwind for hospital medicine, said Jeanie Youngwerth, MD, a hospitalist and program director of the palliative care service at the University of Colorado in Denver, which was a significant viral hotspot early on.

“When it first started, things seemed to change almost overnight – starting on Friday, March 13. People had to take action right away to develop work flows and the technology to allow us to see as many patients as possible,” she said. By the time Monday came, it was a whole new ballgame.

Dr. Youngwerth and two colleagues worked quickly to develop inpatient telemedicine capacity where none existed. “We knew we would not be going into patients’ rooms, but most of our team showed up in the hospital to work with the primary care teams. Our job was to see what we could do that actually made a difference,” she said.

“The hospital became a very strange place. You’d walk down the hallway and it was eerily quiet. Everybody you came across was being so nice to each other.” Televisits became a powerful way to bring the human connection back to medical care.

“What we learned from families was that they were thirsting to have some kind of connection with their loved one, and to be able to talk about their loved one and who they were as a person,” she said. “We’d contact the family through video visits and then, when the family meeting ended, the nurse would bring an iPad into the patient’s room so the family could see their loved one on a ventilator. They would immediately start communicating with their loved one, praying aloud, singing, playing music. It would make a huge difference for the family – and for the staff.”
 

References

1. Nakagawa S et al. Pandemic palliative care consultations spanning state and institutional borders. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2020 May 22. doi: 10.1111/jgs.16643.

2. Lee J Abrukin L, Flores S. Early intervention of palliative care in the emergency department during the COVID-19 pandemic. JAMA Intern Med. 2020 Jun 5. doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2020.2713.

For some palliative care professionals, the COVID-19 pandemic, particularly in viral hot spots like New York City, represents a “moment” that could lead to greater awareness of what this service offers to seriously ill patients in a crisis.

They say it has provided an opportunity to show what palliative care teams can contribute to the difficult circumstances of patients with severe symptoms, isolated and alone in quarantined hospitals, with poor survival rates, perhaps sedated for extended stays on scarce ventilators – and for their family members, who are able to visit them only virtually via telephone or tablet.

But it has also highlighted gaps – including insufficient staffing for some palliative care teams. Hospitalists and other clinicians in the hospital need to learn the basics of primary palliative care, such as how to communicate bad news, initiate goals of care conversations, and address common symptoms of serious illness, such as pain. That way, they could shoulder more of the demand for this kind of care when palliative care specialists are in short supply.

Hospitalists, some of whom also have pursued a specialization in palliative care, have played key roles in clarifying and redefining the new role for palliative care, whom it is meant for, and who should provide it. Central to this new role is the greater use of telemedicine – for talking to hospitalized patients without increasing viral exposure, for linking up with family members who can’t visit their loved ones in the hospital, and for helping frontline hospital staff who need a palliative care consultation – or just a chance to debrief on what they are seeing.

A pandemic wake-up call

Elizabeth Gundersen, MD, FHM, FAAHPM, director of the hospice and palliative medicine fellowship program at the Charles E. Schmidt College of Medicine at Florida Atlantic University (FAU) in Boca Raton, practiced hospital medicine for 10 years before pursuing a fellowship in hospice and palliative medicine and working as an academic palliative medicine physician. She calls the pandemic a wake-up call for gaps in care and all the things that weren’t working well in the health care system.

“Now we are seeing more clearly what’s lacking – or broken – and what we will carry forward from this experience into the post-COVID world,” she said. Some hospitalists do palliative care very well, and others don’t feel as comfortable in having these difficult conversations with patients. But in the uncertain course of the virus they get thrust into it.

Although FAU’s associated hospitals were not as inundated with COVID-19 patients in the early weeks of the pandemic as were other regions, the volume of other patients plummeted, Dr. Gundersen said, adding that “there’s still been incredible intensity and worry about the virus. For me, the basic role of palliative care hasn’t changed, and the phrase I have always used when introducing myself – ‘we’re an extra layer of support for the patient and family’ – still holds true,” she said.

“I try to make it clear to people that palliative care is not synonymous with end-of-life care. We don’t want people to think that a palliative care referral implies imminent death. The goal is not to get more people to have a do not attempt resuscitation (DNAR) order, but to determine the patient and family’s treatment goals and whether a DNAR order fits those goals.”

The tough conversations

Dr. Gundersen is cochair of SHM’s Palliative Care Special Interest Group, along with Rab Razzak, MD, clinical director of palliative medicine at University Hospitals Cleveland Medical Center, one of the hospitals affiliated with Case Western University in Cleveland. (Connect with them on Twitter: @Top_Gundersen and @rabrazzak.)

Kim Fatica, University Hospitals Cleveland Medical Center

Dr. Razzak also transitioned from hospital medicine to palliative medicine 10 years ago. “As a hospitalist, I enjoyed the tough conversations and bringing the human element into my health care interactions,” he explained. “To me, palliative care is a philosophy of care that puts the person we call the patient at the center of the interaction, while we try to figure out how to best care for them as a person.”

When the pandemic hit, University Hospitals made 20 ICU beds available for COVID-19 patients, Dr. Razzak said. This unit has since been full but not overflowing, while overall hospital census went down. The palliative care team at the hospital includes four inpatient doctors, nurse practitioners, and a chaplain, as well as an outpatient team primarily focused on oncology.

“In some settings, palliative care has been at the forefront of difficult conversations, when things aren’t going well for the patient and there’s much uncertainty,” Dr. Razzak said. The interface between hospital medicine and palliative care can be complementary, he added. “We talk about primary palliative care, which we want every discipline to be able to do – lead meaningful conversations, help manage symptoms.”

The take-home message for hospitalists, he said, is to get training in how to have these discussions, using such resources as VitalTalk (https://www.vitaltalk.org/), a nonprofit organization that disseminates education in communication skills for difficult conversations, and the Center to Advance Palliative Care (www.capc.org) at Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York City. “Once you’ve mastered the conversation, it will get easier. But ask for help when you need it, and learn how to know when you need it.”

Dr. Gundersen added that hospital medicine groups and palliative care teams could reach out to each other and talk about what they did in the crisis and how they can work together in the future. She recommends frequent ongoing support and collaboration that could range from formal conferences or training sessions to informal team interactions, perhaps with sandwiches in the doctor’s lounge – provided that there’s room for social distancing. She has recently started giving talks in the community and grand rounds presentations in hospitals about palliative care.
 

Other approaches and applications

In New York City, the initial epicenter for the pandemic in the United States, the adult palliative care service of Columbia University Medical Center (CUMC) experienced a sevenfold increase in consultation requests at the apex of the crisis, said its director, Craig Blinderman, MD. That demand was impossible to meet with existing staff. So Dr. Blinderman and colleagues established a virtual consultation model, recruiting and deploying volunteer out-of-state palliative care specialists to staff it.

An eight-bed palliative care unit was opened at CUMC for COVID-19 patients whose surrogates had opted not to initiate or continue intubation or life-sustaining treatments. This helped to relieve some of the pressures on the ICUs while making it possible for in-person visits to the hospice unit by families – in full PPE. Palliative care staff were embedded in various units in the hospital.

A palliative care response team composed of a hospice and palliative medicine fellow and four psychiatry residents or fellows, based in the emergency department and with supervision from the palliative care team, provided time-critical goals of care conversations with families using telemedicine – and a forum for listening to their suffering. Dr. Blinderman and colleagues also have found time to write up their experience for medical journals.^1,2

There’s no reason to think that hospitalists, with a little basic training, couldn’t be having these same goals of care conversations, Dr. Blinderman said. “But the fact that hospitalists, at the pandemic’s peak, along with ICU doctors, were seeing an unprecedented magnitude of dying on a daily basis generated a lot of moral distress for them.”

Palliative care professionals, because they engage with these issues in a different way, may be somewhat better equipped to deal with the sheer emotional demands when so many are dying, as at the peak of the surge in New York. “We don’t see dying as a failure on our part but an opportunity to relieve suffering,” Dr. Blinderman said. And the palliative care field also emphasizes the importance of self-care for its practitioners.

“How do we meet the incredible palliative care needs in the epicenter of a pandemic? That question also applies to other kinds of crises we could imagine, for example, climate-related disasters,” Dr. Blinderman said. “What lessons have we learned about the value of palliative care and how to start incorporating it more integrally into the delivery of hospital care? Here we showed that we could work collaboratively with our colleagues at other major medical centers, bringing together their expertise to help us when we didn’t have the bandwidth to meet the demand,” he said.
 

Scripts can help

“Also, it won’t make sense to just go back to normal (after the crisis fades),” Dr. Blinderman said. “We need to take a close look at how our society is functioning in the wake of the pandemic and the ways the health care system has failed us. We have learned that we’re all interconnected and we need to work together to serve our communities – locally and nationally – applying basic distributive justice.”

Could there be, for example, a national infrastructure for mobilizing and deploying palliative care resources to areas of greatest need, similar to what was done in New York?

At Northwestern Medicine in Chicago, a number of palliative care clinicians at the system’s hospitals worked together to develop scripts designed to help other clinicians start goals of care conversations with patients and families, for use in the hospital as well as in outpatient primary care and other settings, with results integrated into the system’s electronic health record.

Front-line clinicians may not have the time to ask for formal consults from palliative care because of high volume and rapidly changing patient status, explained Eytan Szmuilowicz, MD, director of the section of palliative medicine at Northwestern Memorial Hospital. Or they may not have access to specialty-level palliative care in their settings.

The scripts are aimed at primary care, emergency physicians, and hospitalists needing to consider critical care placement or attempted resuscitation and to ICU clinicians helping families make decisions about life-sustaining treatments. They also can help facilitate advance care planning discussions. An example is “CALMER,” a six-step mnemonic guide to promote goals of care discussions with hospitalized patients. For more information on these scripts, contact Dr. Szmuilowicz: [email protected].

Eerily quiet

The COVID-19 crisis has been quite a whirlwind for hospital medicine, said Jeanie Youngwerth, MD, a hospitalist and program director of the palliative care service at the University of Colorado in Denver, which was a significant viral hotspot early on.

“When it first started, things seemed to change almost overnight – starting on Friday, March 13. People had to take action right away to develop work flows and the technology to allow us to see as many patients as possible,” she said. By the time Monday came, it was a whole new ballgame.

Dr. Youngwerth and two colleagues worked quickly to develop inpatient telemedicine capacity where none existed. “We knew we would not be going into patients’ rooms, but most of our team showed up in the hospital to work with the primary care teams. Our job was to see what we could do that actually made a difference,” she said.

“The hospital became a very strange place. You’d walk down the hallway and it was eerily quiet. Everybody you came across was being so nice to each other.” Televisits became a powerful way to bring the human connection back to medical care.

“What we learned from families was that they were thirsting to have some kind of connection with their loved one, and to be able to talk about their loved one and who they were as a person,” she said. “We’d contact the family through video visits and then, when the family meeting ended, the nurse would bring an iPad into the patient’s room so the family could see their loved one on a ventilator. They would immediately start communicating with their loved one, praying aloud, singing, playing music. It would make a huge difference for the family – and for the staff.”
 

References

1. Nakagawa S et al. Pandemic palliative care consultations spanning state and institutional borders. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2020 May 22. doi: 10.1111/jgs.16643.

2. Lee J Abrukin L, Flores S. Early intervention of palliative care in the emergency department during the COVID-19 pandemic. JAMA Intern Med. 2020 Jun 5. doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2020.2713.

Because heart failure patients with recovered ejection fraction are a complex and diverse group, little consensus has emerged on how to define, diagnose, and manage this growing population.

To provide some clarity for identifying and treating these patients, a Journal of the American College of Cardiology scientific expert panel has issued a consensus document. Published Aug. 3 in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology, it provides a working definition of heart failure with recovered ejection fraction (HFrecEF) and recommends approaches for treatment and follow-up.
 

Defining a new class of HF

“Part of the impetus of this was to bring attention to what we think is a new class of heart failure, and it requires different treatment modalities and different ways of thinking about it,” expert panel member Douglas L. Mann, MD, cardiologist-in-chief at Barnes Jewish Hospital in St. Louis, said in an interview. “It’s a newly discovered HF biology about which we know very little and it’s very confusing to just go on the ejection fraction alone.”

The panel, led by Jane E. Wilcox, MD, of Northwestern University, Chicago, recommends three components for a working definition of HFrecEF: 1) documentation of a decreased left ventricle ejection fraction (LVEF) of less than 40% at baseline; 2) a 10% or greater absolute improvement in LVEF; and 3) a second measurement of LVEF >40%.

“We try to give it a nomenclature that clearly indicates what it is,” Dr. Mann said. “There has been a lot of confusing terminology.” Among the terms the panel calls out in the lexicon of modestly recovered EF, in addition to HFrecEF, are HF improved EF, HF with preserved EF (HFpEF), borderline HFpEF and HF with mid-range EF (HFmrEF).

The panel also recommends that guideline-based medical and device therapies for HFrecEF should continue indefinitely until there’s a better understanding of the biology and clinical epidemiology of HFrecEF, and that these patients should have close clinical follow-up because of the high risk of HF relapse.

Determining EF’s ‘trajectory’

The findings presented in the statement should help cardiologists distinguish HFrecEF from HFpEF, Dr. Mann noted. “Because EF is moving, we also have to emphasize the importance of following the trajectory of EF,” he said. “It’s not enough to know where the EF is; you have to know where it came from – if it had been from a higher number or a lower number – because that will help inform you about the patient’s disease.”

In that regard, the panel states that the level of change in LVEF – the “trajectory” – will provide clues to the nature and extent of myocardial injury, degree and duration of LV remodeling, and the type of therapy that’s indicated. Clinicians should consider HFmrEF, a description the European Society of Cardiology has endorsed, as an entity different from HFrecEF without data on LVEF trajectory.

The statement delves into the biology of HFrecEF, defining reverse LV remodeling as the restoration of some normalization to cardiac myocyte size and LV chamber geometry that results in a leftward shift toward normalization of end-diastolic pressure volume. The panel also noted that cardiac remodeling in reverse LV remodeling and recovery of LV function is bidirectional and involves multiple molecular and cellular changes that contribute to changes in the heart’s size, shape and function, and explains the role gene expression has in HF-related LV changes.

The statement explores the recovery of LV function, noting that spontaneous recovery often occurs when the cause of the myocardial dysfunction resolves. Common causes are chronic tachycardia and thyroid disease.

That panel noted that “super responders” to cardiac resynchronization therapy can provide insight into HFrecEF. Favorable responders include women, patients with nonischemic HF, very wide ECG ventricular depolarization wavelength with left-bundle branch block morphology, and dyssynchrony on ECG.

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

The panel states that, “regardless of the definition of HFrecEF,” the evidence suggests that younger patients, women, and those with nonischemic disease, shorter disease duration, and relatively few comorbidities are more likely to recover LVEF – and their outcomes are typically better than those of patients with HF reduced EF (HFrEF) and HFpEF.

Clinicians should bear in mind, however, that patients on guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT) who achieve complete normalization of LV structure and function are prone to recurrent LV dysfunction and HF. The panel explored the role of potential treatment for three different etiologies of HF. Little is known about Takotsubo cardiomyopathy, considered a transient form of LV dysfunction, in terms of how many of these patients will develop HFrEF or if they’ll benefit from GDMT. Alcohol-induced cardiomyopathy patients should continue on medical therapy even if they have HFrecEF, as should patients with fulminant and nonfulminant myocarditis.
 

Managing HFrecEF

Management should include assessment of jugular vein distention and signs of volume overload – “particularly concerning in HFrecEF” – the panel noted. ECG is cost effective, and signs of left-bundle branch block are predictors of low success with GDMT alone. The panel also recommended a family history going back three generations and consideration of genetic testing to determine the risk for sudden cardiac death. Two-dimensional ECG can help predict GDMT response and cardiovascular magnetic resonance imaging can provide information about myocardial substrate at the time of diagnosis of HFrEF.

The panel suggested four areas for future research: 1) improved phenotyping of HFrEF; 2) use of inception cohorts to better understand the natural history of HFrecEF; 3) clinical trials to better define those clinical care components most effective at maintaining remission; and 4) basic studies to better define the biology of HFrecEF. “The goal,” wrote Dr. Wilcox and colleagues, “is to develop new therapeutic targets that will enable patients with HFrecEF to experience a durable remission from HF.”

Dr. Wilcox reported receiving funding from the National Institutes of Health and the American Heart Association, and financial relationships with Abbott, Medtronic, and Cytokinetics. Dr. Mann has received funding from NIH and reports financial relationships with MyoKardia and Novartis. Coauthors reported funding from NIH and AHA and financial relationships with Novartis, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Thoratec Corporation (Abbott), Sanofi, Pfizer, MyoKardia and American Regent.

SOURCE: Wilcox JE et al. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2020;76:719-34.

Because heart failure patients with recovered ejection fraction are a complex and diverse group, little consensus has emerged on how to define, diagnose, and manage this growing population.

To provide some clarity for identifying and treating these patients, a Journal of the American College of Cardiology scientific expert panel has issued a consensus document. Published Aug. 3 in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology, it provides a working definition of heart failure with recovered ejection fraction (HFrecEF) and recommends approaches for treatment and follow-up.
 

Defining a new class of HF

“Part of the impetus of this was to bring attention to what we think is a new class of heart failure, and it requires different treatment modalities and different ways of thinking about it,” expert panel member Douglas L. Mann, MD, cardiologist-in-chief at Barnes Jewish Hospital in St. Louis, said in an interview. “It’s a newly discovered HF biology about which we know very little and it’s very confusing to just go on the ejection fraction alone.”

The panel, led by Jane E. Wilcox, MD, of Northwestern University, Chicago, recommends three components for a working definition of HFrecEF: 1) documentation of a decreased left ventricle ejection fraction (LVEF) of less than 40% at baseline; 2) a 10% or greater absolute improvement in LVEF; and 3) a second measurement of LVEF >40%.

“We try to give it a nomenclature that clearly indicates what it is,” Dr. Mann said. “There has been a lot of confusing terminology.” Among the terms the panel calls out in the lexicon of modestly recovered EF, in addition to HFrecEF, are HF improved EF, HF with preserved EF (HFpEF), borderline HFpEF and HF with mid-range EF (HFmrEF).

The panel also recommends that guideline-based medical and device therapies for HFrecEF should continue indefinitely until there’s a better understanding of the biology and clinical epidemiology of HFrecEF, and that these patients should have close clinical follow-up because of the high risk of HF relapse.

Determining EF’s ‘trajectory’

The findings presented in the statement should help cardiologists distinguish HFrecEF from HFpEF, Dr. Mann noted. “Because EF is moving, we also have to emphasize the importance of following the trajectory of EF,” he said. “It’s not enough to know where the EF is; you have to know where it came from – if it had been from a higher number or a lower number – because that will help inform you about the patient’s disease.”

In that regard, the panel states that the level of change in LVEF – the “trajectory” – will provide clues to the nature and extent of myocardial injury, degree and duration of LV remodeling, and the type of therapy that’s indicated. Clinicians should consider HFmrEF, a description the European Society of Cardiology has endorsed, as an entity different from HFrecEF without data on LVEF trajectory.

The statement delves into the biology of HFrecEF, defining reverse LV remodeling as the restoration of some normalization to cardiac myocyte size and LV chamber geometry that results in a leftward shift toward normalization of end-diastolic pressure volume. The panel also noted that cardiac remodeling in reverse LV remodeling and recovery of LV function is bidirectional and involves multiple molecular and cellular changes that contribute to changes in the heart’s size, shape and function, and explains the role gene expression has in HF-related LV changes.

The statement explores the recovery of LV function, noting that spontaneous recovery often occurs when the cause of the myocardial dysfunction resolves. Common causes are chronic tachycardia and thyroid disease.

That panel noted that “super responders” to cardiac resynchronization therapy can provide insight into HFrecEF. Favorable responders include women, patients with nonischemic HF, very wide ECG ventricular depolarization wavelength with left-bundle branch block morphology, and dyssynchrony on ECG.

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

The panel states that, “regardless of the definition of HFrecEF,” the evidence suggests that younger patients, women, and those with nonischemic disease, shorter disease duration, and relatively few comorbidities are more likely to recover LVEF – and their outcomes are typically better than those of patients with HF reduced EF (HFrEF) and HFpEF.

Clinicians should bear in mind, however, that patients on guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT) who achieve complete normalization of LV structure and function are prone to recurrent LV dysfunction and HF. The panel explored the role of potential treatment for three different etiologies of HF. Little is known about Takotsubo cardiomyopathy, considered a transient form of LV dysfunction, in terms of how many of these patients will develop HFrEF or if they’ll benefit from GDMT. Alcohol-induced cardiomyopathy patients should continue on medical therapy even if they have HFrecEF, as should patients with fulminant and nonfulminant myocarditis.
 

Managing HFrecEF

Management should include assessment of jugular vein distention and signs of volume overload – “particularly concerning in HFrecEF” – the panel noted. ECG is cost effective, and signs of left-bundle branch block are predictors of low success with GDMT alone. The panel also recommended a family history going back three generations and consideration of genetic testing to determine the risk for sudden cardiac death. Two-dimensional ECG can help predict GDMT response and cardiovascular magnetic resonance imaging can provide information about myocardial substrate at the time of diagnosis of HFrEF.

The panel suggested four areas for future research: 1) improved phenotyping of HFrEF; 2) use of inception cohorts to better understand the natural history of HFrecEF; 3) clinical trials to better define those clinical care components most effective at maintaining remission; and 4) basic studies to better define the biology of HFrecEF. “The goal,” wrote Dr. Wilcox and colleagues, “is to develop new therapeutic targets that will enable patients with HFrecEF to experience a durable remission from HF.”

Dr. Wilcox reported receiving funding from the National Institutes of Health and the American Heart Association, and financial relationships with Abbott, Medtronic, and Cytokinetics. Dr. Mann has received funding from NIH and reports financial relationships with MyoKardia and Novartis. Coauthors reported funding from NIH and AHA and financial relationships with Novartis, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Thoratec Corporation (Abbott), Sanofi, Pfizer, MyoKardia and American Regent.

SOURCE: Wilcox JE et al. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2020;76:719-34.

Because heart failure patients with recovered ejection fraction are a complex and diverse group, little consensus has emerged on how to define, diagnose, and manage this growing population.

To provide some clarity for identifying and treating these patients, a Journal of the American College of Cardiology scientific expert panel has issued a consensus document. Published Aug. 3 in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology, it provides a working definition of heart failure with recovered ejection fraction (HFrecEF) and recommends approaches for treatment and follow-up.
 

Defining a new class of HF

“Part of the impetus of this was to bring attention to what we think is a new class of heart failure, and it requires different treatment modalities and different ways of thinking about it,” expert panel member Douglas L. Mann, MD, cardiologist-in-chief at Barnes Jewish Hospital in St. Louis, said in an interview. “It’s a newly discovered HF biology about which we know very little and it’s very confusing to just go on the ejection fraction alone.”

The panel, led by Jane E. Wilcox, MD, of Northwestern University, Chicago, recommends three components for a working definition of HFrecEF: 1) documentation of a decreased left ventricle ejection fraction (LVEF) of less than 40% at baseline; 2) a 10% or greater absolute improvement in LVEF; and 3) a second measurement of LVEF >40%.

“We try to give it a nomenclature that clearly indicates what it is,” Dr. Mann said. “There has been a lot of confusing terminology.” Among the terms the panel calls out in the lexicon of modestly recovered EF, in addition to HFrecEF, are HF improved EF, HF with preserved EF (HFpEF), borderline HFpEF and HF with mid-range EF (HFmrEF).

The panel also recommends that guideline-based medical and device therapies for HFrecEF should continue indefinitely until there’s a better understanding of the biology and clinical epidemiology of HFrecEF, and that these patients should have close clinical follow-up because of the high risk of HF relapse.

Determining EF’s ‘trajectory’

The findings presented in the statement should help cardiologists distinguish HFrecEF from HFpEF, Dr. Mann noted. “Because EF is moving, we also have to emphasize the importance of following the trajectory of EF,” he said. “It’s not enough to know where the EF is; you have to know where it came from – if it had been from a higher number or a lower number – because that will help inform you about the patient’s disease.”

In that regard, the panel states that the level of change in LVEF – the “trajectory” – will provide clues to the nature and extent of myocardial injury, degree and duration of LV remodeling, and the type of therapy that’s indicated. Clinicians should consider HFmrEF, a description the European Society of Cardiology has endorsed, as an entity different from HFrecEF without data on LVEF trajectory.

The statement delves into the biology of HFrecEF, defining reverse LV remodeling as the restoration of some normalization to cardiac myocyte size and LV chamber geometry that results in a leftward shift toward normalization of end-diastolic pressure volume. The panel also noted that cardiac remodeling in reverse LV remodeling and recovery of LV function is bidirectional and involves multiple molecular and cellular changes that contribute to changes in the heart’s size, shape and function, and explains the role gene expression has in HF-related LV changes.

The statement explores the recovery of LV function, noting that spontaneous recovery often occurs when the cause of the myocardial dysfunction resolves. Common causes are chronic tachycardia and thyroid disease.

That panel noted that “super responders” to cardiac resynchronization therapy can provide insight into HFrecEF. Favorable responders include women, patients with nonischemic HF, very wide ECG ventricular depolarization wavelength with left-bundle branch block morphology, and dyssynchrony on ECG.

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

The panel states that, “regardless of the definition of HFrecEF,” the evidence suggests that younger patients, women, and those with nonischemic disease, shorter disease duration, and relatively few comorbidities are more likely to recover LVEF – and their outcomes are typically better than those of patients with HF reduced EF (HFrEF) and HFpEF.

Clinicians should bear in mind, however, that patients on guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT) who achieve complete normalization of LV structure and function are prone to recurrent LV dysfunction and HF. The panel explored the role of potential treatment for three different etiologies of HF. Little is known about Takotsubo cardiomyopathy, considered a transient form of LV dysfunction, in terms of how many of these patients will develop HFrEF or if they’ll benefit from GDMT. Alcohol-induced cardiomyopathy patients should continue on medical therapy even if they have HFrecEF, as should patients with fulminant and nonfulminant myocarditis.
 

Managing HFrecEF

Management should include assessment of jugular vein distention and signs of volume overload – “particularly concerning in HFrecEF” – the panel noted. ECG is cost effective, and signs of left-bundle branch block are predictors of low success with GDMT alone. The panel also recommended a family history going back three generations and consideration of genetic testing to determine the risk for sudden cardiac death. Two-dimensional ECG can help predict GDMT response and cardiovascular magnetic resonance imaging can provide information about myocardial substrate at the time of diagnosis of HFrEF.

The panel suggested four areas for future research: 1) improved phenotyping of HFrEF; 2) use of inception cohorts to better understand the natural history of HFrecEF; 3) clinical trials to better define those clinical care components most effective at maintaining remission; and 4) basic studies to better define the biology of HFrecEF. “The goal,” wrote Dr. Wilcox and colleagues, “is to develop new therapeutic targets that will enable patients with HFrecEF to experience a durable remission from HF.”

Dr. Wilcox reported receiving funding from the National Institutes of Health and the American Heart Association, and financial relationships with Abbott, Medtronic, and Cytokinetics. Dr. Mann has received funding from NIH and reports financial relationships with MyoKardia and Novartis. Coauthors reported funding from NIH and AHA and financial relationships with Novartis, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Thoratec Corporation (Abbott), Sanofi, Pfizer, MyoKardia and American Regent.

SOURCE: Wilcox JE et al. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2020;76:719-34.

The state of health care in Massachusetts makes it the state for health care in 2020, according to the personal finance website WalletHub.

The Bay State finds itself at the top of the company’s annual ranking of state health care systems this year after finishing second in 2019 to Minnesota, which is now ranked second. Rhode Island is third this year, followed by Washington, D.C., and North Dakota, WalletHub reported Aug. 3.

The inclusion of Washington, D.C., allowed Georgia to finish 51st out of 50 states, just below the quartet of Louisiana (50th), Alabama (49th), North Carolina (48th), and Mississippi (47th). Alaska, which occupied the bottom spot in 2019, moved up to 42nd this year, the analysis showed.

The rankings are based on 44 (up from 43 last year) metrics that are grouped into three broad categories: cost (6 metrics), access (24 metrics), and outcomes (14 metrics). The one new measure added for 2020? That would be health infrastructure for coronavirus, which is itself based on a different WalletHub ranking.

Massachusetts’ top finish this year was driven by strong showings in such metrics as average monthly insurance premium (first), physicians per capita (second), insured children (first) and adults (first), and infant mortality rate (fourth). The state was 1st overall in outcomes and 4th in access but only 20th in cost, the company said.

Positive signs among the lowest-ranked states include Louisiana’s 18th-place finish in access, ahead of such top 10 states as Iowa and Hawaii, and Mississippi’s 17th in cost, which is higher than four of the states in the top 10, including Massachusetts, WalletHub said in the report.

Data for the analysis came from 22 different sources, including the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation, Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, Association of American Medical Colleges, and the American Telemedicine Association.

[email protected]

The state of health care in Massachusetts makes it the state for health care in 2020, according to the personal finance website WalletHub.

The Bay State finds itself at the top of the company’s annual ranking of state health care systems this year after finishing second in 2019 to Minnesota, which is now ranked second. Rhode Island is third this year, followed by Washington, D.C., and North Dakota, WalletHub reported Aug. 3.

The inclusion of Washington, D.C., allowed Georgia to finish 51st out of 50 states, just below the quartet of Louisiana (50th), Alabama (49th), North Carolina (48th), and Mississippi (47th). Alaska, which occupied the bottom spot in 2019, moved up to 42nd this year, the analysis showed.

The rankings are based on 44 (up from 43 last year) metrics that are grouped into three broad categories: cost (6 metrics), access (24 metrics), and outcomes (14 metrics). The one new measure added for 2020? That would be health infrastructure for coronavirus, which is itself based on a different WalletHub ranking.

Massachusetts’ top finish this year was driven by strong showings in such metrics as average monthly insurance premium (first), physicians per capita (second), insured children (first) and adults (first), and infant mortality rate (fourth). The state was 1st overall in outcomes and 4th in access but only 20th in cost, the company said.

Positive signs among the lowest-ranked states include Louisiana’s 18th-place finish in access, ahead of such top 10 states as Iowa and Hawaii, and Mississippi’s 17th in cost, which is higher than four of the states in the top 10, including Massachusetts, WalletHub said in the report.

Data for the analysis came from 22 different sources, including the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation, Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, Association of American Medical Colleges, and the American Telemedicine Association.

[email protected]

The state of health care in Massachusetts makes it the state for health care in 2020, according to the personal finance website WalletHub.

The Bay State finds itself at the top of the company’s annual ranking of state health care systems this year after finishing second in 2019 to Minnesota, which is now ranked second. Rhode Island is third this year, followed by Washington, D.C., and North Dakota, WalletHub reported Aug. 3.

The inclusion of Washington, D.C., allowed Georgia to finish 51st out of 50 states, just below the quartet of Louisiana (50th), Alabama (49th), North Carolina (48th), and Mississippi (47th). Alaska, which occupied the bottom spot in 2019, moved up to 42nd this year, the analysis showed.

The rankings are based on 44 (up from 43 last year) metrics that are grouped into three broad categories: cost (6 metrics), access (24 metrics), and outcomes (14 metrics). The one new measure added for 2020? That would be health infrastructure for coronavirus, which is itself based on a different WalletHub ranking.

Massachusetts’ top finish this year was driven by strong showings in such metrics as average monthly insurance premium (first), physicians per capita (second), insured children (first) and adults (first), and infant mortality rate (fourth). The state was 1st overall in outcomes and 4th in access but only 20th in cost, the company said.

Positive signs among the lowest-ranked states include Louisiana’s 18th-place finish in access, ahead of such top 10 states as Iowa and Hawaii, and Mississippi’s 17th in cost, which is higher than four of the states in the top 10, including Massachusetts, WalletHub said in the report.

Data for the analysis came from 22 different sources, including the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation, Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, Association of American Medical Colleges, and the American Telemedicine Association.

[email protected]

A 76-year-old woman presented recently to a Toronto-area hospital with acute onset muscle pain, limb weakness, difficulty walking, and rhabdomyolysis associated with a sharp spike in her plasma level of rosuvastatin – a drug she had been on uneventfully for more than 5 years, within days of starting for the first time treatment with the SGLT2 inhibitor canagliflozin (Invokana).

The patient’s Canadian clinicians stopped her treatment with both rosuvastatin and canagliflozin, administered intravenous crystalloid fluids, and within days her pain subsided and her limb weakness gradually improved, allowing her discharge 10 days later while she was ambulating with a walker.

“To our knowledge this is the first published report of a drug interaction between rosuvastatin and canagliflozin,” wrote the authors of the case report (Ann Intern Med. 2020 Aug 3. doi: 10.7326/L20-0549). They cited the importance of the observation given the widespread use today of rosuvastatin for lowering low density lipoprotein cholesterol and exerting pleiotropic effects; and canagliflozin for its modest effects for reducing hyperglycemia, as well as its important role in reducing adverse cardiovascular outcomes, slowing progression of chronic kidney disease, and having a mild but important diuretic effect. “We encourage clinicians to remain vigilant for features of myotoxicity when canagliflozin and rosuvastatin are coprescribed,” they wrote, avoiding discussion of whether this may represent class or drug-specific effects.

“It’s reasonable to be mindful of this risk, but this is not a reason to not use rosuvastatin and canagliflozin in a patient,” nor for the time being to avoid any other combination of a statin and SGLT2 (sodium-glucose cotransporter 2) inhibitor, said David Juurlink, MD, head of the division of clinical pharmacology and toxicology at Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre in Toronto and lead author of the report. “Few drug interactions have absolute contraindications. The admonition is just to be careful. It’s premature to say they shouldn’t be used together,” he said in an interview.

“We don’t know how much of an outlier this patient is. But it would be important to tell patients” on this or a similar combination to alert their clinicians if they start to have muscle aches, which should be a “red flag” to stop the statin, the SGLT2 inhibitor, or both until the situation can be fully assessed, Dr. Juurlink advised.
 

Sky high rosuvastatin levels

The linchpin of the observed adverse effects appeared to be a startlingly high elevation of the patient’s plasma rosuvastatin level when she was hospitalized 15 days after starting canagliflozin and 12 days after the onset of her thigh pain and weakness. Testing showed a plasma rosuvastatin concentration of 176 ng/mL, “more than 15-fold higher than the mean value expected” in patients taking 40 mg rosuvastatin daily, the maximum labeled dosage for the drug and what the affected patient had been taking without prior incident for more than 5 years. The patient’s canagliflozin dosage was 100 mg/day, the standard starting dosage according to the drug’s label.

The report’s authors noted that genetic assessment of the patient, a woman originally from the Philippines who was “high functioning,” and diagnosed with type 2 diabetes, showed she was heterozygous for a polymorphism, c.421C>A, which is linked with increased rosuvastatin plasma levels in the plasma. They also cited a report that canagliflozin can interact with proteins involved in hepatic drug uptake.

“We speculate that, in our patient, the addition of canagliflozin enhanced intestinal rosuvastatin absorption, inhibited its hepatocellular uptake, and impaired its excretion into bile canaliculi and the proximal tubule, resulting in rosuvastatin accumulation and leading to hepatotoxicity and myotoxicity,” the clinicians wrote in their report.

“There is little doubt this was a drug interaction, but it does not apply uniformly to everyone.” The severity of the interaction would depend on the dosages, the comorbidities a patient has, and their genetic profile, Dr. Juurlink said.
 

Concern and skepticism

Other clinicians who regularly prescribe these drugs expressed concern about the observation as well as skepticism about the prevalence of patients who could potentially experience similar effects.

Catherine Hackett/MDedge News

“We don’t know how common are these genetic abnormalities. If this is extremely rare, then it doesn’t have many clinical implications, but if a large portion of the population has this [genetic] abnormality, it’s something we’d need to pay attention to,” Steven E. Nissen, MD, chair of cardiovascular medicine at the Cleveland Clinic Foundation, said in an interview. “It will be important to know the prevalence” of the genetic polymorphism carried by the reported patient, said Dr. Nissen, who has done research on lipid-lowering medications and drug safety.

“This could be important, or a very rare one-off. I can’t say which,” based on what’s currently known, he said. “There are many unanswered questions that make it hard to know how important this will be. It requires further investigation. There is a lot of uncertainty.”

Dr. Nissen particularly endorsed studies that approach this issue by looking at the prevalence rates of the implicated genetic polymorphism rather than pharmacovigilance studies that make epidemiologic assessments of adverse-effect prevalence. Studies that look for adverse-effect associations in large patient populations are “sloppy, and unless the interaction is incredibly intense they are not very sensitive,” he said.

But Dr. Juurlink, a pharmacoepidemiologist whose specialty includes studies of this sort, said that they could be useful if carefully designed. He suggested, for example, comparing in large patient databases the observed incidence of rhabdomyolysis among patients on an SGLT2 inhibitor and also on rosuvastatin with those on pravastatin, a statin with a different metabolic profile. Another approach to further examining the observation would be dosage studies with rosuvastatin and canagliflozin in healthy volunteers, he said.

Dr. Nissen noted that rosuvastatin is a key agent from the statin class because it’s the “most effective” for lowering low density lipoprotein cholesterol. “Rosuvastatin is a go-to drug,” he declared. On the other hand, canagliflozin is “a little less used” than other drugs in the SGLT2 inhibitor class, specifically dapagliflozin (Farxiga) and empagliflozin (Jardiance), he said.

One in a million?

“This was a freak accident. I don’t find it at all concerning. It was definitely one in a million,” Yehuda Handelsman, MD, an endocrinologist and diabetes specialist who is medical director of The Metabolic Institute of America in Tarzana, Calif., said in an interview. “None of us have seen it” in either the several cardiovascular outcome trials now run on multiple drugs in the SGLT2 inhibitor class that included many patients also taking a statin, or in routine practice, he said. Dr. Handelsman noted that in his practice he had never seen a similar case despite treating “hundreds if not thousands of patients” with type 2 diabetes, virtually all of whom were on a statin and were also treated with an SGLT2 inhibitor, including many with canagliflozin.

Dr. Handelsman cited the notably low estimated glomerular filtration rate in the reported patient, who was described as having a serum creatinine level of 150 mcmol/L (1.7 mg/dL) prior to canagliflozin treatment that then rose to 194 mcmol/L (2.19 mg/dL) at the time of hospitalization, which corresponds to estimated glomerular filtration rates of 29-31 and 21-23 mL/min per 1.73 m², respectively, depending on the calculator used, rates that were possibly below the labeled minimum rate of 30 mL/min per 1.73 m² for patients starting canagliflozin treatment. The case report cited the patient as having stage 3B chronic kidney disease, which corresponds to a eGFR of 30-44* mL/min per 1.73 m².

“I think the patient had acute kidney injury” on starting canagliflozin “that may have affected the [rosuvastatin] metabolism,” Dr. Handelsman suggested. “She had severe kidney dysfunction to start with that fell further with SGLT2 inhibitor treatment,” a well described and usually transient effect of starting drugs in this class because of changes the SGLT2 inhibitors cause in renal blood flow. He noted that the patient had not been receiving an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor or angiotensin-receptor blocker, which may have contributed to her acute problems with fluid balance. Most similar patients with type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular disease risk, and chronic kidney disease would be on stable treatment with a drug that inhibits the renin-angiotensin system before starting an SGLT2 inhibitor, and not already having a RAS inhibitor on board before starting canagliflozin may have somehow contributed to the observed adverse effects, Dr. Handelsman said.

Dr. Juurlink was skeptical that the kidneys played a major role. “An abrupt change in renal function can influence statin clearance, but this was a 15-fold increase. You can’t explain such a dramatic increase by a transient reduction in renal function,” he said.

Dr. Juurlink and coauthors had no disclosures. Dr. Nissen had no relevant disclosures. Dr. Handelsman has been a consultant to companies that market drugs in the SGLT2 inhibitor class.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Brailovski E et al. Ann Intern Med. 2020 Aug 3. doi: 10.7326/L20-0549.

*Correction: This value was missing from the original article.

A 76-year-old woman presented recently to a Toronto-area hospital with acute onset muscle pain, limb weakness, difficulty walking, and rhabdomyolysis associated with a sharp spike in her plasma level of rosuvastatin – a drug she had been on uneventfully for more than 5 years, within days of starting for the first time treatment with the SGLT2 inhibitor canagliflozin (Invokana).

The patient’s Canadian clinicians stopped her treatment with both rosuvastatin and canagliflozin, administered intravenous crystalloid fluids, and within days her pain subsided and her limb weakness gradually improved, allowing her discharge 10 days later while she was ambulating with a walker.

“To our knowledge this is the first published report of a drug interaction between rosuvastatin and canagliflozin,” wrote the authors of the case report (Ann Intern Med. 2020 Aug 3. doi: 10.7326/L20-0549). They cited the importance of the observation given the widespread use today of rosuvastatin for lowering low density lipoprotein cholesterol and exerting pleiotropic effects; and canagliflozin for its modest effects for reducing hyperglycemia, as well as its important role in reducing adverse cardiovascular outcomes, slowing progression of chronic kidney disease, and having a mild but important diuretic effect. “We encourage clinicians to remain vigilant for features of myotoxicity when canagliflozin and rosuvastatin are coprescribed,” they wrote, avoiding discussion of whether this may represent class or drug-specific effects.

“It’s reasonable to be mindful of this risk, but this is not a reason to not use rosuvastatin and canagliflozin in a patient,” nor for the time being to avoid any other combination of a statin and SGLT2 (sodium-glucose cotransporter 2) inhibitor, said David Juurlink, MD, head of the division of clinical pharmacology and toxicology at Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre in Toronto and lead author of the report. “Few drug interactions have absolute contraindications. The admonition is just to be careful. It’s premature to say they shouldn’t be used together,” he said in an interview.

“We don’t know how much of an outlier this patient is. But it would be important to tell patients” on this or a similar combination to alert their clinicians if they start to have muscle aches, which should be a “red flag” to stop the statin, the SGLT2 inhibitor, or both until the situation can be fully assessed, Dr. Juurlink advised.
 

Sky high rosuvastatin levels

The linchpin of the observed adverse effects appeared to be a startlingly high elevation of the patient’s plasma rosuvastatin level when she was hospitalized 15 days after starting canagliflozin and 12 days after the onset of her thigh pain and weakness. Testing showed a plasma rosuvastatin concentration of 176 ng/mL, “more than 15-fold higher than the mean value expected” in patients taking 40 mg rosuvastatin daily, the maximum labeled dosage for the drug and what the affected patient had been taking without prior incident for more than 5 years. The patient’s canagliflozin dosage was 100 mg/day, the standard starting dosage according to the drug’s label.

The report’s authors noted that genetic assessment of the patient, a woman originally from the Philippines who was “high functioning,” and diagnosed with type 2 diabetes, showed she was heterozygous for a polymorphism, c.421C>A, which is linked with increased rosuvastatin plasma levels in the plasma. They also cited a report that canagliflozin can interact with proteins involved in hepatic drug uptake.

“We speculate that, in our patient, the addition of canagliflozin enhanced intestinal rosuvastatin absorption, inhibited its hepatocellular uptake, and impaired its excretion into bile canaliculi and the proximal tubule, resulting in rosuvastatin accumulation and leading to hepatotoxicity and myotoxicity,” the clinicians wrote in their report.

“There is little doubt this was a drug interaction, but it does not apply uniformly to everyone.” The severity of the interaction would depend on the dosages, the comorbidities a patient has, and their genetic profile, Dr. Juurlink said.
 

Concern and skepticism

Other clinicians who regularly prescribe these drugs expressed concern about the observation as well as skepticism about the prevalence of patients who could potentially experience similar effects.

Catherine Hackett/MDedge News

“We don’t know how common are these genetic abnormalities. If this is extremely rare, then it doesn’t have many clinical implications, but if a large portion of the population has this [genetic] abnormality, it’s something we’d need to pay attention to,” Steven E. Nissen, MD, chair of cardiovascular medicine at the Cleveland Clinic Foundation, said in an interview. “It will be important to know the prevalence” of the genetic polymorphism carried by the reported patient, said Dr. Nissen, who has done research on lipid-lowering medications and drug safety.

“This could be important, or a very rare one-off. I can’t say which,” based on what’s currently known, he said. “There are many unanswered questions that make it hard to know how important this will be. It requires further investigation. There is a lot of uncertainty.”

Dr. Nissen particularly endorsed studies that approach this issue by looking at the prevalence rates of the implicated genetic polymorphism rather than pharmacovigilance studies that make epidemiologic assessments of adverse-effect prevalence. Studies that look for adverse-effect associations in large patient populations are “sloppy, and unless the interaction is incredibly intense they are not very sensitive,” he said.

But Dr. Juurlink, a pharmacoepidemiologist whose specialty includes studies of this sort, said that they could be useful if carefully designed. He suggested, for example, comparing in large patient databases the observed incidence of rhabdomyolysis among patients on an SGLT2 inhibitor and also on rosuvastatin with those on pravastatin, a statin with a different metabolic profile. Another approach to further examining the observation would be dosage studies with rosuvastatin and canagliflozin in healthy volunteers, he said.

Dr. Nissen noted that rosuvastatin is a key agent from the statin class because it’s the “most effective” for lowering low density lipoprotein cholesterol. “Rosuvastatin is a go-to drug,” he declared. On the other hand, canagliflozin is “a little less used” than other drugs in the SGLT2 inhibitor class, specifically dapagliflozin (Farxiga) and empagliflozin (Jardiance), he said.

One in a million?

“This was a freak accident. I don’t find it at all concerning. It was definitely one in a million,” Yehuda Handelsman, MD, an endocrinologist and diabetes specialist who is medical director of The Metabolic Institute of America in Tarzana, Calif., said in an interview. “None of us have seen it” in either the several cardiovascular outcome trials now run on multiple drugs in the SGLT2 inhibitor class that included many patients also taking a statin, or in routine practice, he said. Dr. Handelsman noted that in his practice he had never seen a similar case despite treating “hundreds if not thousands of patients” with type 2 diabetes, virtually all of whom were on a statin and were also treated with an SGLT2 inhibitor, including many with canagliflozin.

Dr. Handelsman cited the notably low estimated glomerular filtration rate in the reported patient, who was described as having a serum creatinine level of 150 mcmol/L (1.7 mg/dL) prior to canagliflozin treatment that then rose to 194 mcmol/L (2.19 mg/dL) at the time of hospitalization, which corresponds to estimated glomerular filtration rates of 29-31 and 21-23 mL/min per 1.73 m², respectively, depending on the calculator used, rates that were possibly below the labeled minimum rate of 30 mL/min per 1.73 m² for patients starting canagliflozin treatment. The case report cited the patient as having stage 3B chronic kidney disease, which corresponds to a eGFR of 30-44* mL/min per 1.73 m².

“I think the patient had acute kidney injury” on starting canagliflozin “that may have affected the [rosuvastatin] metabolism,” Dr. Handelsman suggested. “She had severe kidney dysfunction to start with that fell further with SGLT2 inhibitor treatment,” a well described and usually transient effect of starting drugs in this class because of changes the SGLT2 inhibitors cause in renal blood flow. He noted that the patient had not been receiving an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor or angiotensin-receptor blocker, which may have contributed to her acute problems with fluid balance. Most similar patients with type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular disease risk, and chronic kidney disease would be on stable treatment with a drug that inhibits the renin-angiotensin system before starting an SGLT2 inhibitor, and not already having a RAS inhibitor on board before starting canagliflozin may have somehow contributed to the observed adverse effects, Dr. Handelsman said.

Dr. Juurlink was skeptical that the kidneys played a major role. “An abrupt change in renal function can influence statin clearance, but this was a 15-fold increase. You can’t explain such a dramatic increase by a transient reduction in renal function,” he said.

Dr. Juurlink and coauthors had no disclosures. Dr. Nissen had no relevant disclosures. Dr. Handelsman has been a consultant to companies that market drugs in the SGLT2 inhibitor class.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Brailovski E et al. Ann Intern Med. 2020 Aug 3. doi: 10.7326/L20-0549.

*Correction: This value was missing from the original article.

A 76-year-old woman presented recently to a Toronto-area hospital with acute onset muscle pain, limb weakness, difficulty walking, and rhabdomyolysis associated with a sharp spike in her plasma level of rosuvastatin – a drug she had been on uneventfully for more than 5 years, within days of starting for the first time treatment with the SGLT2 inhibitor canagliflozin (Invokana).

The patient’s Canadian clinicians stopped her treatment with both rosuvastatin and canagliflozin, administered intravenous crystalloid fluids, and within days her pain subsided and her limb weakness gradually improved, allowing her discharge 10 days later while she was ambulating with a walker.

“To our knowledge this is the first published report of a drug interaction between rosuvastatin and canagliflozin,” wrote the authors of the case report (Ann Intern Med. 2020 Aug 3. doi: 10.7326/L20-0549). They cited the importance of the observation given the widespread use today of rosuvastatin for lowering low density lipoprotein cholesterol and exerting pleiotropic effects; and canagliflozin for its modest effects for reducing hyperglycemia, as well as its important role in reducing adverse cardiovascular outcomes, slowing progression of chronic kidney disease, and having a mild but important diuretic effect. “We encourage clinicians to remain vigilant for features of myotoxicity when canagliflozin and rosuvastatin are coprescribed,” they wrote, avoiding discussion of whether this may represent class or drug-specific effects.

“It’s reasonable to be mindful of this risk, but this is not a reason to not use rosuvastatin and canagliflozin in a patient,” nor for the time being to avoid any other combination of a statin and SGLT2 (sodium-glucose cotransporter 2) inhibitor, said David Juurlink, MD, head of the division of clinical pharmacology and toxicology at Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre in Toronto and lead author of the report. “Few drug interactions have absolute contraindications. The admonition is just to be careful. It’s premature to say they shouldn’t be used together,” he said in an interview.

“We don’t know how much of an outlier this patient is. But it would be important to tell patients” on this or a similar combination to alert their clinicians if they start to have muscle aches, which should be a “red flag” to stop the statin, the SGLT2 inhibitor, or both until the situation can be fully assessed, Dr. Juurlink advised.
 

Sky high rosuvastatin levels

The linchpin of the observed adverse effects appeared to be a startlingly high elevation of the patient’s plasma rosuvastatin level when she was hospitalized 15 days after starting canagliflozin and 12 days after the onset of her thigh pain and weakness. Testing showed a plasma rosuvastatin concentration of 176 ng/mL, “more than 15-fold higher than the mean value expected” in patients taking 40 mg rosuvastatin daily, the maximum labeled dosage for the drug and what the affected patient had been taking without prior incident for more than 5 years. The patient’s canagliflozin dosage was 100 mg/day, the standard starting dosage according to the drug’s label.

The report’s authors noted that genetic assessment of the patient, a woman originally from the Philippines who was “high functioning,” and diagnosed with type 2 diabetes, showed she was heterozygous for a polymorphism, c.421C>A, which is linked with increased rosuvastatin plasma levels in the plasma. They also cited a report that canagliflozin can interact with proteins involved in hepatic drug uptake.

“We speculate that, in our patient, the addition of canagliflozin enhanced intestinal rosuvastatin absorption, inhibited its hepatocellular uptake, and impaired its excretion into bile canaliculi and the proximal tubule, resulting in rosuvastatin accumulation and leading to hepatotoxicity and myotoxicity,” the clinicians wrote in their report.

“There is little doubt this was a drug interaction, but it does not apply uniformly to everyone.” The severity of the interaction would depend on the dosages, the comorbidities a patient has, and their genetic profile, Dr. Juurlink said.
 

Concern and skepticism

Other clinicians who regularly prescribe these drugs expressed concern about the observation as well as skepticism about the prevalence of patients who could potentially experience similar effects.

Catherine Hackett/MDedge News

“We don’t know how common are these genetic abnormalities. If this is extremely rare, then it doesn’t have many clinical implications, but if a large portion of the population has this [genetic] abnormality, it’s something we’d need to pay attention to,” Steven E. Nissen, MD, chair of cardiovascular medicine at the Cleveland Clinic Foundation, said in an interview. “It will be important to know the prevalence” of the genetic polymorphism carried by the reported patient, said Dr. Nissen, who has done research on lipid-lowering medications and drug safety.

“This could be important, or a very rare one-off. I can’t say which,” based on what’s currently known, he said. “There are many unanswered questions that make it hard to know how important this will be. It requires further investigation. There is a lot of uncertainty.”

Dr. Nissen particularly endorsed studies that approach this issue by looking at the prevalence rates of the implicated genetic polymorphism rather than pharmacovigilance studies that make epidemiologic assessments of adverse-effect prevalence. Studies that look for adverse-effect associations in large patient populations are “sloppy, and unless the interaction is incredibly intense they are not very sensitive,” he said.

But Dr. Juurlink, a pharmacoepidemiologist whose specialty includes studies of this sort, said that they could be useful if carefully designed. He suggested, for example, comparing in large patient databases the observed incidence of rhabdomyolysis among patients on an SGLT2 inhibitor and also on rosuvastatin with those on pravastatin, a statin with a different metabolic profile. Another approach to further examining the observation would be dosage studies with rosuvastatin and canagliflozin in healthy volunteers, he said.

Dr. Nissen noted that rosuvastatin is a key agent from the statin class because it’s the “most effective” for lowering low density lipoprotein cholesterol. “Rosuvastatin is a go-to drug,” he declared. On the other hand, canagliflozin is “a little less used” than other drugs in the SGLT2 inhibitor class, specifically dapagliflozin (Farxiga) and empagliflozin (Jardiance), he said.

One in a million?

“This was a freak accident. I don’t find it at all concerning. It was definitely one in a million,” Yehuda Handelsman, MD, an endocrinologist and diabetes specialist who is medical director of The Metabolic Institute of America in Tarzana, Calif., said in an interview. “None of us have seen it” in either the several cardiovascular outcome trials now run on multiple drugs in the SGLT2 inhibitor class that included many patients also taking a statin, or in routine practice, he said. Dr. Handelsman noted that in his practice he had never seen a similar case despite treating “hundreds if not thousands of patients” with type 2 diabetes, virtually all of whom were on a statin and were also treated with an SGLT2 inhibitor, including many with canagliflozin.

Dr. Handelsman cited the notably low estimated glomerular filtration rate in the reported patient, who was described as having a serum creatinine level of 150 mcmol/L (1.7 mg/dL) prior to canagliflozin treatment that then rose to 194 mcmol/L (2.19 mg/dL) at the time of hospitalization, which corresponds to estimated glomerular filtration rates of 29-31 and 21-23 mL/min per 1.73 m², respectively, depending on the calculator used, rates that were possibly below the labeled minimum rate of 30 mL/min per 1.73 m² for patients starting canagliflozin treatment. The case report cited the patient as having stage 3B chronic kidney disease, which corresponds to a eGFR of 30-44* mL/min per 1.73 m².

“I think the patient had acute kidney injury” on starting canagliflozin “that may have affected the [rosuvastatin] metabolism,” Dr. Handelsman suggested. “She had severe kidney dysfunction to start with that fell further with SGLT2 inhibitor treatment,” a well described and usually transient effect of starting drugs in this class because of changes the SGLT2 inhibitors cause in renal blood flow. He noted that the patient had not been receiving an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor or angiotensin-receptor blocker, which may have contributed to her acute problems with fluid balance. Most similar patients with type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular disease risk, and chronic kidney disease would be on stable treatment with a drug that inhibits the renin-angiotensin system before starting an SGLT2 inhibitor, and not already having a RAS inhibitor on board before starting canagliflozin may have somehow contributed to the observed adverse effects, Dr. Handelsman said.

Dr. Juurlink was skeptical that the kidneys played a major role. “An abrupt change in renal function can influence statin clearance, but this was a 15-fold increase. You can’t explain such a dramatic increase by a transient reduction in renal function,” he said.

Dr. Juurlink and coauthors had no disclosures. Dr. Nissen had no relevant disclosures. Dr. Handelsman has been a consultant to companies that market drugs in the SGLT2 inhibitor class.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Brailovski E et al. Ann Intern Med. 2020 Aug 3. doi: 10.7326/L20-0549.

*Correction: This value was missing from the original article.

Clinical guidelines for cholesterol management may have two blind spots when it comes to heart attack prevention: Most younger adults with premature coronary artery disease who’ve had a myocardial infarction don’t meet guideline criteria for preventative statin therapy, and survivors under age 55 don’t meet the criteria for continuing nonstatin lipid-lowering treatments, a large single-center retrospective study has shown.

“The classic approach we’ve taken to identifying young adults for prevention is inadequate in younger adults,” corresponding author Ann Marie Navar, MD, PhD, of Duke University, Durham, N.C., said in an interview. “While awaiting more definitive research we should at minimum be using all the tools at our disposal, including broader use of coronary artery calcium [CAC] scoring, to identify young people who may benefit from statin therapy.”

The retrospective observational study analyzed records of 6,639 adults who had cardiac catheterization at Duke University Medical Center from 1995 to 2012 for a first myocardial infarction with obstructive coronary artery disease. The study considered those under age 55 years as “younger” patients, comprising 41% of the study group (2,733); 35% were “middle-aged” at 55-65 years (2,324) and 24% were “older,” at 66-75 years (1,582).

The report, published online Aug. 3 in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology, noted that most of the adults with premature CAD did not meet criteria for preventative statin therapy before their first MI based on ACC/American Heart Association clinical guidelines from 2013 and 2018. It also noted that younger MI survivors are also less frequently eligible for secondary prevention with intensive nonstatin lipid-lowering therapies than are older adults despite a much longer potential life span – and opportunity for another MI – for the former.

The researchers sought to evaluate the real-world implications of changes made in the 2018 guideline for adults who develop premature ischemic heart disease, and found that fewer younger patients qualify for preventative statin therapy under the 2018 guidelines.

“Younger individuals with very high-risk criteria are at higher risk of major adverse cardiovascular events, a finding supporting the appropriate implementation of intensive lipid-lowering therapies in these patients,” wrote lead author Michel Zeitouni, MD, MSc, and colleagues.
 

Key findings

The investigators reported that younger adults were significantly less likely to meet a class I recommendation for statins under the 2013 guideline (42.9%), compared with their middle-aged (70%) and older (82.5%) counterparts; and under the 2018 guideline, at 39.4%, 59.5%, and 77.4%, respectively (both P < .001).

Similarly, when both class I and class IIa recommendations were accounted for, younger patients were significantly less likely than were middle-aged and older patients to be eligible for statins before their index MI under both the 2013 (56.7%, 79.5%, and 85.2%, respectively and 2018 guidelines (46.4%, 73.5%, and 88.2%, respectively (both P < .01).

After their first MI, one in four younger patients (28.3%) met the very high-risk criteria compared with 40% of middle-aged and 81.4% of older patients (P trend < .001). In 8 years of follow-up, patients with very high-risk criteria based on the 2018 guideline had twice the rate of death, nonfatal MI, or stroke (hazard ratio [HR]: 2.15; 95% confidence interval, 1.98-2.33; P < .001).

The researchers acknowledged that the 2018 guideline took the important step of implementing risk enhancers – patient characteristics such as obesity and metabolic syndrome – along with the 10-year atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) risk score to better identify high-risk young individuals who need statins. However, they also noted that the ability of the guidelines to identify young adults before their first MI “remains suboptimal.”

How to protect younger patients

“The 2018 guidelines will be most effective if we as providers do our best to identify risk enhancers and if we can use CAC scoring more broadly,” Dr. Navar said, noting that although CAC scoring has been shown to improve risk prediction, insurance coverage can be problematic.

“We also need to be careful to screen for the presence of the risk enhancers, such as inflammatory disease, family history, and women-specific risk factors, to make sure we aren’t missing an important high-risk group,” she added.

Other solutions to better identify at-risk younger adults include considering upgrades to the guidelines’ class IIb recommendation to class IIa to emphasize the importance of recognizing lower-risk younger adults, and recommending statins for patients at higher lifetime risk than age- and sex-matched peers, the researchers noted. “In our cohort, young individuals admitted for a first MI had a higher lifetime ASCVD risk score than did patients in the older age categories,” Dr. Zeitouni and colleagues wrote.

Dr. Navar said that these findings are a reminder that guidelines aren’t mandates. “Guidelines are meant to be a starting point for patients and physicians,” she said. “The absence of a recommendation doesn’t mean something isn’t recommended, but that there is not enough data to say one way or another.” 

The study “provides important evidence” that the 2018 guidelines exempted about half of the younger adults who had a first MI from preventative statin therapy, Ron Blankstein, MD, and Avinainder Singh, MD, MMSc, noted in an editorial (J Am Coll Cardiol. 2020;76:665-8).

Brigham and Women&#039;s Hospital

“Data from both the Duke and Young-MI registries should force us to reexamine how we allocate statin use among young individuals,” they noted. Dr. Blankstein is with Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston. Dr. Singh is with Yale University, New Haven, Conn.

Dr. Zeitouni reported receiving lecture fees from Bristol-Myers Squibb/Pfizer. Dr. Navar reported financial relationships with Amarin, Janssen, Amgen, Sanofi and Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, AstraZeneca, Esperion, Novo Nordisk, Novartis, The Medicine Company, New Amsterdam, Cerner and Pfizer. Dr. Blankstein reported receiving research support from Amgen. Dr. Singh has no relevant financial relationships to report.

SOURCE: M. Zeitouni et al. J Am Coll Cardiol 2020 Aug 3;76:653-64.

Clinical guidelines for cholesterol management may have two blind spots when it comes to heart attack prevention: Most younger adults with premature coronary artery disease who’ve had a myocardial infarction don’t meet guideline criteria for preventative statin therapy, and survivors under age 55 don’t meet the criteria for continuing nonstatin lipid-lowering treatments, a large single-center retrospective study has shown.

“The classic approach we’ve taken to identifying young adults for prevention is inadequate in younger adults,” corresponding author Ann Marie Navar, MD, PhD, of Duke University, Durham, N.C., said in an interview. “While awaiting more definitive research we should at minimum be using all the tools at our disposal, including broader use of coronary artery calcium [CAC] scoring, to identify young people who may benefit from statin therapy.”

The retrospective observational study analyzed records of 6,639 adults who had cardiac catheterization at Duke University Medical Center from 1995 to 2012 for a first myocardial infarction with obstructive coronary artery disease. The study considered those under age 55 years as “younger” patients, comprising 41% of the study group (2,733); 35% were “middle-aged” at 55-65 years (2,324) and 24% were “older,” at 66-75 years (1,582).

The report, published online Aug. 3 in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology, noted that most of the adults with premature CAD did not meet criteria for preventative statin therapy before their first MI based on ACC/American Heart Association clinical guidelines from 2013 and 2018. It also noted that younger MI survivors are also less frequently eligible for secondary prevention with intensive nonstatin lipid-lowering therapies than are older adults despite a much longer potential life span – and opportunity for another MI – for the former.

The researchers sought to evaluate the real-world implications of changes made in the 2018 guideline for adults who develop premature ischemic heart disease, and found that fewer younger patients qualify for preventative statin therapy under the 2018 guidelines.

“Younger individuals with very high-risk criteria are at higher risk of major adverse cardiovascular events, a finding supporting the appropriate implementation of intensive lipid-lowering therapies in these patients,” wrote lead author Michel Zeitouni, MD, MSc, and colleagues.
 

Key findings

The investigators reported that younger adults were significantly less likely to meet a class I recommendation for statins under the 2013 guideline (42.9%), compared with their middle-aged (70%) and older (82.5%) counterparts; and under the 2018 guideline, at 39.4%, 59.5%, and 77.4%, respectively (both P < .001).

Similarly, when both class I and class IIa recommendations were accounted for, younger patients were significantly less likely than were middle-aged and older patients to be eligible for statins before their index MI under both the 2013 (56.7%, 79.5%, and 85.2%, respectively and 2018 guidelines (46.4%, 73.5%, and 88.2%, respectively (both P < .01).

After their first MI, one in four younger patients (28.3%) met the very high-risk criteria compared with 40% of middle-aged and 81.4% of older patients (P trend < .001). In 8 years of follow-up, patients with very high-risk criteria based on the 2018 guideline had twice the rate of death, nonfatal MI, or stroke (hazard ratio [HR]: 2.15; 95% confidence interval, 1.98-2.33; P < .001).

The researchers acknowledged that the 2018 guideline took the important step of implementing risk enhancers – patient characteristics such as obesity and metabolic syndrome – along with the 10-year atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) risk score to better identify high-risk young individuals who need statins. However, they also noted that the ability of the guidelines to identify young adults before their first MI “remains suboptimal.”

How to protect younger patients

“The 2018 guidelines will be most effective if we as providers do our best to identify risk enhancers and if we can use CAC scoring more broadly,” Dr. Navar said, noting that although CAC scoring has been shown to improve risk prediction, insurance coverage can be problematic.

“We also need to be careful to screen for the presence of the risk enhancers, such as inflammatory disease, family history, and women-specific risk factors, to make sure we aren’t missing an important high-risk group,” she added.

Other solutions to better identify at-risk younger adults include considering upgrades to the guidelines’ class IIb recommendation to class IIa to emphasize the importance of recognizing lower-risk younger adults, and recommending statins for patients at higher lifetime risk than age- and sex-matched peers, the researchers noted. “In our cohort, young individuals admitted for a first MI had a higher lifetime ASCVD risk score than did patients in the older age categories,” Dr. Zeitouni and colleagues wrote.

Dr. Navar said that these findings are a reminder that guidelines aren’t mandates. “Guidelines are meant to be a starting point for patients and physicians,” she said. “The absence of a recommendation doesn’t mean something isn’t recommended, but that there is not enough data to say one way or another.” 

The study “provides important evidence” that the 2018 guidelines exempted about half of the younger adults who had a first MI from preventative statin therapy, Ron Blankstein, MD, and Avinainder Singh, MD, MMSc, noted in an editorial (J Am Coll Cardiol. 2020;76:665-8).

Brigham and Women&#039;s Hospital

“Data from both the Duke and Young-MI registries should force us to reexamine how we allocate statin use among young individuals,” they noted. Dr. Blankstein is with Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston. Dr. Singh is with Yale University, New Haven, Conn.

Dr. Zeitouni reported receiving lecture fees from Bristol-Myers Squibb/Pfizer. Dr. Navar reported financial relationships with Amarin, Janssen, Amgen, Sanofi and Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, AstraZeneca, Esperion, Novo Nordisk, Novartis, The Medicine Company, New Amsterdam, Cerner and Pfizer. Dr. Blankstein reported receiving research support from Amgen. Dr. Singh has no relevant financial relationships to report.

SOURCE: M. Zeitouni et al. J Am Coll Cardiol 2020 Aug 3;76:653-64.

Clinical guidelines for cholesterol management may have two blind spots when it comes to heart attack prevention: Most younger adults with premature coronary artery disease who’ve had a myocardial infarction don’t meet guideline criteria for preventative statin therapy, and survivors under age 55 don’t meet the criteria for continuing nonstatin lipid-lowering treatments, a large single-center retrospective study has shown.

“The classic approach we’ve taken to identifying young adults for prevention is inadequate in younger adults,” corresponding author Ann Marie Navar, MD, PhD, of Duke University, Durham, N.C., said in an interview. “While awaiting more definitive research we should at minimum be using all the tools at our disposal, including broader use of coronary artery calcium [CAC] scoring, to identify young people who may benefit from statin therapy.”

The retrospective observational study analyzed records of 6,639 adults who had cardiac catheterization at Duke University Medical Center from 1995 to 2012 for a first myocardial infarction with obstructive coronary artery disease. The study considered those under age 55 years as “younger” patients, comprising 41% of the study group (2,733); 35% were “middle-aged” at 55-65 years (2,324) and 24% were “older,” at 66-75 years (1,582).

The report, published online Aug. 3 in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology, noted that most of the adults with premature CAD did not meet criteria for preventative statin therapy before their first MI based on ACC/American Heart Association clinical guidelines from 2013 and 2018. It also noted that younger MI survivors are also less frequently eligible for secondary prevention with intensive nonstatin lipid-lowering therapies than are older adults despite a much longer potential life span – and opportunity for another MI – for the former.

The researchers sought to evaluate the real-world implications of changes made in the 2018 guideline for adults who develop premature ischemic heart disease, and found that fewer younger patients qualify for preventative statin therapy under the 2018 guidelines.

“Younger individuals with very high-risk criteria are at higher risk of major adverse cardiovascular events, a finding supporting the appropriate implementation of intensive lipid-lowering therapies in these patients,” wrote lead author Michel Zeitouni, MD, MSc, and colleagues.
 

Key findings

The investigators reported that younger adults were significantly less likely to meet a class I recommendation for statins under the 2013 guideline (42.9%), compared with their middle-aged (70%) and older (82.5%) counterparts; and under the 2018 guideline, at 39.4%, 59.5%, and 77.4%, respectively (both P < .001).

Similarly, when both class I and class IIa recommendations were accounted for, younger patients were significantly less likely than were middle-aged and older patients to be eligible for statins before their index MI under both the 2013 (56.7%, 79.5%, and 85.2%, respectively and 2018 guidelines (46.4%, 73.5%, and 88.2%, respectively (both P < .01).

After their first MI, one in four younger patients (28.3%) met the very high-risk criteria compared with 40% of middle-aged and 81.4% of older patients (P trend < .001). In 8 years of follow-up, patients with very high-risk criteria based on the 2018 guideline had twice the rate of death, nonfatal MI, or stroke (hazard ratio [HR]: 2.15; 95% confidence interval, 1.98-2.33; P < .001).

The researchers acknowledged that the 2018 guideline took the important step of implementing risk enhancers – patient characteristics such as obesity and metabolic syndrome – along with the 10-year atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) risk score to better identify high-risk young individuals who need statins. However, they also noted that the ability of the guidelines to identify young adults before their first MI “remains suboptimal.”

How to protect younger patients

“The 2018 guidelines will be most effective if we as providers do our best to identify risk enhancers and if we can use CAC scoring more broadly,” Dr. Navar said, noting that although CAC scoring has been shown to improve risk prediction, insurance coverage can be problematic.

“We also need to be careful to screen for the presence of the risk enhancers, such as inflammatory disease, family history, and women-specific risk factors, to make sure we aren’t missing an important high-risk group,” she added.

Other solutions to better identify at-risk younger adults include considering upgrades to the guidelines’ class IIb recommendation to class IIa to emphasize the importance of recognizing lower-risk younger adults, and recommending statins for patients at higher lifetime risk than age- and sex-matched peers, the researchers noted. “In our cohort, young individuals admitted for a first MI had a higher lifetime ASCVD risk score than did patients in the older age categories,” Dr. Zeitouni and colleagues wrote.

Dr. Navar said that these findings are a reminder that guidelines aren’t mandates. “Guidelines are meant to be a starting point for patients and physicians,” she said. “The absence of a recommendation doesn’t mean something isn’t recommended, but that there is not enough data to say one way or another.” 

The study “provides important evidence” that the 2018 guidelines exempted about half of the younger adults who had a first MI from preventative statin therapy, Ron Blankstein, MD, and Avinainder Singh, MD, MMSc, noted in an editorial (J Am Coll Cardiol. 2020;76:665-8).

Brigham and Women&#039;s Hospital

“Data from both the Duke and Young-MI registries should force us to reexamine how we allocate statin use among young individuals,” they noted. Dr. Blankstein is with Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston. Dr. Singh is with Yale University, New Haven, Conn.

Dr. Zeitouni reported receiving lecture fees from Bristol-Myers Squibb/Pfizer. Dr. Navar reported financial relationships with Amarin, Janssen, Amgen, Sanofi and Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, AstraZeneca, Esperion, Novo Nordisk, Novartis, The Medicine Company, New Amsterdam, Cerner and Pfizer. Dr. Blankstein reported receiving research support from Amgen. Dr. Singh has no relevant financial relationships to report.

SOURCE: M. Zeitouni et al. J Am Coll Cardiol 2020 Aug 3;76:653-64.

At its annual meeting, the Alzheimer’s Association announced the launch of a global study to examine the impact of COVID-19 on the brain, as well as policy recommendations to better address the COVID-19 crisis in long-term care facilities. The study will be led by researchers at the Alzheimer’s Association and the University of Texas Health, San Antonio, with participation from more than 30 countries and technical guidance from the World Health Organization.

The research will track and evaluate the short- and long-term impact of the novel coronavirus on the brain, including cognition, behavior, and function. The target sample size is 20,000-40,000 total participants.

Maria C. Carrillo, PhD, chief science officer for the Alzheimer’s Association, announced the study’s launch during a COVID-19–focused panel discussion at the virtual annual meeting of the Alzheimer’s Association International Conference 2020.

“To build a strong foundation for this research, we will align with existing studies, such as the Framingham Heart Study, and clinicians from around the world on how the data are going to be collected, obtained, and shared. We are going to have cross-study collaborations to understand the impact of the virus on the brain directly,” said Dr. Carrillo. “We will have some very good data to present next year at AAIC.”
 

‘Frightening’ headlines

As previously reported, mounting evidence suggests that SARS-CoV-2 invades the central nervous system, causing a wide range of neurologic and neuropsychiatric complications, including stroke, psychosis, altered mental state, and dementia-like syndrome. It’s likely that “dementia does not increase the risk for COVID-19, just like dementia does not increase risk for the flu. But increased age, being in a long-term care setting, and common health conditions that often accompany dementia may increase the risk,” Dr. Carrillo said.

Panel member Beth Kallmyer, MSW, vice president of care and support at the Alzheimer’s Association, spoke about the ongoing challenges long-term care facilities are facing during the pandemic. “You’ve all seen the headlines, and they’re frightening, frankly,” she said. An estimated 59,000 residents and employees of long-term care have died as a result of COVID-19, which is 42% of all U.S. deaths.

The long-term care community is being impacted at “significantly greater rates than the rest of society and yet we don’t have things in place to protect them. We also know that individuals living with dementia make up a large percentage of those that are living in long-term care,” Ms. Kallmyer said.

She noted that infection control is always a challenge in long-term care settings, but infection control during a pandemic “takes it to a whole other level.” Quarantining is hard for anyone, “but when you layer dementia on top of that we have a real challenge.” One long-term care provider told Ms. Kallmyer that “we might be saving them from COVID, but we’re losing them to social isolation and cognitive decline.”
 

New recommendations

Ms. Kallmyer outlined new policy recommendations from the Alzheimer’s Association to address the COVID-19 crisis in long-term and community-based care settings. They include:

• Testing every resident, employee, and visitor each time they leave and come back, so residents would not need to be confined to their own rooms
• Having a single portal that is easy and efficient for reporting cases
• Developing “surge activation” protocols to respond to hot spots, including the possibility of “strike teams” that go in and help during an outbreak
• Making sure all long-term care providers have full access to all needed personal protective equipment (PPE)

“Five months in and long-term care providers still don’t have adequate PPE. This is unacceptable,” said Ms. Kallmyer. “We have to be able to provide them with PPE.”

Panel member Gregory A. Jicha, MD, PhD, Sanders-Brown Center on Aging, University of Kentucky, Lexington, spoke about the critical need to continue Alzheimer’s disease research during the pandemic, noting that the number of promising targets for Alzheimer’s disease and related dementias has “never been higher or more comprehensive.”

Measures to ensure safety of researchers and participants include screening for symptoms (50% effective), social distancing (93% effective), minimizing exposure time (50% effective), limiting staff to 50% (50% effective), cloth/paper masks (80% effective), and testing (99.25% effective), Dr. Jicha noted.

With no safety measures in place, the risk of getting COVID-19 from a research visit is 1 in 20; when all these safety measures are combined, the risk is 1 in over 1.5 million, so “we can essentially eradicate or minimize the risks for COVID to less that of a lightning strike,” he said.

Dr. Carrillo, Ms. Kallmyer, and Dr. Jicha disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

At its annual meeting, the Alzheimer’s Association announced the launch of a global study to examine the impact of COVID-19 on the brain, as well as policy recommendations to better address the COVID-19 crisis in long-term care facilities. The study will be led by researchers at the Alzheimer’s Association and the University of Texas Health, San Antonio, with participation from more than 30 countries and technical guidance from the World Health Organization.

The research will track and evaluate the short- and long-term impact of the novel coronavirus on the brain, including cognition, behavior, and function. The target sample size is 20,000-40,000 total participants.

Maria C. Carrillo, PhD, chief science officer for the Alzheimer’s Association, announced the study’s launch during a COVID-19–focused panel discussion at the virtual annual meeting of the Alzheimer’s Association International Conference 2020.

“To build a strong foundation for this research, we will align with existing studies, such as the Framingham Heart Study, and clinicians from around the world on how the data are going to be collected, obtained, and shared. We are going to have cross-study collaborations to understand the impact of the virus on the brain directly,” said Dr. Carrillo. “We will have some very good data to present next year at AAIC.”
 

‘Frightening’ headlines

As previously reported, mounting evidence suggests that SARS-CoV-2 invades the central nervous system, causing a wide range of neurologic and neuropsychiatric complications, including stroke, psychosis, altered mental state, and dementia-like syndrome. It’s likely that “dementia does not increase the risk for COVID-19, just like dementia does not increase risk for the flu. But increased age, being in a long-term care setting, and common health conditions that often accompany dementia may increase the risk,” Dr. Carrillo said.

Panel member Beth Kallmyer, MSW, vice president of care and support at the Alzheimer’s Association, spoke about the ongoing challenges long-term care facilities are facing during the pandemic. “You’ve all seen the headlines, and they’re frightening, frankly,” she said. An estimated 59,000 residents and employees of long-term care have died as a result of COVID-19, which is 42% of all U.S. deaths.

The long-term care community is being impacted at “significantly greater rates than the rest of society and yet we don’t have things in place to protect them. We also know that individuals living with dementia make up a large percentage of those that are living in long-term care,” Ms. Kallmyer said.

She noted that infection control is always a challenge in long-term care settings, but infection control during a pandemic “takes it to a whole other level.” Quarantining is hard for anyone, “but when you layer dementia on top of that we have a real challenge.” One long-term care provider told Ms. Kallmyer that “we might be saving them from COVID, but we’re losing them to social isolation and cognitive decline.”
 

New recommendations

Ms. Kallmyer outlined new policy recommendations from the Alzheimer’s Association to address the COVID-19 crisis in long-term and community-based care settings. They include:

• Testing every resident, employee, and visitor each time they leave and come back, so residents would not need to be confined to their own rooms
• Having a single portal that is easy and efficient for reporting cases
• Developing “surge activation” protocols to respond to hot spots, including the possibility of “strike teams” that go in and help during an outbreak
• Making sure all long-term care providers have full access to all needed personal protective equipment (PPE)

“Five months in and long-term care providers still don’t have adequate PPE. This is unacceptable,” said Ms. Kallmyer. “We have to be able to provide them with PPE.”

Panel member Gregory A. Jicha, MD, PhD, Sanders-Brown Center on Aging, University of Kentucky, Lexington, spoke about the critical need to continue Alzheimer’s disease research during the pandemic, noting that the number of promising targets for Alzheimer’s disease and related dementias has “never been higher or more comprehensive.”

Measures to ensure safety of researchers and participants include screening for symptoms (50% effective), social distancing (93% effective), minimizing exposure time (50% effective), limiting staff to 50% (50% effective), cloth/paper masks (80% effective), and testing (99.25% effective), Dr. Jicha noted.

With no safety measures in place, the risk of getting COVID-19 from a research visit is 1 in 20; when all these safety measures are combined, the risk is 1 in over 1.5 million, so “we can essentially eradicate or minimize the risks for COVID to less that of a lightning strike,” he said.

Dr. Carrillo, Ms. Kallmyer, and Dr. Jicha disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

At its annual meeting, the Alzheimer’s Association announced the launch of a global study to examine the impact of COVID-19 on the brain, as well as policy recommendations to better address the COVID-19 crisis in long-term care facilities. The study will be led by researchers at the Alzheimer’s Association and the University of Texas Health, San Antonio, with participation from more than 30 countries and technical guidance from the World Health Organization.

The research will track and evaluate the short- and long-term impact of the novel coronavirus on the brain, including cognition, behavior, and function. The target sample size is 20,000-40,000 total participants.

Maria C. Carrillo, PhD, chief science officer for the Alzheimer’s Association, announced the study’s launch during a COVID-19–focused panel discussion at the virtual annual meeting of the Alzheimer’s Association International Conference 2020.

“To build a strong foundation for this research, we will align with existing studies, such as the Framingham Heart Study, and clinicians from around the world on how the data are going to be collected, obtained, and shared. We are going to have cross-study collaborations to understand the impact of the virus on the brain directly,” said Dr. Carrillo. “We will have some very good data to present next year at AAIC.”
 

‘Frightening’ headlines

As previously reported, mounting evidence suggests that SARS-CoV-2 invades the central nervous system, causing a wide range of neurologic and neuropsychiatric complications, including stroke, psychosis, altered mental state, and dementia-like syndrome. It’s likely that “dementia does not increase the risk for COVID-19, just like dementia does not increase risk for the flu. But increased age, being in a long-term care setting, and common health conditions that often accompany dementia may increase the risk,” Dr. Carrillo said.

Panel member Beth Kallmyer, MSW, vice president of care and support at the Alzheimer’s Association, spoke about the ongoing challenges long-term care facilities are facing during the pandemic. “You’ve all seen the headlines, and they’re frightening, frankly,” she said. An estimated 59,000 residents and employees of long-term care have died as a result of COVID-19, which is 42% of all U.S. deaths.

The long-term care community is being impacted at “significantly greater rates than the rest of society and yet we don’t have things in place to protect them. We also know that individuals living with dementia make up a large percentage of those that are living in long-term care,” Ms. Kallmyer said.

She noted that infection control is always a challenge in long-term care settings, but infection control during a pandemic “takes it to a whole other level.” Quarantining is hard for anyone, “but when you layer dementia on top of that we have a real challenge.” One long-term care provider told Ms. Kallmyer that “we might be saving them from COVID, but we’re losing them to social isolation and cognitive decline.”
 

New recommendations

Ms. Kallmyer outlined new policy recommendations from the Alzheimer’s Association to address the COVID-19 crisis in long-term and community-based care settings. They include:

• Testing every resident, employee, and visitor each time they leave and come back, so residents would not need to be confined to their own rooms
• Having a single portal that is easy and efficient for reporting cases
• Developing “surge activation” protocols to respond to hot spots, including the possibility of “strike teams” that go in and help during an outbreak
• Making sure all long-term care providers have full access to all needed personal protective equipment (PPE)

“Five months in and long-term care providers still don’t have adequate PPE. This is unacceptable,” said Ms. Kallmyer. “We have to be able to provide them with PPE.”

Panel member Gregory A. Jicha, MD, PhD, Sanders-Brown Center on Aging, University of Kentucky, Lexington, spoke about the critical need to continue Alzheimer’s disease research during the pandemic, noting that the number of promising targets for Alzheimer’s disease and related dementias has “never been higher or more comprehensive.”

Measures to ensure safety of researchers and participants include screening for symptoms (50% effective), social distancing (93% effective), minimizing exposure time (50% effective), limiting staff to 50% (50% effective), cloth/paper masks (80% effective), and testing (99.25% effective), Dr. Jicha noted.

With no safety measures in place, the risk of getting COVID-19 from a research visit is 1 in 20; when all these safety measures are combined, the risk is 1 in over 1.5 million, so “we can essentially eradicate or minimize the risks for COVID to less that of a lightning strike,” he said.

Dr. Carrillo, Ms. Kallmyer, and Dr. Jicha disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

The COVID-19 pandemic is taking a particularly severe financial toll on people with diabetes, new research from the United States suggests.

Results from a national online survey of 5,000 people with diabetes conducted between June 26 and July 1, 2020, were posted July 29 on the American Diabetes Association website.

The survey, conducted by the diabetes research company dQ&A in association with the ADA, revealed that Americans with diabetes are experiencing extreme financial pressures, leading to medication and supply rationing.

A high proportion of respondents had either lost income or are working in jobs that place them at risk for catching the novel coronavirus.

“These new numbers show the urgency needed to adopt measures to protect and assist the millions of people with diabetes who are suffering through this pandemic,” Tracey D. Brown, CEO of the ADA, said in a statement.

She called for states to extend health care coverage to people who have lost their jobs, for the eradication of insulin copays during the pandemic, and for increased COVID-19 testing capacity in high-risk communities.

“If these actions aren’t taken immediately, we will continue to see devastating impacts and outcomes for millions of vulnerable Americans,” Ms. Brown stressed.
 

COVID-19 has worsened financial pressures for people with diabetes

In the survey, 24% of respondents reported having used savings, loans, or stimulus check money to pay for diabetes care in the past 3 months. Among those who have lost income, half are using savings or stimulus money.

A quarter of respondents said they have been self-rationing supplies to cut costs.

Extrapolating to the entire U.S. population with diabetes, dQ&A estimated that roughly 650,000 are skipping insulin doses or taking less than prescribed, and 3 million are skipping blood glucose tests.

In June, the unemployment rate for people with diabetes was 18%, higher than the national rate of 12%.

Also higher is the proportion of those working prior to the pandemic who have since lost income: 33%, compared with 29% for the general population.

Among those who are self-employed, 7 in 10 of those with diabetes have lost some or all of their income.
 

Many with diabetes who are employed are vulnerable to exposure

Of those who remain employed, half said they can’t work from home.

Of those, 60% work in essential industries, with 22% in health care. A large majority, 90%, reported lack of social distancing at work and nearly a third work in places that don’t require masks.

“People with diabetes are helping to provide the services we all depend on during this pandemic, even as it puts their own well-being at risk,” the report said.

It concluded that “these numbers represent a conservative estimate of the pandemic’s impact. They are generated from an ongoing online study of the diabetes population amongst people who have opted in to participate.”

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

The COVID-19 pandemic is taking a particularly severe financial toll on people with diabetes, new research from the United States suggests.

Results from a national online survey of 5,000 people with diabetes conducted between June 26 and July 1, 2020, were posted July 29 on the American Diabetes Association website.

The survey, conducted by the diabetes research company dQ&A in association with the ADA, revealed that Americans with diabetes are experiencing extreme financial pressures, leading to medication and supply rationing.

A high proportion of respondents had either lost income or are working in jobs that place them at risk for catching the novel coronavirus.

“These new numbers show the urgency needed to adopt measures to protect and assist the millions of people with diabetes who are suffering through this pandemic,” Tracey D. Brown, CEO of the ADA, said in a statement.

She called for states to extend health care coverage to people who have lost their jobs, for the eradication of insulin copays during the pandemic, and for increased COVID-19 testing capacity in high-risk communities.

“If these actions aren’t taken immediately, we will continue to see devastating impacts and outcomes for millions of vulnerable Americans,” Ms. Brown stressed.
 

COVID-19 has worsened financial pressures for people with diabetes

In the survey, 24% of respondents reported having used savings, loans, or stimulus check money to pay for diabetes care in the past 3 months. Among those who have lost income, half are using savings or stimulus money.

A quarter of respondents said they have been self-rationing supplies to cut costs.

Extrapolating to the entire U.S. population with diabetes, dQ&A estimated that roughly 650,000 are skipping insulin doses or taking less than prescribed, and 3 million are skipping blood glucose tests.

In June, the unemployment rate for people with diabetes was 18%, higher than the national rate of 12%.

Also higher is the proportion of those working prior to the pandemic who have since lost income: 33%, compared with 29% for the general population.

Among those who are self-employed, 7 in 10 of those with diabetes have lost some or all of their income.
 

Many with diabetes who are employed are vulnerable to exposure

Of those who remain employed, half said they can’t work from home.

Of those, 60% work in essential industries, with 22% in health care. A large majority, 90%, reported lack of social distancing at work and nearly a third work in places that don’t require masks.

“People with diabetes are helping to provide the services we all depend on during this pandemic, even as it puts their own well-being at risk,” the report said.

It concluded that “these numbers represent a conservative estimate of the pandemic’s impact. They are generated from an ongoing online study of the diabetes population amongst people who have opted in to participate.”

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

The COVID-19 pandemic is taking a particularly severe financial toll on people with diabetes, new research from the United States suggests.

Results from a national online survey of 5,000 people with diabetes conducted between June 26 and July 1, 2020, were posted July 29 on the American Diabetes Association website.

The survey, conducted by the diabetes research company dQ&A in association with the ADA, revealed that Americans with diabetes are experiencing extreme financial pressures, leading to medication and supply rationing.

A high proportion of respondents had either lost income or are working in jobs that place them at risk for catching the novel coronavirus.

“These new numbers show the urgency needed to adopt measures to protect and assist the millions of people with diabetes who are suffering through this pandemic,” Tracey D. Brown, CEO of the ADA, said in a statement.

She called for states to extend health care coverage to people who have lost their jobs, for the eradication of insulin copays during the pandemic, and for increased COVID-19 testing capacity in high-risk communities.

“If these actions aren’t taken immediately, we will continue to see devastating impacts and outcomes for millions of vulnerable Americans,” Ms. Brown stressed.
 

COVID-19 has worsened financial pressures for people with diabetes

In the survey, 24% of respondents reported having used savings, loans, or stimulus check money to pay for diabetes care in the past 3 months. Among those who have lost income, half are using savings or stimulus money.

A quarter of respondents said they have been self-rationing supplies to cut costs.

Extrapolating to the entire U.S. population with diabetes, dQ&A estimated that roughly 650,000 are skipping insulin doses or taking less than prescribed, and 3 million are skipping blood glucose tests.

In June, the unemployment rate for people with diabetes was 18%, higher than the national rate of 12%.

Also higher is the proportion of those working prior to the pandemic who have since lost income: 33%, compared with 29% for the general population.

Among those who are self-employed, 7 in 10 of those with diabetes have lost some or all of their income.
 

Many with diabetes who are employed are vulnerable to exposure

Of those who remain employed, half said they can’t work from home.

Of those, 60% work in essential industries, with 22% in health care. A large majority, 90%, reported lack of social distancing at work and nearly a third work in places that don’t require masks.

“People with diabetes are helping to provide the services we all depend on during this pandemic, even as it puts their own well-being at risk,” the report said.

It concluded that “these numbers represent a conservative estimate of the pandemic’s impact. They are generated from an ongoing online study of the diabetes population amongst people who have opted in to participate.”

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

A new palliative care intervention for U.S. patients with advanced heart failure did not improve quality of life or mood after 16 weeks of participation in a randomized trial.

“Future analyses and studies will examine both the patient factors and intervention components to find the right palliative care dose, for the right patient, at the right time,” wrote Marie A. Bakitas, DNSc, of the University of Alabama at Birmingham, and coauthors. The study was published in JAMA Internal Medicine.

“My first reaction is disappointment,” Larry Allen, MD, of the University of Colorado in Denver, said in an interview. “We had hoped to see the ENABLE program, which had been successful in cancer, translate to the heart failure setting.”
 

Improvement of palliative care in heart failure patients might rest on who needs it most

“One thing to note,” Dr. Allen added in an interview, “is that, in this population of patients, some of the measures they were trying to improve were already relatively mild to start with. It may not be that the intervention didn’t help but that they picked a patient population that wasn’t particularly in need. If you treat someone who doesn’t have a problem, it’s hard to make them better.”

In a separate interview, Dr. Bakitas acknowledged a similar sentiment. “We were a little surprised until we looked at our sample,” she said. “We realized that we had recruited all these very high-functioning, good quality-of-life patients. What we then did was look at a subsample of patients who had low quality of life at baseline. Low and behold, the intervention had an effect. The patients who started with a poor quality of life had a statistically and clinically significant benefit. Their KCCQ score increased by over 5 points.”

As for next steps. Dr. Bakitas noted that they’re twofold: “One is refining the patient population who can benefit, and the second is working on the intervention and figuring out which pieces are the ones that provide the most benefit.

“Because of logistics and practical issues, not everyone in the study got all the intervention that they should have. Think of it like a drug trial; if someone misses a pill, they don’t get the full dose that we thought would work. We need to make sure our interventions have the right pieces in place. We don’t want to develop a great intervention that’s not practical for patients.”

Study design and outcomes

To determine the benefits of early palliative care for patients with heart failure, the researchers developed the ENABLE CHF-PC (Educate, Nurture, Advise, Before Life Ends Comprehensive Heartcare for Patients and Caregivers) intervention. This nurse-led program includes an in-person consultant followed by six telehealth nurse coaching sessions lasting 30-40 minutes and then monthly follow-up calls through either 48 weeks or the patient’s death.

To test the effectiveness of their intervention after 16 weeks, the researchers launched a two-site, single-blind randomized clinical trial made up of 415 patients who were 50 years or older with advanced heart failure. Among the patients, 53% were men and the mean age was 64 years; 55% were African American, 26% lived in a rural area, and 46% had a high school education or less. The average length of time since heart failure diagnosis was 5.1 years.

Patients were randomized evenly to receive either the ENABLE CHF-PC intervention (208) or usual care. The primary outcomes were quality of life (QOL), which was measured by the heart failure–specific 23-item Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire (KCCQ) and the 14-item Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy–Palliative-14 (FACIT Pal-14), and mood, which was measured by the 14-item Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS). Pain was measured via 3-item pain intensity and 2-item pain interference scales.

Effect size was measured as Cohen d or d-equivalent, where a small effect is 0.2, medium is 0.5, and large is about 0.854.

At baseline, the mean KCCQ score of 52.6 at baseline indicated a “fairly good” QOL across all patients. After 16 weeks, the mean KCCQ score improved 3.9 points in the intervention group, compared with 2.3 points in the usual care group (d = 0.07; [95% confidence interval, –0.09-0.24]). In addition, the mean FACIT-Pal-14 score improved 1.4 points in the intervention group compared to 0.2 points in the usual care group (d = 0.12 [95% CI, –0.03-0.28]). Only small differences were observed between groups regarding anxiety and depression, but pain intensity (difference, –2.8; SE, 0.9; d = –0.26 [95% CI, –0.43-0.09]) and pain interference (difference, –2.3; SE, 1; d = –0.21 [95% CI, –0.40 to –0.02]) demonstrated a statistically significant and clinically important decrease.
 

As heart failure care evolves, so must palliative care

Though the study and intervention developed by Dr. Bakitas and colleagues is commendable, it is only somewhat surprising that it did not drastically improve patients’ quality of life, Nathan E. Goldstein, MD, of the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York, wrote in an accompanying editorial.

He noted several reasons for the lack of improvement, including a large proportion of patients still being in the early stages of the disease. Ultimately, however, he wonders if innovation in heart failure care ultimately impacted the study while it was occurring. Medications and technological advancements evolve rapidly in this field, he said, especially over the course of a 3-year study period.

To continue this work and produce real benefits in patients with advanced heart failure, Dr. Goldstein emphasized the need for “dynamic palliative care interventions that can adapt to the constantly changing landscape of the patient’s needs caused by the underlying nature of the disease, as well as the innovations in the field of cardiology.”

The authors acknowledged their study’s limitations, including data attrition at 16 weeks that was higher than expected – a turn of events they attributed to “unique socioeconomic factors … and lack of regular health care appointments” among some participants. In addition, a minority of patients were unable to stick to the study protocol, which has led the researchers to begin investigating video alternatives to in-person consultation.

The study was supported by the National Institutes of Health/National Institutes of Nursing Research. Four of the authors reported received grants from the National Institutes of Nursing Research outside the submitted work or during the study. Dr. Goldstein reported no conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Bakitas MA et al. JAMA Intern Med. 2020 July 27. doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2020.2861.

A new palliative care intervention for U.S. patients with advanced heart failure did not improve quality of life or mood after 16 weeks of participation in a randomized trial.

“Future analyses and studies will examine both the patient factors and intervention components to find the right palliative care dose, for the right patient, at the right time,” wrote Marie A. Bakitas, DNSc, of the University of Alabama at Birmingham, and coauthors. The study was published in JAMA Internal Medicine.

“My first reaction is disappointment,” Larry Allen, MD, of the University of Colorado in Denver, said in an interview. “We had hoped to see the ENABLE program, which had been successful in cancer, translate to the heart failure setting.”
 

Improvement of palliative care in heart failure patients might rest on who needs it most

“One thing to note,” Dr. Allen added in an interview, “is that, in this population of patients, some of the measures they were trying to improve were already relatively mild to start with. It may not be that the intervention didn’t help but that they picked a patient population that wasn’t particularly in need. If you treat someone who doesn’t have a problem, it’s hard to make them better.”

In a separate interview, Dr. Bakitas acknowledged a similar sentiment. “We were a little surprised until we looked at our sample,” she said. “We realized that we had recruited all these very high-functioning, good quality-of-life patients. What we then did was look at a subsample of patients who had low quality of life at baseline. Low and behold, the intervention had an effect. The patients who started with a poor quality of life had a statistically and clinically significant benefit. Their KCCQ score increased by over 5 points.”

As for next steps. Dr. Bakitas noted that they’re twofold: “One is refining the patient population who can benefit, and the second is working on the intervention and figuring out which pieces are the ones that provide the most benefit.

“Because of logistics and practical issues, not everyone in the study got all the intervention that they should have. Think of it like a drug trial; if someone misses a pill, they don’t get the full dose that we thought would work. We need to make sure our interventions have the right pieces in place. We don’t want to develop a great intervention that’s not practical for patients.”

Study design and outcomes

To determine the benefits of early palliative care for patients with heart failure, the researchers developed the ENABLE CHF-PC (Educate, Nurture, Advise, Before Life Ends Comprehensive Heartcare for Patients and Caregivers) intervention. This nurse-led program includes an in-person consultant followed by six telehealth nurse coaching sessions lasting 30-40 minutes and then monthly follow-up calls through either 48 weeks or the patient’s death.

To test the effectiveness of their intervention after 16 weeks, the researchers launched a two-site, single-blind randomized clinical trial made up of 415 patients who were 50 years or older with advanced heart failure. Among the patients, 53% were men and the mean age was 64 years; 55% were African American, 26% lived in a rural area, and 46% had a high school education or less. The average length of time since heart failure diagnosis was 5.1 years.

Patients were randomized evenly to receive either the ENABLE CHF-PC intervention (208) or usual care. The primary outcomes were quality of life (QOL), which was measured by the heart failure–specific 23-item Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire (KCCQ) and the 14-item Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy–Palliative-14 (FACIT Pal-14), and mood, which was measured by the 14-item Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS). Pain was measured via 3-item pain intensity and 2-item pain interference scales.

Effect size was measured as Cohen d or d-equivalent, where a small effect is 0.2, medium is 0.5, and large is about 0.854.

At baseline, the mean KCCQ score of 52.6 at baseline indicated a “fairly good” QOL across all patients. After 16 weeks, the mean KCCQ score improved 3.9 points in the intervention group, compared with 2.3 points in the usual care group (d = 0.07; [95% confidence interval, –0.09-0.24]). In addition, the mean FACIT-Pal-14 score improved 1.4 points in the intervention group compared to 0.2 points in the usual care group (d = 0.12 [95% CI, –0.03-0.28]). Only small differences were observed between groups regarding anxiety and depression, but pain intensity (difference, –2.8; SE, 0.9; d = –0.26 [95% CI, –0.43-0.09]) and pain interference (difference, –2.3; SE, 1; d = –0.21 [95% CI, –0.40 to –0.02]) demonstrated a statistically significant and clinically important decrease.
 

As heart failure care evolves, so must palliative care

Though the study and intervention developed by Dr. Bakitas and colleagues is commendable, it is only somewhat surprising that it did not drastically improve patients’ quality of life, Nathan E. Goldstein, MD, of the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York, wrote in an accompanying editorial.

He noted several reasons for the lack of improvement, including a large proportion of patients still being in the early stages of the disease. Ultimately, however, he wonders if innovation in heart failure care ultimately impacted the study while it was occurring. Medications and technological advancements evolve rapidly in this field, he said, especially over the course of a 3-year study period.

To continue this work and produce real benefits in patients with advanced heart failure, Dr. Goldstein emphasized the need for “dynamic palliative care interventions that can adapt to the constantly changing landscape of the patient’s needs caused by the underlying nature of the disease, as well as the innovations in the field of cardiology.”

The authors acknowledged their study’s limitations, including data attrition at 16 weeks that was higher than expected – a turn of events they attributed to “unique socioeconomic factors … and lack of regular health care appointments” among some participants. In addition, a minority of patients were unable to stick to the study protocol, which has led the researchers to begin investigating video alternatives to in-person consultation.

The study was supported by the National Institutes of Health/National Institutes of Nursing Research. Four of the authors reported received grants from the National Institutes of Nursing Research outside the submitted work or during the study. Dr. Goldstein reported no conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Bakitas MA et al. JAMA Intern Med. 2020 July 27. doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2020.2861.

A new palliative care intervention for U.S. patients with advanced heart failure did not improve quality of life or mood after 16 weeks of participation in a randomized trial.

“Future analyses and studies will examine both the patient factors and intervention components to find the right palliative care dose, for the right patient, at the right time,” wrote Marie A. Bakitas, DNSc, of the University of Alabama at Birmingham, and coauthors. The study was published in JAMA Internal Medicine.

“My first reaction is disappointment,” Larry Allen, MD, of the University of Colorado in Denver, said in an interview. “We had hoped to see the ENABLE program, which had been successful in cancer, translate to the heart failure setting.”
 

Improvement of palliative care in heart failure patients might rest on who needs it most

“One thing to note,” Dr. Allen added in an interview, “is that, in this population of patients, some of the measures they were trying to improve were already relatively mild to start with. It may not be that the intervention didn’t help but that they picked a patient population that wasn’t particularly in need. If you treat someone who doesn’t have a problem, it’s hard to make them better.”

In a separate interview, Dr. Bakitas acknowledged a similar sentiment. “We were a little surprised until we looked at our sample,” she said. “We realized that we had recruited all these very high-functioning, good quality-of-life patients. What we then did was look at a subsample of patients who had low quality of life at baseline. Low and behold, the intervention had an effect. The patients who started with a poor quality of life had a statistically and clinically significant benefit. Their KCCQ score increased by over 5 points.”

As for next steps. Dr. Bakitas noted that they’re twofold: “One is refining the patient population who can benefit, and the second is working on the intervention and figuring out which pieces are the ones that provide the most benefit.

“Because of logistics and practical issues, not everyone in the study got all the intervention that they should have. Think of it like a drug trial; if someone misses a pill, they don’t get the full dose that we thought would work. We need to make sure our interventions have the right pieces in place. We don’t want to develop a great intervention that’s not practical for patients.”

Study design and outcomes

To determine the benefits of early palliative care for patients with heart failure, the researchers developed the ENABLE CHF-PC (Educate, Nurture, Advise, Before Life Ends Comprehensive Heartcare for Patients and Caregivers) intervention. This nurse-led program includes an in-person consultant followed by six telehealth nurse coaching sessions lasting 30-40 minutes and then monthly follow-up calls through either 48 weeks or the patient’s death.

To test the effectiveness of their intervention after 16 weeks, the researchers launched a two-site, single-blind randomized clinical trial made up of 415 patients who were 50 years or older with advanced heart failure. Among the patients, 53% were men and the mean age was 64 years; 55% were African American, 26% lived in a rural area, and 46% had a high school education or less. The average length of time since heart failure diagnosis was 5.1 years.

Patients were randomized evenly to receive either the ENABLE CHF-PC intervention (208) or usual care. The primary outcomes were quality of life (QOL), which was measured by the heart failure–specific 23-item Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire (KCCQ) and the 14-item Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy–Palliative-14 (FACIT Pal-14), and mood, which was measured by the 14-item Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS). Pain was measured via 3-item pain intensity and 2-item pain interference scales.

Effect size was measured as Cohen d or d-equivalent, where a small effect is 0.2, medium is 0.5, and large is about 0.854.

At baseline, the mean KCCQ score of 52.6 at baseline indicated a “fairly good” QOL across all patients. After 16 weeks, the mean KCCQ score improved 3.9 points in the intervention group, compared with 2.3 points in the usual care group (d = 0.07; [95% confidence interval, –0.09-0.24]). In addition, the mean FACIT-Pal-14 score improved 1.4 points in the intervention group compared to 0.2 points in the usual care group (d = 0.12 [95% CI, –0.03-0.28]). Only small differences were observed between groups regarding anxiety and depression, but pain intensity (difference, –2.8; SE, 0.9; d = –0.26 [95% CI, –0.43-0.09]) and pain interference (difference, –2.3; SE, 1; d = –0.21 [95% CI, –0.40 to –0.02]) demonstrated a statistically significant and clinically important decrease.
 

As heart failure care evolves, so must palliative care

Though the study and intervention developed by Dr. Bakitas and colleagues is commendable, it is only somewhat surprising that it did not drastically improve patients’ quality of life, Nathan E. Goldstein, MD, of the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York, wrote in an accompanying editorial.

He noted several reasons for the lack of improvement, including a large proportion of patients still being in the early stages of the disease. Ultimately, however, he wonders if innovation in heart failure care ultimately impacted the study while it was occurring. Medications and technological advancements evolve rapidly in this field, he said, especially over the course of a 3-year study period.

To continue this work and produce real benefits in patients with advanced heart failure, Dr. Goldstein emphasized the need for “dynamic palliative care interventions that can adapt to the constantly changing landscape of the patient’s needs caused by the underlying nature of the disease, as well as the innovations in the field of cardiology.”

The authors acknowledged their study’s limitations, including data attrition at 16 weeks that was higher than expected – a turn of events they attributed to “unique socioeconomic factors … and lack of regular health care appointments” among some participants. In addition, a minority of patients were unable to stick to the study protocol, which has led the researchers to begin investigating video alternatives to in-person consultation.

The study was supported by the National Institutes of Health/National Institutes of Nursing Research. Four of the authors reported received grants from the National Institutes of Nursing Research outside the submitted work or during the study. Dr. Goldstein reported no conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Bakitas MA et al. JAMA Intern Med. 2020 July 27. doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2020.2861.