A few months ago I wrote a column in which I reluctantly supported designating obesity as a disease. My rationale was that in the more than 50 years that I have been watching the ebb and flow of medicine in this country I have seen very little, if any, evidence of success in our attempts to prevent obesity. Given this abysmal track record, the pragmatic side of my brain says why not label it a disease and begin to focus on treatment. However, I closed the column urging that we not lose sight of our core values and completely abandon any attempts at prevention.

As the months have rolled by, I have become increasingly concerned that preventing obesity is slipping further down the slippery slope to oblivion, greased by the success of semaglutide and the prospect of similar drugs in the pipeline. Before turning in our credentials as card-carrying preventionists, we need to step back and take another look at how we approach obesity from the pediatric side.

The majority of Americans believe that obesity occurs when an individual consumes more calories than he or she burns by being active. Some nutritionists criticize this “energy balance” model view as too simplistic and prefer a carbohydrate insulin model, which considers obesity as a metabolic disorder that is better managed by adjusting what the individual eats with less focus on amounts and the role of exercise. However, while the public may acknowledge that there are some individuals to whom genetics has dealt a more difficult hand, it continues to put a high priority on the dual roles of willpower and exercise. As effective obesity drugs become more available and remain safe, it is likely that willpower will no longer dominate the populous psyche.

But, what about children? At what point, if ever, does willpower enter the obesity discussion? A child may be able to exert some control over his or her diet by eating selectively. But, until the child acquires a certain level of resources and maturity it is parents who should be dictating the volume and variety of available food from which the child can choose. And, on the other side of the energy equation, parents should be playing a significant role in how much or how little physical activity their children engage in.

Of course there are many children whose genes predispose them to obesity when food is cheap and abundant. And, there are numerous families for whom socioeconomic factors limit their ability to control their children’s diet and activity options. However, we mustn’t lose sight of the fact that the majority of families may be making choices for their children that are contributing to the obesity problem in this country.

For example, a recent study published in Pediatrics has found that mean television viewing time during childhood and adolescence was associated with metabolic syndrome at age 45. Is this a failure on our part to anticipate this finding when for decades we as physicians have already seen anecdotal evidence to support it? Or is this another example of a willpower deficit by parents who likewise must have had an inkling that sitting on the couch watching television wasn’t healthy for their children?

Or is this just more evidence that as a nation we lack the political will to enact laws and develop programs aimed at heading off obesity in early childhood before it reaches the point that we have learned, from sad experience, is beyond the reach of dietary change, increased physical activity, and the fragility of normal human willpower. Here I’m talking about the disappearance of meaningful physical education in the schools, the failure to effectively prevent the marketing of poor nutritional foods and beverages to children, and the failure to aggressively promote universal breastfeeding-friendly workplaces and schedules, to name just a few.

As individuals we know all too well the limits of our own willpower. But, collectively as a nation we should be able to pool those fragmentary resources into a force for positive change. We may have thrown in the towel when we have opted to treat obesity as a disease in adults. Let’s find the will to work on prevention in early childhood when the window for change is still open.
 

Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Other than a Littman stethoscope he accepted as a first-year medical student in 1966, Dr. Wilkoff reports having nothing to disclose. Email him at [email protected].

A few months ago I wrote a column in which I reluctantly supported designating obesity as a disease. My rationale was that in the more than 50 years that I have been watching the ebb and flow of medicine in this country I have seen very little, if any, evidence of success in our attempts to prevent obesity. Given this abysmal track record, the pragmatic side of my brain says why not label it a disease and begin to focus on treatment. However, I closed the column urging that we not lose sight of our core values and completely abandon any attempts at prevention.

As the months have rolled by, I have become increasingly concerned that preventing obesity is slipping further down the slippery slope to oblivion, greased by the success of semaglutide and the prospect of similar drugs in the pipeline. Before turning in our credentials as card-carrying preventionists, we need to step back and take another look at how we approach obesity from the pediatric side.

The majority of Americans believe that obesity occurs when an individual consumes more calories than he or she burns by being active. Some nutritionists criticize this “energy balance” model view as too simplistic and prefer a carbohydrate insulin model, which considers obesity as a metabolic disorder that is better managed by adjusting what the individual eats with less focus on amounts and the role of exercise. However, while the public may acknowledge that there are some individuals to whom genetics has dealt a more difficult hand, it continues to put a high priority on the dual roles of willpower and exercise. As effective obesity drugs become more available and remain safe, it is likely that willpower will no longer dominate the populous psyche.

But, what about children? At what point, if ever, does willpower enter the obesity discussion? A child may be able to exert some control over his or her diet by eating selectively. But, until the child acquires a certain level of resources and maturity it is parents who should be dictating the volume and variety of available food from which the child can choose. And, on the other side of the energy equation, parents should be playing a significant role in how much or how little physical activity their children engage in.

Of course there are many children whose genes predispose them to obesity when food is cheap and abundant. And, there are numerous families for whom socioeconomic factors limit their ability to control their children’s diet and activity options. However, we mustn’t lose sight of the fact that the majority of families may be making choices for their children that are contributing to the obesity problem in this country.

For example, a recent study published in Pediatrics has found that mean television viewing time during childhood and adolescence was associated with metabolic syndrome at age 45. Is this a failure on our part to anticipate this finding when for decades we as physicians have already seen anecdotal evidence to support it? Or is this another example of a willpower deficit by parents who likewise must have had an inkling that sitting on the couch watching television wasn’t healthy for their children?

Or is this just more evidence that as a nation we lack the political will to enact laws and develop programs aimed at heading off obesity in early childhood before it reaches the point that we have learned, from sad experience, is beyond the reach of dietary change, increased physical activity, and the fragility of normal human willpower. Here I’m talking about the disappearance of meaningful physical education in the schools, the failure to effectively prevent the marketing of poor nutritional foods and beverages to children, and the failure to aggressively promote universal breastfeeding-friendly workplaces and schedules, to name just a few.

As individuals we know all too well the limits of our own willpower. But, collectively as a nation we should be able to pool those fragmentary resources into a force for positive change. We may have thrown in the towel when we have opted to treat obesity as a disease in adults. Let’s find the will to work on prevention in early childhood when the window for change is still open.
 

Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Other than a Littman stethoscope he accepted as a first-year medical student in 1966, Dr. Wilkoff reports having nothing to disclose. Email him at [email protected].

A few months ago I wrote a column in which I reluctantly supported designating obesity as a disease. My rationale was that in the more than 50 years that I have been watching the ebb and flow of medicine in this country I have seen very little, if any, evidence of success in our attempts to prevent obesity. Given this abysmal track record, the pragmatic side of my brain says why not label it a disease and begin to focus on treatment. However, I closed the column urging that we not lose sight of our core values and completely abandon any attempts at prevention.

As the months have rolled by, I have become increasingly concerned that preventing obesity is slipping further down the slippery slope to oblivion, greased by the success of semaglutide and the prospect of similar drugs in the pipeline. Before turning in our credentials as card-carrying preventionists, we need to step back and take another look at how we approach obesity from the pediatric side.

The majority of Americans believe that obesity occurs when an individual consumes more calories than he or she burns by being active. Some nutritionists criticize this “energy balance” model view as too simplistic and prefer a carbohydrate insulin model, which considers obesity as a metabolic disorder that is better managed by adjusting what the individual eats with less focus on amounts and the role of exercise. However, while the public may acknowledge that there are some individuals to whom genetics has dealt a more difficult hand, it continues to put a high priority on the dual roles of willpower and exercise. As effective obesity drugs become more available and remain safe, it is likely that willpower will no longer dominate the populous psyche.

But, what about children? At what point, if ever, does willpower enter the obesity discussion? A child may be able to exert some control over his or her diet by eating selectively. But, until the child acquires a certain level of resources and maturity it is parents who should be dictating the volume and variety of available food from which the child can choose. And, on the other side of the energy equation, parents should be playing a significant role in how much or how little physical activity their children engage in.

Of course there are many children whose genes predispose them to obesity when food is cheap and abundant. And, there are numerous families for whom socioeconomic factors limit their ability to control their children’s diet and activity options. However, we mustn’t lose sight of the fact that the majority of families may be making choices for their children that are contributing to the obesity problem in this country.

For example, a recent study published in Pediatrics has found that mean television viewing time during childhood and adolescence was associated with metabolic syndrome at age 45. Is this a failure on our part to anticipate this finding when for decades we as physicians have already seen anecdotal evidence to support it? Or is this another example of a willpower deficit by parents who likewise must have had an inkling that sitting on the couch watching television wasn’t healthy for their children?

Or is this just more evidence that as a nation we lack the political will to enact laws and develop programs aimed at heading off obesity in early childhood before it reaches the point that we have learned, from sad experience, is beyond the reach of dietary change, increased physical activity, and the fragility of normal human willpower. Here I’m talking about the disappearance of meaningful physical education in the schools, the failure to effectively prevent the marketing of poor nutritional foods and beverages to children, and the failure to aggressively promote universal breastfeeding-friendly workplaces and schedules, to name just a few.

As individuals we know all too well the limits of our own willpower. But, collectively as a nation we should be able to pool those fragmentary resources into a force for positive change. We may have thrown in the towel when we have opted to treat obesity as a disease in adults. Let’s find the will to work on prevention in early childhood when the window for change is still open.
 

Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Other than a Littman stethoscope he accepted as a first-year medical student in 1966, Dr. Wilkoff reports having nothing to disclose. Email him at [email protected].

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

This is my usual blog, except I am here from the absolutely beautiful city of Amsterdam, where the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology has been going on.
 

SGLT2 inhibitors for HFpEF and HFrEF

I’m going to review very briefly the 2023 focused update to the ESC heart failure guidelines. Theresa McDonagh was the first author of this and of the previous ESC or European guidelines. These are a little bit different than the American guidelines, which were presented in 2022. We know that we need an update. The Europeans have gotten ahead of us, and now we have the European update, which I find incredibly well written and it really highlights the areas that I think the takeaways are for the clinicians.

First, we have been seeing now for several years – since 2018 – the benefits of the sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors. Every time we lift the veil on something, there they are in a positive light. We have learned about heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) for both empagliflozin and dapagliflozin. There are very similar results. One population may be enriched with a little of this and a little of that, but the basic messages are the same. In HFrEF, both of these drugs improve outcomes and it happens quickly. You don’t have to wait 1 or 2 years to see this. Within months, and actually within days, you start to see the curves split apart statistically.

The next logical ground was heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF). The definition, when we started the HFpEF trials, was 45% or greater. I want the audience to realize that, in the midst of all these trials, we came out – we meaning the American Heart Association, the American College of Cardiology, and the Heart Failure Society – with the new definition of heart failure, which said that true HFpEF is 50% or greater. That in-between zone of 40%-50% or 41%-49% is mRF, or mid-range, what I call middle of the road. I think the Europeans have really emphasized that to us. I believe that those patients really behave much more like a HFrEF population.

Now that we have very positive findings with the SGLT2 inhibitors, both dapagliflozin and empagliflozin, in HFpEF – defined, as I said, as 40% or 45% or greater, not necessarily 50% – with excellent point estimates that just line up, one on top of the other. It doesn’t matter if patients have diabetes or not; the results are exactly the same.

This has been so promising that I am not surprised that the Europeans elevated the SGLT2 inhibitors to a class 1A indication. In the United States in 2022, we thought we were really way ahead by calling it a class 2A indication. Well, now it’s a class 1A indication in Europe, and I have a feeling that the AHA and the ACC are going to start talking about an update because the data are so strong.

Now, we even have data on initiating these drugs in the hospital. EMPULSE was a very large trial about the benefits of starting these drugs in the hospital. You do not have to wait until the patient is in the outpatient setting. You can start it in the hospital.

When? I have no specific day that I start it. I used to try to do a good diuresis first, get the patients somewhat decongested, and then start it. I don’t want to deprive the patients of the benefits of these drugs that happen very early by waiting until the patients are in the outpatient setting.

In the United States, we’ve had some issues with coverage of some of these drugs. In my institution, we now have both on the formulary, and I pick the drug depending upon the patient’s coverage. Medicare pretty much covers most of them. If the patient is older but not yet a Medicare patient, they may have a very large copay. I advise you to get your offices or your health system to look into this so that, when you give the prescription to the patient, whether they’re leaving the hospital or are now in your clinics, they can actually get the drug.
 

Finerenone and intravenous iron

There is an additional recommendation in these guidelines for finerenone, the mineralocorticoid receptor agonist that I’ve discussed before, that has some really promising data on type 2 diabetes with chronic kidney disease. They have called that a class 1A indication for finerenone. I think there is more to come.

One more: the iron deficiency. Giving intravenous iron actually does improve symptoms and quality of life. I have seen this in my own patients, so I have been very diligent at looking for iron deficiency.

It is a new era. We have more tools, obviously, for our patients. It means one more drug, and that’s always a challenge. We’ve already been doing the pillars of care. This is the fourth pillar of care, but now with a class 1A indication.

Take a look. They’re easy to read. Dr. McDonagh is the first author, and I think they’ve been extremely well done.

Dr. Piña is professor of medicine at Thomas Jefferson University Hospital in Philadelphia. She is a heart failure and cardiac transplantation expert. She disclosed serving as an adviser/consultant to the FDA’s Center for Devices and Radiological Health and has been a volunteer for the American Heart Association since 1982.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

This is my usual blog, except I am here from the absolutely beautiful city of Amsterdam, where the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology has been going on.
 

SGLT2 inhibitors for HFpEF and HFrEF

I’m going to review very briefly the 2023 focused update to the ESC heart failure guidelines. Theresa McDonagh was the first author of this and of the previous ESC or European guidelines. These are a little bit different than the American guidelines, which were presented in 2022. We know that we need an update. The Europeans have gotten ahead of us, and now we have the European update, which I find incredibly well written and it really highlights the areas that I think the takeaways are for the clinicians.

First, we have been seeing now for several years – since 2018 – the benefits of the sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors. Every time we lift the veil on something, there they are in a positive light. We have learned about heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) for both empagliflozin and dapagliflozin. There are very similar results. One population may be enriched with a little of this and a little of that, but the basic messages are the same. In HFrEF, both of these drugs improve outcomes and it happens quickly. You don’t have to wait 1 or 2 years to see this. Within months, and actually within days, you start to see the curves split apart statistically.

The next logical ground was heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF). The definition, when we started the HFpEF trials, was 45% or greater. I want the audience to realize that, in the midst of all these trials, we came out – we meaning the American Heart Association, the American College of Cardiology, and the Heart Failure Society – with the new definition of heart failure, which said that true HFpEF is 50% or greater. That in-between zone of 40%-50% or 41%-49% is mRF, or mid-range, what I call middle of the road. I think the Europeans have really emphasized that to us. I believe that those patients really behave much more like a HFrEF population.

Now that we have very positive findings with the SGLT2 inhibitors, both dapagliflozin and empagliflozin, in HFpEF – defined, as I said, as 40% or 45% or greater, not necessarily 50% – with excellent point estimates that just line up, one on top of the other. It doesn’t matter if patients have diabetes or not; the results are exactly the same.

This has been so promising that I am not surprised that the Europeans elevated the SGLT2 inhibitors to a class 1A indication. In the United States in 2022, we thought we were really way ahead by calling it a class 2A indication. Well, now it’s a class 1A indication in Europe, and I have a feeling that the AHA and the ACC are going to start talking about an update because the data are so strong.

Now, we even have data on initiating these drugs in the hospital. EMPULSE was a very large trial about the benefits of starting these drugs in the hospital. You do not have to wait until the patient is in the outpatient setting. You can start it in the hospital.

When? I have no specific day that I start it. I used to try to do a good diuresis first, get the patients somewhat decongested, and then start it. I don’t want to deprive the patients of the benefits of these drugs that happen very early by waiting until the patients are in the outpatient setting.

In the United States, we’ve had some issues with coverage of some of these drugs. In my institution, we now have both on the formulary, and I pick the drug depending upon the patient’s coverage. Medicare pretty much covers most of them. If the patient is older but not yet a Medicare patient, they may have a very large copay. I advise you to get your offices or your health system to look into this so that, when you give the prescription to the patient, whether they’re leaving the hospital or are now in your clinics, they can actually get the drug.
 

Finerenone and intravenous iron

There is an additional recommendation in these guidelines for finerenone, the mineralocorticoid receptor agonist that I’ve discussed before, that has some really promising data on type 2 diabetes with chronic kidney disease. They have called that a class 1A indication for finerenone. I think there is more to come.

One more: the iron deficiency. Giving intravenous iron actually does improve symptoms and quality of life. I have seen this in my own patients, so I have been very diligent at looking for iron deficiency.

It is a new era. We have more tools, obviously, for our patients. It means one more drug, and that’s always a challenge. We’ve already been doing the pillars of care. This is the fourth pillar of care, but now with a class 1A indication.

Take a look. They’re easy to read. Dr. McDonagh is the first author, and I think they’ve been extremely well done.

Dr. Piña is professor of medicine at Thomas Jefferson University Hospital in Philadelphia. She is a heart failure and cardiac transplantation expert. She disclosed serving as an adviser/consultant to the FDA’s Center for Devices and Radiological Health and has been a volunteer for the American Heart Association since 1982.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

This is my usual blog, except I am here from the absolutely beautiful city of Amsterdam, where the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology has been going on.
 

SGLT2 inhibitors for HFpEF and HFrEF

I’m going to review very briefly the 2023 focused update to the ESC heart failure guidelines. Theresa McDonagh was the first author of this and of the previous ESC or European guidelines. These are a little bit different than the American guidelines, which were presented in 2022. We know that we need an update. The Europeans have gotten ahead of us, and now we have the European update, which I find incredibly well written and it really highlights the areas that I think the takeaways are for the clinicians.

First, we have been seeing now for several years – since 2018 – the benefits of the sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors. Every time we lift the veil on something, there they are in a positive light. We have learned about heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) for both empagliflozin and dapagliflozin. There are very similar results. One population may be enriched with a little of this and a little of that, but the basic messages are the same. In HFrEF, both of these drugs improve outcomes and it happens quickly. You don’t have to wait 1 or 2 years to see this. Within months, and actually within days, you start to see the curves split apart statistically.

The next logical ground was heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF). The definition, when we started the HFpEF trials, was 45% or greater. I want the audience to realize that, in the midst of all these trials, we came out – we meaning the American Heart Association, the American College of Cardiology, and the Heart Failure Society – with the new definition of heart failure, which said that true HFpEF is 50% or greater. That in-between zone of 40%-50% or 41%-49% is mRF, or mid-range, what I call middle of the road. I think the Europeans have really emphasized that to us. I believe that those patients really behave much more like a HFrEF population.

Now that we have very positive findings with the SGLT2 inhibitors, both dapagliflozin and empagliflozin, in HFpEF – defined, as I said, as 40% or 45% or greater, not necessarily 50% – with excellent point estimates that just line up, one on top of the other. It doesn’t matter if patients have diabetes or not; the results are exactly the same.

This has been so promising that I am not surprised that the Europeans elevated the SGLT2 inhibitors to a class 1A indication. In the United States in 2022, we thought we were really way ahead by calling it a class 2A indication. Well, now it’s a class 1A indication in Europe, and I have a feeling that the AHA and the ACC are going to start talking about an update because the data are so strong.

Now, we even have data on initiating these drugs in the hospital. EMPULSE was a very large trial about the benefits of starting these drugs in the hospital. You do not have to wait until the patient is in the outpatient setting. You can start it in the hospital.

When? I have no specific day that I start it. I used to try to do a good diuresis first, get the patients somewhat decongested, and then start it. I don’t want to deprive the patients of the benefits of these drugs that happen very early by waiting until the patients are in the outpatient setting.

In the United States, we’ve had some issues with coverage of some of these drugs. In my institution, we now have both on the formulary, and I pick the drug depending upon the patient’s coverage. Medicare pretty much covers most of them. If the patient is older but not yet a Medicare patient, they may have a very large copay. I advise you to get your offices or your health system to look into this so that, when you give the prescription to the patient, whether they’re leaving the hospital or are now in your clinics, they can actually get the drug.
 

Finerenone and intravenous iron

There is an additional recommendation in these guidelines for finerenone, the mineralocorticoid receptor agonist that I’ve discussed before, that has some really promising data on type 2 diabetes with chronic kidney disease. They have called that a class 1A indication for finerenone. I think there is more to come.

One more: the iron deficiency. Giving intravenous iron actually does improve symptoms and quality of life. I have seen this in my own patients, so I have been very diligent at looking for iron deficiency.

It is a new era. We have more tools, obviously, for our patients. It means one more drug, and that’s always a challenge. We’ve already been doing the pillars of care. This is the fourth pillar of care, but now with a class 1A indication.

Take a look. They’re easy to read. Dr. McDonagh is the first author, and I think they’ve been extremely well done.

Dr. Piña is professor of medicine at Thomas Jefferson University Hospital in Philadelphia. She is a heart failure and cardiac transplantation expert. She disclosed serving as an adviser/consultant to the FDA’s Center for Devices and Radiological Health and has been a volunteer for the American Heart Association since 1982.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

AMSTERDAM – New European Society of Cardiology guidelines on the management of acute coronary syndromes (ACS) have for the first time combined ST-elevation MI (STEMI), non–ST-elevation MI (NSTEMI), and unstable angina into the same set of recommendations.

The new guideline was released at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology, and was published online in the European Heart Journal.

“We found that it was realized by the cardiology community that patients with STEMI, NSTEMI, or unstable angina represent a spectrum,” the chair of the guideline task force, Robert Byrne, MD, chair of cardiovascular research at the RCSI University of Medicine and Health Sciences, Dublin, explained to this news organization. “After the initial triage and management decisions, then most of the rest of the care follows a common pathway so it would make sense to consider everything in one guideline.”

Dr. Byrne noted that for all patients with a suspected ACS, the guideline recommendation is to administer an ECG within 10 minutes of presentation. The time is critical particularly for those with an occluded epicardial vessel. If there are features on the ECG that suggest an acutely occluded epicardial vessel, then the patient needs immediate angiography or primary angioplasty.

“The 10-minute guidance has been maintained from previous guidelines, but the nuance in the new guideline is that typically when we think of an occluded epicardial vessel we think of ST-elevation on the ECG,” Byrne said. “While this captures most occluded epicardial vessels, it doesn’t capture all of them. So, we have provided some guidance on alternative ECG patterns which might be indicative of an acute occlusion of the epicardial vessel and should be dealt with in the same way as an ST-elevation MI. This is a new concept.”

This situation could arise when a patient has an occluded circumflex artery and the regular ECG may not show ST elevation but the patient has ongoing pain, he noted. “There are additional ECG leads that can be looked at that might identify patients who need an immediate invasive strategy.

“This is one more reason why all ACS patients should be considered as part of one spectrum, and while the ECG gives us important information, it is not the only thing to consider. Dividing the conditions up as to whether a patient has ST elevation or not does not always make pathophysiological sense,” he added.

Dr. Byrne noted that the new guidelines have tried to reach a wider stakeholder group that includes emergency doctors, internal medicine physicians, general practitioners, and surgeons, as well as cardiologists. The document includes animations in an effort to increase the reach of the guidelines to noncardiology stakeholders, and for the first time, the task force included a patient representative.

“As part of this strategy, we have put more structure in to emphasize the importance that at first contact, we already want to be thinking of antithrombotic therapy and whether the patient needs urgent transfer to the nearest cath lab. We also want to be thinking straight away about preventing the next heart attack by implementing strong secondary prevention measures,” he commented.

Dr. Byrne highlighted a few changes to individual recommendations in the new guidelines.
 

Invasive management in NSTE-ACS

He pointed out that a small change has been made in the advice on invasive management for patients with non–ST-elevation ACS.

Dr. Byrne explained that patients with ST elevation should be sent immediately to a cath lab for PCI. If this is not possible within 120 minutes, then the patient should receive thrombolysis. This recommendation is the same as in previous guidelines.

He added, however, that there is some novelty in recommendations for patients who don’t have ST elevation but do have a positive troponin. For this group, previous guidelines gave a Class I recommendation that all such patients undergo an angiogram within the first 24 hours. However, an additional meta-analysis that was published in 2022 showed that the evidence for triaging all patients to the cath lab within 24 hours is somewhat limited, Dr. Byrne noted.

“At the end of the day, the task force felt that a Class I recommendation to get all patients to the cath lab within 24 hours was too strong and couldn’t be sustained, so it has been downgraded to a Class IIa recommendation, which we thought was more appropriate,” he said.

“So, while all patients should still have an angiogram during the hospital admission, if they are high-risk ACS, the imperative to get everyone to the cath lab within 24 hours – which many of our colleagues were finding difficult to achieve – does not seem to be backed up by the evidence,” he added.
 

Antithrombotic therapy

Addressing administration of antithrombotics, the guidelines emphasize that at the time of initial diagnosis, all patients should receive antithrombotic therapy, usually aspirin and a parenteral antithrombotic, such as heparin, enoxaparin, bivalirudin, or fondaparinux. Dr. Byrne noted that the guidelines have a new algorithm as to which of these antithrombotics to give, depending on the clinical presentation of the patient.

On the use of upfront P2Y12 inhibitors, Dr. Byrne said the new guidelines only give a weak recommendation for this.

“Giving a P2Y12 inhibitor up front does not have a strong evidence base, and it’s not unreasonable to wait, do the angiogram, see where you are, and then start the P2Y12 inhibitor. This is something that’s not widely done in clinical practice,” he commented.

“The last 2020 guideline gave a Class III recommendation for upfront P2Y12 inhibitor therapy for ACS patients who do not have STEMI. We’ve generally maintained that with the introduction of the exception that if you are in a health care system where there is a long wait to get to the cath lab – 5 ,6 or 7 days – then it’s reasonable to make an exception and give a P2Y12 inhibitor, but otherwise we’ve sustained the Class III recommendation,” he noted.

Also, for patients who have STEMI, there is a new Class IIb recommendation that upfront P2Y12 inhibitors may be considered.

“This is also rather a weak recommendation. There isn’t a strong rationale to give a P2Y12 inhibitor it in ST elevation either. It’s also reasonable to wait,” he added.
 

Don’t rush cardiac arrest patients to the cath lab

Another update in the guidelines involves the management of patients with cardiac arrest who have been resuscitated. Dr. Byrne explained that these patients would all receive an immediate ECG, and if it is found that they have ST elevation, they would be sent immediately to the cath lab. But a series of randomized trials has suggested that for patients who don’t have ST elevation, it is not necessary to rush these patients to the cath lab.

“We’ve given a Class III recommendation for this, saying it may be better to stabilize the patients first in the ICU. This is in recognition that a large proportion of these patients turn out not to have an MI. They have had a cardiac arrest for another reason,” Dr. Byrne noted. “Moving them to the cath lab when they are still unstable could be harming these patients rather than helping them.”
 

Revascularization for multivessel disease

Dr. Byrne notes that revascularization remains a critical element in the care for patients with STEMI, and there is a new recommendation in this area for patients with multivessel disease.

“Up to half of patients presenting with STEMI have multivessel disease, and we now have five randomized trials to say that these patients should have complete revascularization rather than just the culprit vessel. There is a new Class I recommendation for this,” he said.

However, the optimal timing of revascularization (immediate vs. staged) has still not been investigated in adequately sized randomized trials, and no recommendation has been made on this, the task force notes.

Dr. Byrne commented: “If you want to do everything in one go, that’s fine, but it’s also okay to do the culprit lesion first and then the other vessels at a later date within 45 days. This might depend on individual circumstances. For example, if there are complex lesions or the vessels are heavily calcified, then it may be best to get the culprit lesion fixed first and let the patient recover, then bring them back in for the rest.”

He pointed out that the results of the MULTISTARS trial, which were not available when the task force was formulating the guidelines, were reported at the ESC Congress and confirmed their recommendation.
 

DAPT after PCI

On the duration of dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) after PCI, the new guidelines have largely retained prior recommendations for a default strategy of 12 months for the combination of aspirin and a P2Y12 inhibitor.

“This was the subject of some discussion, as there have been several trials now looking at shorter durations of DAPT and deescalating after a few months to just one of these treatments. And while there is a rationale to do this, we think it’s best to be kept as an alternative strategy rather than the default strategy,” Dr. Byrne said.

He explained that the trials of DAPT deescalation tended to enroll lower-risk patients, which reduced the generalizability of the results.

Most of the trials only randomly assigned patients to shorter durations of DAPT when they were event-free for some period, she said.

“This is a dynamic decision-making process and reflects the real world to some extent. We think it is best to recommend the standard aspirin and a P2Y12 inhibitor for the 12-month duration, but at 3 months, if the patient is doing well but you may be worried about bleeding risk, then you could decide to deescalate to single antiplatelet therapy,” she noted. “So, there is Class IIa recommendation that this can be considered, but it is not recommended as the default position.”
 

Polypill for secondary prevention

Another innovation in the new guidelines is a new Class IIa recommendation for prescription of a polypill containing secondary prevention medications for patients on discharge from hospital.

This recommendation follows a trial that showed that the use of such a polypill helps patients be more adherent to the therapies prescribed.

Byrne explains that such a polypill may contain aspirin, an ACE inhibitor, and a statin. Several varieties are available in most European countries, but they are not widely used.

On secondary prevention, he stressed, “Prevention of the next heart attack starts before the patient leaves hospital. It is important to make sure the patient has the right medication on board, including a high-dose, high-intensity statin, and has been referred to a cardiac rehabilitation program. These are largely maintained recommendations from previous guidelines, but they are very important.”

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

AMSTERDAM – New European Society of Cardiology guidelines on the management of acute coronary syndromes (ACS) have for the first time combined ST-elevation MI (STEMI), non–ST-elevation MI (NSTEMI), and unstable angina into the same set of recommendations.

The new guideline was released at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology, and was published online in the European Heart Journal.

“We found that it was realized by the cardiology community that patients with STEMI, NSTEMI, or unstable angina represent a spectrum,” the chair of the guideline task force, Robert Byrne, MD, chair of cardiovascular research at the RCSI University of Medicine and Health Sciences, Dublin, explained to this news organization. “After the initial triage and management decisions, then most of the rest of the care follows a common pathway so it would make sense to consider everything in one guideline.”

Dr. Byrne noted that for all patients with a suspected ACS, the guideline recommendation is to administer an ECG within 10 minutes of presentation. The time is critical particularly for those with an occluded epicardial vessel. If there are features on the ECG that suggest an acutely occluded epicardial vessel, then the patient needs immediate angiography or primary angioplasty.

“The 10-minute guidance has been maintained from previous guidelines, but the nuance in the new guideline is that typically when we think of an occluded epicardial vessel we think of ST-elevation on the ECG,” Byrne said. “While this captures most occluded epicardial vessels, it doesn’t capture all of them. So, we have provided some guidance on alternative ECG patterns which might be indicative of an acute occlusion of the epicardial vessel and should be dealt with in the same way as an ST-elevation MI. This is a new concept.”

This situation could arise when a patient has an occluded circumflex artery and the regular ECG may not show ST elevation but the patient has ongoing pain, he noted. “There are additional ECG leads that can be looked at that might identify patients who need an immediate invasive strategy.

“This is one more reason why all ACS patients should be considered as part of one spectrum, and while the ECG gives us important information, it is not the only thing to consider. Dividing the conditions up as to whether a patient has ST elevation or not does not always make pathophysiological sense,” he added.

Dr. Byrne noted that the new guidelines have tried to reach a wider stakeholder group that includes emergency doctors, internal medicine physicians, general practitioners, and surgeons, as well as cardiologists. The document includes animations in an effort to increase the reach of the guidelines to noncardiology stakeholders, and for the first time, the task force included a patient representative.

“As part of this strategy, we have put more structure in to emphasize the importance that at first contact, we already want to be thinking of antithrombotic therapy and whether the patient needs urgent transfer to the nearest cath lab. We also want to be thinking straight away about preventing the next heart attack by implementing strong secondary prevention measures,” he commented.

Dr. Byrne highlighted a few changes to individual recommendations in the new guidelines.
 

Invasive management in NSTE-ACS

He pointed out that a small change has been made in the advice on invasive management for patients with non–ST-elevation ACS.

Dr. Byrne explained that patients with ST elevation should be sent immediately to a cath lab for PCI. If this is not possible within 120 minutes, then the patient should receive thrombolysis. This recommendation is the same as in previous guidelines.

He added, however, that there is some novelty in recommendations for patients who don’t have ST elevation but do have a positive troponin. For this group, previous guidelines gave a Class I recommendation that all such patients undergo an angiogram within the first 24 hours. However, an additional meta-analysis that was published in 2022 showed that the evidence for triaging all patients to the cath lab within 24 hours is somewhat limited, Dr. Byrne noted.

“At the end of the day, the task force felt that a Class I recommendation to get all patients to the cath lab within 24 hours was too strong and couldn’t be sustained, so it has been downgraded to a Class IIa recommendation, which we thought was more appropriate,” he said.

“So, while all patients should still have an angiogram during the hospital admission, if they are high-risk ACS, the imperative to get everyone to the cath lab within 24 hours – which many of our colleagues were finding difficult to achieve – does not seem to be backed up by the evidence,” he added.
 

Antithrombotic therapy

Addressing administration of antithrombotics, the guidelines emphasize that at the time of initial diagnosis, all patients should receive antithrombotic therapy, usually aspirin and a parenteral antithrombotic, such as heparin, enoxaparin, bivalirudin, or fondaparinux. Dr. Byrne noted that the guidelines have a new algorithm as to which of these antithrombotics to give, depending on the clinical presentation of the patient.

On the use of upfront P2Y12 inhibitors, Dr. Byrne said the new guidelines only give a weak recommendation for this.

“Giving a P2Y12 inhibitor up front does not have a strong evidence base, and it’s not unreasonable to wait, do the angiogram, see where you are, and then start the P2Y12 inhibitor. This is something that’s not widely done in clinical practice,” he commented.

“The last 2020 guideline gave a Class III recommendation for upfront P2Y12 inhibitor therapy for ACS patients who do not have STEMI. We’ve generally maintained that with the introduction of the exception that if you are in a health care system where there is a long wait to get to the cath lab – 5 ,6 or 7 days – then it’s reasonable to make an exception and give a P2Y12 inhibitor, but otherwise we’ve sustained the Class III recommendation,” he noted.

Also, for patients who have STEMI, there is a new Class IIb recommendation that upfront P2Y12 inhibitors may be considered.

“This is also rather a weak recommendation. There isn’t a strong rationale to give a P2Y12 inhibitor it in ST elevation either. It’s also reasonable to wait,” he added.
 

Don’t rush cardiac arrest patients to the cath lab

Another update in the guidelines involves the management of patients with cardiac arrest who have been resuscitated. Dr. Byrne explained that these patients would all receive an immediate ECG, and if it is found that they have ST elevation, they would be sent immediately to the cath lab. But a series of randomized trials has suggested that for patients who don’t have ST elevation, it is not necessary to rush these patients to the cath lab.

“We’ve given a Class III recommendation for this, saying it may be better to stabilize the patients first in the ICU. This is in recognition that a large proportion of these patients turn out not to have an MI. They have had a cardiac arrest for another reason,” Dr. Byrne noted. “Moving them to the cath lab when they are still unstable could be harming these patients rather than helping them.”
 

Revascularization for multivessel disease

Dr. Byrne notes that revascularization remains a critical element in the care for patients with STEMI, and there is a new recommendation in this area for patients with multivessel disease.

“Up to half of patients presenting with STEMI have multivessel disease, and we now have five randomized trials to say that these patients should have complete revascularization rather than just the culprit vessel. There is a new Class I recommendation for this,” he said.

However, the optimal timing of revascularization (immediate vs. staged) has still not been investigated in adequately sized randomized trials, and no recommendation has been made on this, the task force notes.

Dr. Byrne commented: “If you want to do everything in one go, that’s fine, but it’s also okay to do the culprit lesion first and then the other vessels at a later date within 45 days. This might depend on individual circumstances. For example, if there are complex lesions or the vessels are heavily calcified, then it may be best to get the culprit lesion fixed first and let the patient recover, then bring them back in for the rest.”

He pointed out that the results of the MULTISTARS trial, which were not available when the task force was formulating the guidelines, were reported at the ESC Congress and confirmed their recommendation.
 

DAPT after PCI

On the duration of dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) after PCI, the new guidelines have largely retained prior recommendations for a default strategy of 12 months for the combination of aspirin and a P2Y12 inhibitor.

“This was the subject of some discussion, as there have been several trials now looking at shorter durations of DAPT and deescalating after a few months to just one of these treatments. And while there is a rationale to do this, we think it’s best to be kept as an alternative strategy rather than the default strategy,” Dr. Byrne said.

He explained that the trials of DAPT deescalation tended to enroll lower-risk patients, which reduced the generalizability of the results.

Most of the trials only randomly assigned patients to shorter durations of DAPT when they were event-free for some period, she said.

“This is a dynamic decision-making process and reflects the real world to some extent. We think it is best to recommend the standard aspirin and a P2Y12 inhibitor for the 12-month duration, but at 3 months, if the patient is doing well but you may be worried about bleeding risk, then you could decide to deescalate to single antiplatelet therapy,” she noted. “So, there is Class IIa recommendation that this can be considered, but it is not recommended as the default position.”
 

Polypill for secondary prevention

Another innovation in the new guidelines is a new Class IIa recommendation for prescription of a polypill containing secondary prevention medications for patients on discharge from hospital.

This recommendation follows a trial that showed that the use of such a polypill helps patients be more adherent to the therapies prescribed.

Byrne explains that such a polypill may contain aspirin, an ACE inhibitor, and a statin. Several varieties are available in most European countries, but they are not widely used.

On secondary prevention, he stressed, “Prevention of the next heart attack starts before the patient leaves hospital. It is important to make sure the patient has the right medication on board, including a high-dose, high-intensity statin, and has been referred to a cardiac rehabilitation program. These are largely maintained recommendations from previous guidelines, but they are very important.”

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

AMSTERDAM – New European Society of Cardiology guidelines on the management of acute coronary syndromes (ACS) have for the first time combined ST-elevation MI (STEMI), non–ST-elevation MI (NSTEMI), and unstable angina into the same set of recommendations.

The new guideline was released at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology, and was published online in the European Heart Journal.

“We found that it was realized by the cardiology community that patients with STEMI, NSTEMI, or unstable angina represent a spectrum,” the chair of the guideline task force, Robert Byrne, MD, chair of cardiovascular research at the RCSI University of Medicine and Health Sciences, Dublin, explained to this news organization. “After the initial triage and management decisions, then most of the rest of the care follows a common pathway so it would make sense to consider everything in one guideline.”

Dr. Byrne noted that for all patients with a suspected ACS, the guideline recommendation is to administer an ECG within 10 minutes of presentation. The time is critical particularly for those with an occluded epicardial vessel. If there are features on the ECG that suggest an acutely occluded epicardial vessel, then the patient needs immediate angiography or primary angioplasty.

“The 10-minute guidance has been maintained from previous guidelines, but the nuance in the new guideline is that typically when we think of an occluded epicardial vessel we think of ST-elevation on the ECG,” Byrne said. “While this captures most occluded epicardial vessels, it doesn’t capture all of them. So, we have provided some guidance on alternative ECG patterns which might be indicative of an acute occlusion of the epicardial vessel and should be dealt with in the same way as an ST-elevation MI. This is a new concept.”

This situation could arise when a patient has an occluded circumflex artery and the regular ECG may not show ST elevation but the patient has ongoing pain, he noted. “There are additional ECG leads that can be looked at that might identify patients who need an immediate invasive strategy.

“This is one more reason why all ACS patients should be considered as part of one spectrum, and while the ECG gives us important information, it is not the only thing to consider. Dividing the conditions up as to whether a patient has ST elevation or not does not always make pathophysiological sense,” he added.

Dr. Byrne noted that the new guidelines have tried to reach a wider stakeholder group that includes emergency doctors, internal medicine physicians, general practitioners, and surgeons, as well as cardiologists. The document includes animations in an effort to increase the reach of the guidelines to noncardiology stakeholders, and for the first time, the task force included a patient representative.

“As part of this strategy, we have put more structure in to emphasize the importance that at first contact, we already want to be thinking of antithrombotic therapy and whether the patient needs urgent transfer to the nearest cath lab. We also want to be thinking straight away about preventing the next heart attack by implementing strong secondary prevention measures,” he commented.

Dr. Byrne highlighted a few changes to individual recommendations in the new guidelines.
 

Invasive management in NSTE-ACS

He pointed out that a small change has been made in the advice on invasive management for patients with non–ST-elevation ACS.

Dr. Byrne explained that patients with ST elevation should be sent immediately to a cath lab for PCI. If this is not possible within 120 minutes, then the patient should receive thrombolysis. This recommendation is the same as in previous guidelines.

He added, however, that there is some novelty in recommendations for patients who don’t have ST elevation but do have a positive troponin. For this group, previous guidelines gave a Class I recommendation that all such patients undergo an angiogram within the first 24 hours. However, an additional meta-analysis that was published in 2022 showed that the evidence for triaging all patients to the cath lab within 24 hours is somewhat limited, Dr. Byrne noted.

“At the end of the day, the task force felt that a Class I recommendation to get all patients to the cath lab within 24 hours was too strong and couldn’t be sustained, so it has been downgraded to a Class IIa recommendation, which we thought was more appropriate,” he said.

“So, while all patients should still have an angiogram during the hospital admission, if they are high-risk ACS, the imperative to get everyone to the cath lab within 24 hours – which many of our colleagues were finding difficult to achieve – does not seem to be backed up by the evidence,” he added.
 

Antithrombotic therapy

Addressing administration of antithrombotics, the guidelines emphasize that at the time of initial diagnosis, all patients should receive antithrombotic therapy, usually aspirin and a parenteral antithrombotic, such as heparin, enoxaparin, bivalirudin, or fondaparinux. Dr. Byrne noted that the guidelines have a new algorithm as to which of these antithrombotics to give, depending on the clinical presentation of the patient.

On the use of upfront P2Y12 inhibitors, Dr. Byrne said the new guidelines only give a weak recommendation for this.

“Giving a P2Y12 inhibitor up front does not have a strong evidence base, and it’s not unreasonable to wait, do the angiogram, see where you are, and then start the P2Y12 inhibitor. This is something that’s not widely done in clinical practice,” he commented.

“The last 2020 guideline gave a Class III recommendation for upfront P2Y12 inhibitor therapy for ACS patients who do not have STEMI. We’ve generally maintained that with the introduction of the exception that if you are in a health care system where there is a long wait to get to the cath lab – 5 ,6 or 7 days – then it’s reasonable to make an exception and give a P2Y12 inhibitor, but otherwise we’ve sustained the Class III recommendation,” he noted.

Also, for patients who have STEMI, there is a new Class IIb recommendation that upfront P2Y12 inhibitors may be considered.

“This is also rather a weak recommendation. There isn’t a strong rationale to give a P2Y12 inhibitor it in ST elevation either. It’s also reasonable to wait,” he added.
 

Don’t rush cardiac arrest patients to the cath lab

Another update in the guidelines involves the management of patients with cardiac arrest who have been resuscitated. Dr. Byrne explained that these patients would all receive an immediate ECG, and if it is found that they have ST elevation, they would be sent immediately to the cath lab. But a series of randomized trials has suggested that for patients who don’t have ST elevation, it is not necessary to rush these patients to the cath lab.

“We’ve given a Class III recommendation for this, saying it may be better to stabilize the patients first in the ICU. This is in recognition that a large proportion of these patients turn out not to have an MI. They have had a cardiac arrest for another reason,” Dr. Byrne noted. “Moving them to the cath lab when they are still unstable could be harming these patients rather than helping them.”
 

Revascularization for multivessel disease

Dr. Byrne notes that revascularization remains a critical element in the care for patients with STEMI, and there is a new recommendation in this area for patients with multivessel disease.

“Up to half of patients presenting with STEMI have multivessel disease, and we now have five randomized trials to say that these patients should have complete revascularization rather than just the culprit vessel. There is a new Class I recommendation for this,” he said.

However, the optimal timing of revascularization (immediate vs. staged) has still not been investigated in adequately sized randomized trials, and no recommendation has been made on this, the task force notes.

Dr. Byrne commented: “If you want to do everything in one go, that’s fine, but it’s also okay to do the culprit lesion first and then the other vessels at a later date within 45 days. This might depend on individual circumstances. For example, if there are complex lesions or the vessels are heavily calcified, then it may be best to get the culprit lesion fixed first and let the patient recover, then bring them back in for the rest.”

He pointed out that the results of the MULTISTARS trial, which were not available when the task force was formulating the guidelines, were reported at the ESC Congress and confirmed their recommendation.
 

DAPT after PCI

On the duration of dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) after PCI, the new guidelines have largely retained prior recommendations for a default strategy of 12 months for the combination of aspirin and a P2Y12 inhibitor.

“This was the subject of some discussion, as there have been several trials now looking at shorter durations of DAPT and deescalating after a few months to just one of these treatments. And while there is a rationale to do this, we think it’s best to be kept as an alternative strategy rather than the default strategy,” Dr. Byrne said.

He explained that the trials of DAPT deescalation tended to enroll lower-risk patients, which reduced the generalizability of the results.

Most of the trials only randomly assigned patients to shorter durations of DAPT when they were event-free for some period, she said.

“This is a dynamic decision-making process and reflects the real world to some extent. We think it is best to recommend the standard aspirin and a P2Y12 inhibitor for the 12-month duration, but at 3 months, if the patient is doing well but you may be worried about bleeding risk, then you could decide to deescalate to single antiplatelet therapy,” she noted. “So, there is Class IIa recommendation that this can be considered, but it is not recommended as the default position.”
 

Polypill for secondary prevention

Another innovation in the new guidelines is a new Class IIa recommendation for prescription of a polypill containing secondary prevention medications for patients on discharge from hospital.

This recommendation follows a trial that showed that the use of such a polypill helps patients be more adherent to the therapies prescribed.

Byrne explains that such a polypill may contain aspirin, an ACE inhibitor, and a statin. Several varieties are available in most European countries, but they are not widely used.

On secondary prevention, he stressed, “Prevention of the next heart attack starts before the patient leaves hospital. It is important to make sure the patient has the right medication on board, including a high-dose, high-intensity statin, and has been referred to a cardiac rehabilitation program. These are largely maintained recommendations from previous guidelines, but they are very important.”

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

THE CASE

A 24-year-old woman with a history of type 1 diabetes, seizure disorder, and migraines presented to a rural Federally Qualified Health Center (FQHC) with progressive and severe symmetric large joint arthralgias of several weeks’ duration. The patient’s existing medications included etonogestrel 68 mg subdermal implant, levetiracetam 1500 mg bid, insulin glargine 26 units subcutaneously nightly, and insulin lispro 20 units subcutaneously tid (before meals).

An examination revealed symmetrically edematous elbows, wrists, and fingers. Subsequent serologic analyses and a telemedicine consultation with a rheumatologist confirmed a diagnosis of rheumatoid arthritis (RA). The patient’s lab work was positive for antinuclear antibody titers (1:40), rheumatoid factor (513 IU/mL), and anticyclic citrullinated peptide antibodies (248 units/mL). Treatment was started with prednisone 60 mg PO daily, methotrexate 20 mg PO weekly, and hydroxychloroquine 400 mg PO daily. (The benefits of prednisone in treating this patient’s severe arthralgias outweighed concerns over its use in a patient with diabetes.)

After 2 months of receiving RA therapy, the patient underwent further work-up to assess its effectiveness. Liver function testing was performed, and she tested positive for hepatitis C virus (HCV) antibodies. Viral polymerase chain reaction confirmed active HCV infection. Lab work revealed a viral load of 15,000,000 IU/mL; transaminase, 173 U/L (normal range, 4-36 U/L); and aspartate aminotransferase, 246 U/L (normal range, 8-33 U/L). A liver sonogram demonstrated no findings of cirrhosis or fibrosis.

Upon receiving a diagnosis of active hepatitis C, the patient acknowledged that she’d had unprotected heterosexual intercourse and shared used insulin syringes with friends.

THE DIAGNOSIS

Consideration was given to a diagnosis of HCV arthropathy, which can present as an RA-like arthritis in HCV-infected individuals, in the differential diagnosis.¹ A cohort study found HCV-associated arthropathy occurred in 6.8% of those with chronic HCV infection.²

However, the symmetrical involvement of shoulders and knees as the patient’s primary arthralgias, and a rheumatologic work-up showing the presence of anticyclic citrullinated peptide antibody levels, confirmed the diagnosis of RA with coexisting HCV.

DISCUSSION

Delivering interdisciplinary care in a rural area

Although evidence-based guidelines and online HCV Treatment Path programs guided the initial evaluation of potential treatments for this patient, her multiple comorbidities prompted us to seek out additional, interdisciplinary advice through a resource for underserved communities called Project Extension for Community Healthcare Outcomes (ECHO; see “What is Project ECHO?^3,4”). The patient’s case was presented virtually, without identifying information, to a multidisciplinary HCV team. Two treatment options were suggested:

• sofosbuvir/velpatasvir (400 mg/100 mg) for 12 weeks or
• glecaprevir/pibrentasvir (100 mg/40 mg) for 8 weeks.

Both are evidence-based and recommended treatment options according to the HCV treatment guidelines issued jointly by the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases and the Infectious Diseases Society of America.⁵

In most patients with HCV, treatment is guided by a number of factors, including pill burden, access to care, duration of therapy, drug interactions, and patient-specific needs. After analyzing all aspects of this patient’s case, 2 major concerns guided our shared decision-making process on treatment.

The best treatment is what works for the patient

Owing to the patient’s multiple comorbidities and prescribed medications for chronic diseases, concerns about possible medication interactions with the HCV treatment options were a factor in her HCV treatment plan. Additionally, the patient had significant social determinants of health barriers that made continued treatment and follow-up challenging.

The potential interaction of HCV infection treatment with the patient’s current methotrexate therapy for her RA was a primary concern. To determine the risk for interactions, the team used the University of Liverpool HEP/HIV Drug Interactions Checker, which helps identify possible interactions with these disease-specific medication therapies.⁶

Both sofosbuvir/velpatasvir and glecaprevir/­pibrentasvir have a potential interaction with methotrexate and are driven by a similar mechanism. Methotrexate is a substrate of the Breast Cancer Resistance Protein efflux transporter (BCRP), and the components of both sofosbuvir/velpatasvir and glecaprevir/pibrentasvir are inhibitors of BCRP.⁷ The inhibition of this efflux transporter can lead to an increased concentration of methotrexate, increasing the risk for methotrexate toxicity.⁷

Since no quantitative data exist regarding the degree of inhibition that these HCV drugs exert on BCRP, the team considered ­sofosbuvir/velpatasvir and glecaprevir/­pibrentasvir to have equal risk with regard to potential for drug interactions.

The patient’s barriers to treatment were another area of concern that directed our therapy decision. The patient had multiple barriers, including poor access to health care because of transportation issues, multiple children requiring care, a variety of chronic diseases, and other life stressors. Shared decision­-making ensured our patient’s autonomy in choosing a specific treatment.

This case shines a light on the multiple challenges that could have come between our patient and proper treatment—but ultimately, did not.

The patient’s social situation and preference narrowed the team’s basis for medication choice primarily down to the duration of therapy: 8 weeks of glecaprevir/pibrentasvir vs 12 weeks of sofosbuvir/velpatasvir. The patient mentioned multiple transportation challenges for follow-up visits to the clinic and therefore wanted to utilize the shorter treatment duration. Follow-up is needed every 4 weeks, so the patient was able to go from 3 to 2 visits.

For problems, there are solutions. Following careful consideration of these patient-specific factors and preferences, the team decided to begin therapy with glecaprevir/pibrentasvir. The patient worked with an outreach specialist at the FQHC to coordinate care and complete paperwork for the Project ECHO consultation. The outreach specialist also assisted the patient in completing paperwork for the Patient Assistance Program for HCV treatment. Because the patient is being cared for at an FQHC, the clinic’s in-house pharmacy was able to utilize the 340B Federal Drug Pricing Program, which makes otherwise out-of-reach medicines affordable for patients such as ours.

Our patient has had no issues with treatment adherence, adverse effects, or follow­-up appointments. The patient’s RA symptoms have improved significantly without any discernable worsening of her HCV infection.

THE TAKEAWAY

This case shines a light on the multiple challenges (clinical, geographic, and financial) that could have come between our patient and proper treatment—but ultimately, did not. The Project ECHO model of care remains a viable way to provide patients who live in rural and underserved communities and who have active HCV and other underlying chronic conditions with interdisciplinary care that can improve health outcomes.

THE CASE

A 24-year-old woman with a history of type 1 diabetes, seizure disorder, and migraines presented to a rural Federally Qualified Health Center (FQHC) with progressive and severe symmetric large joint arthralgias of several weeks’ duration. The patient’s existing medications included etonogestrel 68 mg subdermal implant, levetiracetam 1500 mg bid, insulin glargine 26 units subcutaneously nightly, and insulin lispro 20 units subcutaneously tid (before meals).

An examination revealed symmetrically edematous elbows, wrists, and fingers. Subsequent serologic analyses and a telemedicine consultation with a rheumatologist confirmed a diagnosis of rheumatoid arthritis (RA). The patient’s lab work was positive for antinuclear antibody titers (1:40), rheumatoid factor (513 IU/mL), and anticyclic citrullinated peptide antibodies (248 units/mL). Treatment was started with prednisone 60 mg PO daily, methotrexate 20 mg PO weekly, and hydroxychloroquine 400 mg PO daily. (The benefits of prednisone in treating this patient’s severe arthralgias outweighed concerns over its use in a patient with diabetes.)

After 2 months of receiving RA therapy, the patient underwent further work-up to assess its effectiveness. Liver function testing was performed, and she tested positive for hepatitis C virus (HCV) antibodies. Viral polymerase chain reaction confirmed active HCV infection. Lab work revealed a viral load of 15,000,000 IU/mL; transaminase, 173 U/L (normal range, 4-36 U/L); and aspartate aminotransferase, 246 U/L (normal range, 8-33 U/L). A liver sonogram demonstrated no findings of cirrhosis or fibrosis.

Upon receiving a diagnosis of active hepatitis C, the patient acknowledged that she’d had unprotected heterosexual intercourse and shared used insulin syringes with friends.

THE DIAGNOSIS

Consideration was given to a diagnosis of HCV arthropathy, which can present as an RA-like arthritis in HCV-infected individuals, in the differential diagnosis.¹ A cohort study found HCV-associated arthropathy occurred in 6.8% of those with chronic HCV infection.²

However, the symmetrical involvement of shoulders and knees as the patient’s primary arthralgias, and a rheumatologic work-up showing the presence of anticyclic citrullinated peptide antibody levels, confirmed the diagnosis of RA with coexisting HCV.

DISCUSSION

Delivering interdisciplinary care in a rural area

Although evidence-based guidelines and online HCV Treatment Path programs guided the initial evaluation of potential treatments for this patient, her multiple comorbidities prompted us to seek out additional, interdisciplinary advice through a resource for underserved communities called Project Extension for Community Healthcare Outcomes (ECHO; see “What is Project ECHO?^3,4”). The patient’s case was presented virtually, without identifying information, to a multidisciplinary HCV team. Two treatment options were suggested:

• sofosbuvir/velpatasvir (400 mg/100 mg) for 12 weeks or
• glecaprevir/pibrentasvir (100 mg/40 mg) for 8 weeks.

Both are evidence-based and recommended treatment options according to the HCV treatment guidelines issued jointly by the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases and the Infectious Diseases Society of America.⁵

In most patients with HCV, treatment is guided by a number of factors, including pill burden, access to care, duration of therapy, drug interactions, and patient-specific needs. After analyzing all aspects of this patient’s case, 2 major concerns guided our shared decision-making process on treatment.

The best treatment is what works for the patient

Owing to the patient’s multiple comorbidities and prescribed medications for chronic diseases, concerns about possible medication interactions with the HCV treatment options were a factor in her HCV treatment plan. Additionally, the patient had significant social determinants of health barriers that made continued treatment and follow-up challenging.

The potential interaction of HCV infection treatment with the patient’s current methotrexate therapy for her RA was a primary concern. To determine the risk for interactions, the team used the University of Liverpool HEP/HIV Drug Interactions Checker, which helps identify possible interactions with these disease-specific medication therapies.⁶

Both sofosbuvir/velpatasvir and glecaprevir/­pibrentasvir have a potential interaction with methotrexate and are driven by a similar mechanism. Methotrexate is a substrate of the Breast Cancer Resistance Protein efflux transporter (BCRP), and the components of both sofosbuvir/velpatasvir and glecaprevir/pibrentasvir are inhibitors of BCRP.⁷ The inhibition of this efflux transporter can lead to an increased concentration of methotrexate, increasing the risk for methotrexate toxicity.⁷

Since no quantitative data exist regarding the degree of inhibition that these HCV drugs exert on BCRP, the team considered ­sofosbuvir/velpatasvir and glecaprevir/­pibrentasvir to have equal risk with regard to potential for drug interactions.

The patient’s barriers to treatment were another area of concern that directed our therapy decision. The patient had multiple barriers, including poor access to health care because of transportation issues, multiple children requiring care, a variety of chronic diseases, and other life stressors. Shared decision­-making ensured our patient’s autonomy in choosing a specific treatment.

This case shines a light on the multiple challenges that could have come between our patient and proper treatment—but ultimately, did not.

The patient’s social situation and preference narrowed the team’s basis for medication choice primarily down to the duration of therapy: 8 weeks of glecaprevir/pibrentasvir vs 12 weeks of sofosbuvir/velpatasvir. The patient mentioned multiple transportation challenges for follow-up visits to the clinic and therefore wanted to utilize the shorter treatment duration. Follow-up is needed every 4 weeks, so the patient was able to go from 3 to 2 visits.

For problems, there are solutions. Following careful consideration of these patient-specific factors and preferences, the team decided to begin therapy with glecaprevir/pibrentasvir. The patient worked with an outreach specialist at the FQHC to coordinate care and complete paperwork for the Project ECHO consultation. The outreach specialist also assisted the patient in completing paperwork for the Patient Assistance Program for HCV treatment. Because the patient is being cared for at an FQHC, the clinic’s in-house pharmacy was able to utilize the 340B Federal Drug Pricing Program, which makes otherwise out-of-reach medicines affordable for patients such as ours.

Our patient has had no issues with treatment adherence, adverse effects, or follow­-up appointments. The patient’s RA symptoms have improved significantly without any discernable worsening of her HCV infection.

THE TAKEAWAY

This case shines a light on the multiple challenges (clinical, geographic, and financial) that could have come between our patient and proper treatment—but ultimately, did not. The Project ECHO model of care remains a viable way to provide patients who live in rural and underserved communities and who have active HCV and other underlying chronic conditions with interdisciplinary care that can improve health outcomes.

THE CASE

A 24-year-old woman with a history of type 1 diabetes, seizure disorder, and migraines presented to a rural Federally Qualified Health Center (FQHC) with progressive and severe symmetric large joint arthralgias of several weeks’ duration. The patient’s existing medications included etonogestrel 68 mg subdermal implant, levetiracetam 1500 mg bid, insulin glargine 26 units subcutaneously nightly, and insulin lispro 20 units subcutaneously tid (before meals).

An examination revealed symmetrically edematous elbows, wrists, and fingers. Subsequent serologic analyses and a telemedicine consultation with a rheumatologist confirmed a diagnosis of rheumatoid arthritis (RA). The patient’s lab work was positive for antinuclear antibody titers (1:40), rheumatoid factor (513 IU/mL), and anticyclic citrullinated peptide antibodies (248 units/mL). Treatment was started with prednisone 60 mg PO daily, methotrexate 20 mg PO weekly, and hydroxychloroquine 400 mg PO daily. (The benefits of prednisone in treating this patient’s severe arthralgias outweighed concerns over its use in a patient with diabetes.)

After 2 months of receiving RA therapy, the patient underwent further work-up to assess its effectiveness. Liver function testing was performed, and she tested positive for hepatitis C virus (HCV) antibodies. Viral polymerase chain reaction confirmed active HCV infection. Lab work revealed a viral load of 15,000,000 IU/mL; transaminase, 173 U/L (normal range, 4-36 U/L); and aspartate aminotransferase, 246 U/L (normal range, 8-33 U/L). A liver sonogram demonstrated no findings of cirrhosis or fibrosis.

Upon receiving a diagnosis of active hepatitis C, the patient acknowledged that she’d had unprotected heterosexual intercourse and shared used insulin syringes with friends.

THE DIAGNOSIS

Consideration was given to a diagnosis of HCV arthropathy, which can present as an RA-like arthritis in HCV-infected individuals, in the differential diagnosis.¹ A cohort study found HCV-associated arthropathy occurred in 6.8% of those with chronic HCV infection.²

However, the symmetrical involvement of shoulders and knees as the patient’s primary arthralgias, and a rheumatologic work-up showing the presence of anticyclic citrullinated peptide antibody levels, confirmed the diagnosis of RA with coexisting HCV.

DISCUSSION

Delivering interdisciplinary care in a rural area

Although evidence-based guidelines and online HCV Treatment Path programs guided the initial evaluation of potential treatments for this patient, her multiple comorbidities prompted us to seek out additional, interdisciplinary advice through a resource for underserved communities called Project Extension for Community Healthcare Outcomes (ECHO; see “What is Project ECHO?^3,4”). The patient’s case was presented virtually, without identifying information, to a multidisciplinary HCV team. Two treatment options were suggested:

• sofosbuvir/velpatasvir (400 mg/100 mg) for 12 weeks or
• glecaprevir/pibrentasvir (100 mg/40 mg) for 8 weeks.

Both are evidence-based and recommended treatment options according to the HCV treatment guidelines issued jointly by the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases and the Infectious Diseases Society of America.⁵

In most patients with HCV, treatment is guided by a number of factors, including pill burden, access to care, duration of therapy, drug interactions, and patient-specific needs. After analyzing all aspects of this patient’s case, 2 major concerns guided our shared decision-making process on treatment.

The best treatment is what works for the patient

Owing to the patient’s multiple comorbidities and prescribed medications for chronic diseases, concerns about possible medication interactions with the HCV treatment options were a factor in her HCV treatment plan. Additionally, the patient had significant social determinants of health barriers that made continued treatment and follow-up challenging.

The potential interaction of HCV infection treatment with the patient’s current methotrexate therapy for her RA was a primary concern. To determine the risk for interactions, the team used the University of Liverpool HEP/HIV Drug Interactions Checker, which helps identify possible interactions with these disease-specific medication therapies.⁶

Both sofosbuvir/velpatasvir and glecaprevir/­pibrentasvir have a potential interaction with methotrexate and are driven by a similar mechanism. Methotrexate is a substrate of the Breast Cancer Resistance Protein efflux transporter (BCRP), and the components of both sofosbuvir/velpatasvir and glecaprevir/pibrentasvir are inhibitors of BCRP.⁷ The inhibition of this efflux transporter can lead to an increased concentration of methotrexate, increasing the risk for methotrexate toxicity.⁷

Since no quantitative data exist regarding the degree of inhibition that these HCV drugs exert on BCRP, the team considered ­sofosbuvir/velpatasvir and glecaprevir/­pibrentasvir to have equal risk with regard to potential for drug interactions.

The patient’s barriers to treatment were another area of concern that directed our therapy decision. The patient had multiple barriers, including poor access to health care because of transportation issues, multiple children requiring care, a variety of chronic diseases, and other life stressors. Shared decision­-making ensured our patient’s autonomy in choosing a specific treatment.

This case shines a light on the multiple challenges that could have come between our patient and proper treatment—but ultimately, did not.

The patient’s social situation and preference narrowed the team’s basis for medication choice primarily down to the duration of therapy: 8 weeks of glecaprevir/pibrentasvir vs 12 weeks of sofosbuvir/velpatasvir. The patient mentioned multiple transportation challenges for follow-up visits to the clinic and therefore wanted to utilize the shorter treatment duration. Follow-up is needed every 4 weeks, so the patient was able to go from 3 to 2 visits.

For problems, there are solutions. Following careful consideration of these patient-specific factors and preferences, the team decided to begin therapy with glecaprevir/pibrentasvir. The patient worked with an outreach specialist at the FQHC to coordinate care and complete paperwork for the Project ECHO consultation. The outreach specialist also assisted the patient in completing paperwork for the Patient Assistance Program for HCV treatment. Because the patient is being cared for at an FQHC, the clinic’s in-house pharmacy was able to utilize the 340B Federal Drug Pricing Program, which makes otherwise out-of-reach medicines affordable for patients such as ours.

Our patient has had no issues with treatment adherence, adverse effects, or follow­-up appointments. The patient’s RA symptoms have improved significantly without any discernable worsening of her HCV infection.

THE TAKEAWAY

This case shines a light on the multiple challenges (clinical, geographic, and financial) that could have come between our patient and proper treatment—but ultimately, did not. The Project ECHO model of care remains a viable way to provide patients who live in rural and underserved communities and who have active HCV and other underlying chronic conditions with interdisciplinary care that can improve health outcomes.

THE CASE

A 49-year-old woman was hospitalized with a headache and neck pain that radiated to her ears and eyes in the context of severe hypertension (270/150 mm Hg). Her medical history was significant for heterozygous factor V Leiden mutation, longstanding untreated hypertension, and multiple severe episodes of HELLP (hemolysis, elevated liver enzymes, and low platelets) syndrome during pregnancy.

After receiving antihypertensive treatment at a community hospital, her blood pressure gradually improved to 160/100 mm Hg with the addition of a third medication. However, on Day 3 of her stay, her systolic blood pressure rose to more than 200 mm Hg and was accompanied by somnolence, emesis, and paleness. She was transferred to a tertiary care center.

THE DIAGNOSIS

On admission, the patient had left-side hemiparesis and facial droop with dysarthria, resulting in a National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS) score of 7 (out of 42) and a Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) score of 13 (out of 15). Noncontrast computed tomography (CT) and CT angiography of the head and neck were ordered and showed occlusion of both intracranial vertebral arteries. There were also signs of multifocal infarction in her occipital lobes, thus systemic recombinant human-tissue plasminogen activator (tPA) could not be administered.

The patient was next taken to the angiography suite, where a digital subtraction angiography confirmed the presence of bilateral vertebral artery occlusions (FIGURE 1A). A thrombectomy was performed to open the left occluded segment, resulting in recanalization; however, a high-grade stenosis remained in the intracranial left vertebral artery (FIGURE 1B). The right vertebral artery had a severe extracranial origin stenosis, and balloon angioplasty was performed in order to reach the intracranial circulation; however, the occlusion of the intracranial right vertebral artery segment could not be catheterized. Subsequent magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) with a time-of-flight magnetic resonance angiography showed that the intracranial left vertebral artery with high-grade stenosis had closed down again; thus, there was occlusion of both intracranial vertebral arteries and absent flow signal in the basilar artery (FIGURE 2). There were scattered small acute strokes within the cerebellum, brainstem, and occipital lobes.

Unfortunately, within 48 hours, the patient’s NIHSS score increased from 7 to 29. She developed tetraplegia, was significantly less responsive (GCS score, 3/15), and required intubation and mechanical ventilation. Reopening the stenosis and keeping it open with a stent would be an aggressive procedure with poor odds for success and would require antithrombotic medications with the associated risk for intracranial hemorrhage in the setting of demarcated strokes. Thus, no further intervention was pursued.

Further standard stroke work-up (echocardiography, extracranial ultrasound of the cerebral circulation, and vasculitis screening) was unremarkable. In the intensive care unit, intravenous therapeutic heparin was initiated because of the potential prothrombotic effect of the factor V Leiden mutation but was subsequently switched to dual anti-­aggregation therapy (aspirin 100 mg/d and clopidogrel 75 mg/d) as secondary stroke prevention given the final diagnosis of severe atherosclerosis. Nevertheless, the patient remained tetraplegic with a partial locked-in syndrome when she was discharged, after 2 weeks in the tertiary care center, to a rehabilitation center.

DISCUSSION

Posterior circulation strokes account for 20% to 25% of all ischemic strokes^1,2 and are associated with infarction within the vertebrobasilar arterial system. Common etiologies of these infarctions include atherosclerosis (as seen in our patient), embolism, small-artery penetrating disease, and arterial dissection.² Although the estimated overall mortality of these strokes is low (3.6% to 11%),² basilar occlusion syndrome, in particular, is a life-threatening condition with a high mortality rate of 80% to 90%.³

Continue to: Diagnosis can be particularly challenging...

Diagnosis can be particularly challenging due to the anatomic variations of posterior arterial circulation, as well as the fluctuating nonfocal or multifocal symptoms.² Specific symptoms include vertigo, ataxia, unilateral motor weakness, dysarthria, and oculomotor dysfunction. However, nonspecific symptoms such as headache, nausea, dizziness, hoarseness, falls, and Horner syndrome may be the only presenting signs of a posterior circulation stroke—as was the case with our patient.² Her radiating neck pain could have been interpreted as a pointer to vertebral artery dissection within the context of severe hypertension.⁴ Unfortunately, the diagnosis was delayed and head imaging was obtained only after her mental status deteriorated.

Immediate neuroimaging is necessary to guide treatment in patients with suspected acute posterior circulation stroke,^1,5,6 although it is not always definitive. While CT is pivotal in stroke work-up and may reliably exclude intracranial hemorrhage, its ability to detect acute posterior circulation ischemic strokes is limited given its poor visualization of the posterior fossa (as low as 16% sensitivity).⁵ Fortunately, CT angiography has a high sensitivity (nearing 100%) for large-vessel occlusion and high predictive values for dissection (65%-100% positive predictive value and 70%-98% negative predictive value).^5,7 ­Diffusion-weighted MRI (when available in the emergency setting) has the highest sensitivity for detecting acute infarcts, although posterior circulation infarcts still can be missed (19% false-negative rate).^5,8 Thus, correlative vessel imaging with magnetic resonance or CT angiography is very important, along with a high index of suspicion. In some instances, repeat MRI may be necessary to detect small strokes.

A patient-specific approach to management is key for individuals with suspected posterior circulation stroke.⁵ Because specific data for the appropriate management of posterior circulation ischemic stroke are lacking, current American Heart ­Association/American Stroke Association (AHA/ASA) guidelines apply to anterior and ­posterior circulation strokes.⁶ For eligible ­patients without multifocal disease, intravenous tPA is the first-line therapy and should be initiated according to guidelines within 4.5 hours of stroke onset⁹; it is important to note that these guidelines are based on studies that ­focused more on anterior circulation strokes than posterior circulation strokes.^6,9-13 This can be done in combination with ­endovascular therapy, which consists of ­mechanical thrombectomy, intra-arterial thrombolysis, or a combination of revascularization ­techniques.^3,5,6

Nonspecific symptoms such as headache, nausea, and dizziness may be the only presenting signs of a posterior circulation stroke.

Mechanical thrombectomy specifically has high proven recanalization rates for all target vessels.^3-6 The latest AHA/ASA guidelines recommend mechanical thrombectomy be performed within 6 hours of stroke onset.⁶ However, there is emerging evidence that suggests this timeframe should be ­extended—even beyond 24 hours—given the poor prognosis of posterior circulation strokes.^5,6,14 More data on the management of posterior circulation strokes are urgently needed to better understand which therapeutic approach is most efficient.

In patients such as ours, who have evidence of multifocal disease, treatment may be limited to endovascular therapy. Intracranial stenting of symptomatic lesions in particular has been controversial since the publication of the Stenting and Aggressive Medical Management for Preventing Recurrent Stroke in Intracranial Stenosis trial, which found that aggressive medical management was superior to stenting in patients who recently had a transient ischemic attack or stroke attributed to stenosis.¹⁵ Although additional studies have been performed, there are no definitive data on the topic—and certainly no data in the emergency setting.¹⁶ Further challenges are raised in patients with bilateral disease, as was the case with this patient.

When our patient was admitted to the rehabilitation clinic, she had a GCS score of 10 to 11/15. After 9 months of rehabilitation, she was discharged home with a GCS score of 15/15 and persistent left-side hemiparesis.

THE TAKEAWAY

Posterior circulation stroke is a life-­threatening disease that may manifest with a variety of symptoms and be difficult to identify on emergent imaging. Thus, a high degree of clinical suspicion and additional follow-up are paramount to ensure prompt diagnosis and a patient-tailored treatment strategy.

CORRESPONDENCE
Kristine A. Blackham, MD, Associate Professor, University Hospital Basel, Petersgraben 4, 4031 Basel, Switzerland; [email protected] Orcid no: 0000-0002-1620-1144 (Dr. Blackham); 0000-0002- 5225-5414 (Dr. Saleh)

THE CASE

A 49-year-old woman was hospitalized with a headache and neck pain that radiated to her ears and eyes in the context of severe hypertension (270/150 mm Hg). Her medical history was significant for heterozygous factor V Leiden mutation, longstanding untreated hypertension, and multiple severe episodes of HELLP (hemolysis, elevated liver enzymes, and low platelets) syndrome during pregnancy.

After receiving antihypertensive treatment at a community hospital, her blood pressure gradually improved to 160/100 mm Hg with the addition of a third medication. However, on Day 3 of her stay, her systolic blood pressure rose to more than 200 mm Hg and was accompanied by somnolence, emesis, and paleness. She was transferred to a tertiary care center.

THE DIAGNOSIS

On admission, the patient had left-side hemiparesis and facial droop with dysarthria, resulting in a National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS) score of 7 (out of 42) and a Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) score of 13 (out of 15). Noncontrast computed tomography (CT) and CT angiography of the head and neck were ordered and showed occlusion of both intracranial vertebral arteries. There were also signs of multifocal infarction in her occipital lobes, thus systemic recombinant human-tissue plasminogen activator (tPA) could not be administered.

The patient was next taken to the angiography suite, where a digital subtraction angiography confirmed the presence of bilateral vertebral artery occlusions (FIGURE 1A). A thrombectomy was performed to open the left occluded segment, resulting in recanalization; however, a high-grade stenosis remained in the intracranial left vertebral artery (FIGURE 1B). The right vertebral artery had a severe extracranial origin stenosis, and balloon angioplasty was performed in order to reach the intracranial circulation; however, the occlusion of the intracranial right vertebral artery segment could not be catheterized. Subsequent magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) with a time-of-flight magnetic resonance angiography showed that the intracranial left vertebral artery with high-grade stenosis had closed down again; thus, there was occlusion of both intracranial vertebral arteries and absent flow signal in the basilar artery (FIGURE 2). There were scattered small acute strokes within the cerebellum, brainstem, and occipital lobes.

Unfortunately, within 48 hours, the patient’s NIHSS score increased from 7 to 29. She developed tetraplegia, was significantly less responsive (GCS score, 3/15), and required intubation and mechanical ventilation. Reopening the stenosis and keeping it open with a stent would be an aggressive procedure with poor odds for success and would require antithrombotic medications with the associated risk for intracranial hemorrhage in the setting of demarcated strokes. Thus, no further intervention was pursued.

Further standard stroke work-up (echocardiography, extracranial ultrasound of the cerebral circulation, and vasculitis screening) was unremarkable. In the intensive care unit, intravenous therapeutic heparin was initiated because of the potential prothrombotic effect of the factor V Leiden mutation but was subsequently switched to dual anti-­aggregation therapy (aspirin 100 mg/d and clopidogrel 75 mg/d) as secondary stroke prevention given the final diagnosis of severe atherosclerosis. Nevertheless, the patient remained tetraplegic with a partial locked-in syndrome when she was discharged, after 2 weeks in the tertiary care center, to a rehabilitation center.

DISCUSSION

Posterior circulation strokes account for 20% to 25% of all ischemic strokes^1,2 and are associated with infarction within the vertebrobasilar arterial system. Common etiologies of these infarctions include atherosclerosis (as seen in our patient), embolism, small-artery penetrating disease, and arterial dissection.² Although the estimated overall mortality of these strokes is low (3.6% to 11%),² basilar occlusion syndrome, in particular, is a life-threatening condition with a high mortality rate of 80% to 90%.³

Continue to: Diagnosis can be particularly challenging...

Diagnosis can be particularly challenging due to the anatomic variations of posterior arterial circulation, as well as the fluctuating nonfocal or multifocal symptoms.² Specific symptoms include vertigo, ataxia, unilateral motor weakness, dysarthria, and oculomotor dysfunction. However, nonspecific symptoms such as headache, nausea, dizziness, hoarseness, falls, and Horner syndrome may be the only presenting signs of a posterior circulation stroke—as was the case with our patient.² Her radiating neck pain could have been interpreted as a pointer to vertebral artery dissection within the context of severe hypertension.⁴ Unfortunately, the diagnosis was delayed and head imaging was obtained only after her mental status deteriorated.

Immediate neuroimaging is necessary to guide treatment in patients with suspected acute posterior circulation stroke,^1,5,6 although it is not always definitive. While CT is pivotal in stroke work-up and may reliably exclude intracranial hemorrhage, its ability to detect acute posterior circulation ischemic strokes is limited given its poor visualization of the posterior fossa (as low as 16% sensitivity).⁵ Fortunately, CT angiography has a high sensitivity (nearing 100%) for large-vessel occlusion and high predictive values for dissection (65%-100% positive predictive value and 70%-98% negative predictive value).^5,7 ­Diffusion-weighted MRI (when available in the emergency setting) has the highest sensitivity for detecting acute infarcts, although posterior circulation infarcts still can be missed (19% false-negative rate).^5,8 Thus, correlative vessel imaging with magnetic resonance or CT angiography is very important, along with a high index of suspicion. In some instances, repeat MRI may be necessary to detect small strokes.

A patient-specific approach to management is key for individuals with suspected posterior circulation stroke.⁵ Because specific data for the appropriate management of posterior circulation ischemic stroke are lacking, current American Heart ­Association/American Stroke Association (AHA/ASA) guidelines apply to anterior and ­posterior circulation strokes.⁶ For eligible ­patients without multifocal disease, intravenous tPA is the first-line therapy and should be initiated according to guidelines within 4.5 hours of stroke onset⁹; it is important to note that these guidelines are based on studies that ­focused more on anterior circulation strokes than posterior circulation strokes.^6,9-13 This can be done in combination with ­endovascular therapy, which consists of ­mechanical thrombectomy, intra-arterial thrombolysis, or a combination of revascularization ­techniques.^3,5,6

Nonspecific symptoms such as headache, nausea, and dizziness may be the only presenting signs of a posterior circulation stroke.

Mechanical thrombectomy specifically has high proven recanalization rates for all target vessels.^3-6 The latest AHA/ASA guidelines recommend mechanical thrombectomy be performed within 6 hours of stroke onset.⁶ However, there is emerging evidence that suggests this timeframe should be ­extended—even beyond 24 hours—given the poor prognosis of posterior circulation strokes.^5,6,14 More data on the management of posterior circulation strokes are urgently needed to better understand which therapeutic approach is most efficient.

In patients such as ours, who have evidence of multifocal disease, treatment may be limited to endovascular therapy. Intracranial stenting of symptomatic lesions in particular has been controversial since the publication of the Stenting and Aggressive Medical Management for Preventing Recurrent Stroke in Intracranial Stenosis trial, which found that aggressive medical management was superior to stenting in patients who recently had a transient ischemic attack or stroke attributed to stenosis.¹⁵ Although additional studies have been performed, there are no definitive data on the topic—and certainly no data in the emergency setting.¹⁶ Further challenges are raised in patients with bilateral disease, as was the case with this patient.

When our patient was admitted to the rehabilitation clinic, she had a GCS score of 10 to 11/15. After 9 months of rehabilitation, she was discharged home with a GCS score of 15/15 and persistent left-side hemiparesis.

THE TAKEAWAY

Posterior circulation stroke is a life-­threatening disease that may manifest with a variety of symptoms and be difficult to identify on emergent imaging. Thus, a high degree of clinical suspicion and additional follow-up are paramount to ensure prompt diagnosis and a patient-tailored treatment strategy.

CORRESPONDENCE
Kristine A. Blackham, MD, Associate Professor, University Hospital Basel, Petersgraben 4, 4031 Basel, Switzerland; [email protected] Orcid no: 0000-0002-1620-1144 (Dr. Blackham); 0000-0002- 5225-5414 (Dr. Saleh)

THE CASE

A 49-year-old woman was hospitalized with a headache and neck pain that radiated to her ears and eyes in the context of severe hypertension (270/150 mm Hg). Her medical history was significant for heterozygous factor V Leiden mutation, longstanding untreated hypertension, and multiple severe episodes of HELLP (hemolysis, elevated liver enzymes, and low platelets) syndrome during pregnancy.

After receiving antihypertensive treatment at a community hospital, her blood pressure gradually improved to 160/100 mm Hg with the addition of a third medication. However, on Day 3 of her stay, her systolic blood pressure rose to more than 200 mm Hg and was accompanied by somnolence, emesis, and paleness. She was transferred to a tertiary care center.

THE DIAGNOSIS

On admission, the patient had left-side hemiparesis and facial droop with dysarthria, resulting in a National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS) score of 7 (out of 42) and a Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) score of 13 (out of 15). Noncontrast computed tomography (CT) and CT angiography of the head and neck were ordered and showed occlusion of both intracranial vertebral arteries. There were also signs of multifocal infarction in her occipital lobes, thus systemic recombinant human-tissue plasminogen activator (tPA) could not be administered.

The patient was next taken to the angiography suite, where a digital subtraction angiography confirmed the presence of bilateral vertebral artery occlusions (FIGURE 1A). A thrombectomy was performed to open the left occluded segment, resulting in recanalization; however, a high-grade stenosis remained in the intracranial left vertebral artery (FIGURE 1B). The right vertebral artery had a severe extracranial origin stenosis, and balloon angioplasty was performed in order to reach the intracranial circulation; however, the occlusion of the intracranial right vertebral artery segment could not be catheterized. Subsequent magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) with a time-of-flight magnetic resonance angiography showed that the intracranial left vertebral artery with high-grade stenosis had closed down again; thus, there was occlusion of both intracranial vertebral arteries and absent flow signal in the basilar artery (FIGURE 2). There were scattered small acute strokes within the cerebellum, brainstem, and occipital lobes.

Unfortunately, within 48 hours, the patient’s NIHSS score increased from 7 to 29. She developed tetraplegia, was significantly less responsive (GCS score, 3/15), and required intubation and mechanical ventilation. Reopening the stenosis and keeping it open with a stent would be an aggressive procedure with poor odds for success and would require antithrombotic medications with the associated risk for intracranial hemorrhage in the setting of demarcated strokes. Thus, no further intervention was pursued.

Further standard stroke work-up (echocardiography, extracranial ultrasound of the cerebral circulation, and vasculitis screening) was unremarkable. In the intensive care unit, intravenous therapeutic heparin was initiated because of the potential prothrombotic effect of the factor V Leiden mutation but was subsequently switched to dual anti-­aggregation therapy (aspirin 100 mg/d and clopidogrel 75 mg/d) as secondary stroke prevention given the final diagnosis of severe atherosclerosis. Nevertheless, the patient remained tetraplegic with a partial locked-in syndrome when she was discharged, after 2 weeks in the tertiary care center, to a rehabilitation center.

DISCUSSION

Posterior circulation strokes account for 20% to 25% of all ischemic strokes^1,2 and are associated with infarction within the vertebrobasilar arterial system. Common etiologies of these infarctions include atherosclerosis (as seen in our patient), embolism, small-artery penetrating disease, and arterial dissection.² Although the estimated overall mortality of these strokes is low (3.6% to 11%),² basilar occlusion syndrome, in particular, is a life-threatening condition with a high mortality rate of 80% to 90%.³

Continue to: Diagnosis can be particularly challenging...

Diagnosis can be particularly challenging due to the anatomic variations of posterior arterial circulation, as well as the fluctuating nonfocal or multifocal symptoms.² Specific symptoms include vertigo, ataxia, unilateral motor weakness, dysarthria, and oculomotor dysfunction. However, nonspecific symptoms such as headache, nausea, dizziness, hoarseness, falls, and Horner syndrome may be the only presenting signs of a posterior circulation stroke—as was the case with our patient.² Her radiating neck pain could have been interpreted as a pointer to vertebral artery dissection within the context of severe hypertension.⁴ Unfortunately, the diagnosis was delayed and head imaging was obtained only after her mental status deteriorated.

Immediate neuroimaging is necessary to guide treatment in patients with suspected acute posterior circulation stroke,^1,5,6 although it is not always definitive. While CT is pivotal in stroke work-up and may reliably exclude intracranial hemorrhage, its ability to detect acute posterior circulation ischemic strokes is limited given its poor visualization of the posterior fossa (as low as 16% sensitivity).⁵ Fortunately, CT angiography has a high sensitivity (nearing 100%) for large-vessel occlusion and high predictive values for dissection (65%-100% positive predictive value and 70%-98% negative predictive value).^5,7 ­Diffusion-weighted MRI (when available in the emergency setting) has the highest sensitivity for detecting acute infarcts, although posterior circulation infarcts still can be missed (19% false-negative rate).^5,8 Thus, correlative vessel imaging with magnetic resonance or CT angiography is very important, along with a high index of suspicion. In some instances, repeat MRI may be necessary to detect small strokes.

A patient-specific approach to management is key for individuals with suspected posterior circulation stroke.⁵ Because specific data for the appropriate management of posterior circulation ischemic stroke are lacking, current American Heart ­Association/American Stroke Association (AHA/ASA) guidelines apply to anterior and ­posterior circulation strokes.⁶ For eligible ­patients without multifocal disease, intravenous tPA is the first-line therapy and should be initiated according to guidelines within 4.5 hours of stroke onset⁹; it is important to note that these guidelines are based on studies that ­focused more on anterior circulation strokes than posterior circulation strokes.^6,9-13 This can be done in combination with ­endovascular therapy, which consists of ­mechanical thrombectomy, intra-arterial thrombolysis, or a combination of revascularization ­techniques.^3,5,6

Nonspecific symptoms such as headache, nausea, and dizziness may be the only presenting signs of a posterior circulation stroke.

Mechanical thrombectomy specifically has high proven recanalization rates for all target vessels.^3-6 The latest AHA/ASA guidelines recommend mechanical thrombectomy be performed within 6 hours of stroke onset.⁶ However, there is emerging evidence that suggests this timeframe should be ­extended—even beyond 24 hours—given the poor prognosis of posterior circulation strokes.^5,6,14 More data on the management of posterior circulation strokes are urgently needed to better understand which therapeutic approach is most efficient.

In patients such as ours, who have evidence of multifocal disease, treatment may be limited to endovascular therapy. Intracranial stenting of symptomatic lesions in particular has been controversial since the publication of the Stenting and Aggressive Medical Management for Preventing Recurrent Stroke in Intracranial Stenosis trial, which found that aggressive medical management was superior to stenting in patients who recently had a transient ischemic attack or stroke attributed to stenosis.¹⁵ Although additional studies have been performed, there are no definitive data on the topic—and certainly no data in the emergency setting.¹⁶ Further challenges are raised in patients with bilateral disease, as was the case with this patient.

When our patient was admitted to the rehabilitation clinic, she had a GCS score of 10 to 11/15. After 9 months of rehabilitation, she was discharged home with a GCS score of 15/15 and persistent left-side hemiparesis.

THE TAKEAWAY

Posterior circulation stroke is a life-­threatening disease that may manifest with a variety of symptoms and be difficult to identify on emergent imaging. Thus, a high degree of clinical suspicion and additional follow-up are paramount to ensure prompt diagnosis and a patient-tailored treatment strategy.

CORRESPONDENCE
Kristine A. Blackham, MD, Associate Professor, University Hospital Basel, Petersgraben 4, 4031 Basel, Switzerland; [email protected] Orcid no: 0000-0002-1620-1144 (Dr. Blackham); 0000-0002- 5225-5414 (Dr. Saleh)

ILLUSTRATIVE CASE

A 51-year-old woman with a history of elevated cholesterol and a body mass index (BMI) of 31 presents to your clinic for a scheduled follow-up visit to review recent blood test results. Her A1C was elevated at 5.9%. She wants to know if she should start medication now.

Prediabetes is a high-risk state that ­confers increased risk for type 2 ­diabetes (T2D). It is identified by impaired fasting glucose (fasting plasma glucose [FPG], 100-125 mg/dL), impaired glucose tolerance (2-hour oral glucose tolerance test, 140-199 mg/dL), or an elevated A1C (between 5.7% and 6.4%).²

An estimated 96 million ­Americans—38% of the US adult population—have prediabetes, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.³ Family physicians frequently encounter this condition when screening for T2D in asymptomatic adults (ages 35 to 70 years) with overweight or obesity, as recommended by the US Preventive Services Task Force (grade “B”).⁴

To treat, or not? Studies have shown that interventions such as lifestyle modification and use of metformin by patients with prediabetes can decrease their risk for T2D.^5,6 In the Diabetes Prevention Program (DPP) study, progression from prediabetes to T2D was reduced to 14% with lifestyle modification and 22% with metformin use, vs 29% with placebo.⁷

However, there is disagreement about whether to treat prediabetes, particularly with medication. Some argue that metformin is a safe, effective, and cost-saving treatment to prevent T2D and its associated health consequences.⁸ The current American Diabetes Association (ADA) guidelines suggest that metformin be considered in certain patients with prediabetes and high-risk factors, especially younger age, obesity or hyperglycemia, or a history of gestational diabetes.⁹ However, only an estimated 1% to 4% of adults with prediabetes are prescribed metformin.¹⁰

Others argue that treating a preclinical condition is not a patient-centered approach, especially since not all patients with prediabetes progress to T2D and the risk for development or progression of retinopathy and microalbuminuria is extremely low if A1C levels remain < 7.0%.¹¹ By this standard, pharmacologic treatment should be initiated only if, or when, a patient develops T2D, with a focus on intensive lifestyle intervention for high-risk patients in the interim.¹¹

Given the conflicting viewpoints, ongoing long-term studies on T2D prevention will help guide treatment decisions for patients with prediabetes. The study by Lee et al¹ was the first to evaluate the effect of metformin or intensive lifestyle modification on all-cause and cause-specific mortality in patients at high risk for T2D.

Continue to: STUDY SUMMARY

No mortality benefit from metformin or lifestyle modification

This secondary analysis evaluated mortality outcomes for patients at risk for T2D who were part of the DPP trial and then were ­followed long term in the Diabetes Prevention Program Outcomes Study (DPPOS).¹ The initial DPP trial included 3234 adult patients at high risk for T2D (defined as having a BMI ≥ 24; an FPG of 95-125 mg/dL; and a 2-hour glucose level of 140-199 mg/dL). Participants were randomized into groups receiving either intensive lifestyle intervention (which focused on achieving ≥ 150 min/wk of exercise and ≥ 7% body weight loss), metformin 850 mg twice daily, or placebo twice daily; the latter 2 groups also received standard exercise and diet recommendations. Mean age was 51 years, mean BMI was 34, and 68% of participants were female.

Both the metformin and lifestyle intervention groups experienced decreases in weight and cardiovascular risk factors but not in mortality.

At the conclusion of the initial 5-year trial, treatment was unmasked and 86% of the patients continued to be followed for long-term outcomes. Patients in the lifestyle group were offered semiannual lifestyle reinforcement, while the metformin group continued to receive the twice-daily 850-mg dose unless a contraindication developed. If FPG levels increased to ≥ 140 mg/dL in the DPP study, or A1C increased to ≥ 7% in the DPPOS, study metformin was discontinued and management of the patient’s diabetes was transferred to their health care provider. By the end of the DPPOS, 53% of patients in the lifestyle group and 55% in the metformin group had progressed to T2D, compared with 60% in the placebo group (P = 0.003).

After a median 21-year follow-up interval, the investigators collected data on cause of death for patients and evaluated hazard ratios (HRs) for overall and cause-specific mortality. In total, 14% of the participants died, with no statistically significant difference in rates between the 3 groups. Cancer (37%) was the leading cause of death in all groups, followed by cardiovascular disease (CVD; 29%).

Compared with the placebo group, patients taking metformin did not have a decreased rate of overall mortality (HR = 0.99; 95% CI, 0.79-1.25), mortality from cancer (HR = 1.04; 95% CI, 0.72-1.52), or mortality due to CVD (HR = 1.08; 95% CI, 0.70-1.66). Similarly, compared with the placebo group, lifestyle intervention did not decrease overall mortality (HR = 1.02; 95% CI, 0.81-1.28), mortality from cancer (HR = 1.07; 95% CI, 0.74-1.55), or mortality due to CVD (HR = 1.18; 95% CI, 0.77-1.81). Results were similar when adjusted for other factors, including out-of-study metformin use, T2D status and duration, BMI change, and other cardiovascular risk factors.

WHAT’S NEW

Long-term data clarifylimits to interventions’ utility

This study looked at long-term follow-up data on mortality outcomes for patients with prediabetes treated with metformin or lifestyle intervention. Although these interventions did support weight loss, reduce the incidence of T2D, and lower cardiovascular risk factors (eg, hypertension, dyslipidemia), the comorbidity benefits did not affect risk for all-cause or cause-specific mortality, which were similar between the treatment and placebo groups.

Continue to: CAVEATS

Exclusion criteria, residual confounding may limit the findings

Patients with significant cardiovascular or renal disease were excluded, so results may not apply to patients with these comorbidities. Additionally, there was a high amount of “drop-in” use of metformin prescribed by physicians once patients developed T2D, which may not have been controlled for completely. And while the intensive lifestyle intervention group had specific goals, the metformin and placebo groups also were encouraged to follow standard diet and lifestyle recommendations—and during a bridge period, all participants were offered a modified group lifestyle intervention. However, multivariable adjustment did not change the study conclusion.

CHALLENGES TO IMPLEMENTATION

Physicians may be unwilling to change their current prescribing habits

Physicians may not be willing to change their practice of prescribing metformin in prediabetes based on a singular study (with residual confounding) that showed no long-term mortality differences between the study groups. However, there may be long-term morbidity differences of interest to patients that were not specifically evaluated in this study—such as quality-of-life benefits from weight loss that may outweigh the risks (eg, gastrointestinal adverse effects such as diarrhea, nausea, and abdominal pain) of metformin for some patients. Therefore, a discussion of the risks and benefits of treatment for prediabetes should be had with patients at high risk who would prefer a pharmacologic intervention.

ILLUSTRATIVE CASE

A 51-year-old woman with a history of elevated cholesterol and a body mass index (BMI) of 31 presents to your clinic for a scheduled follow-up visit to review recent blood test results. Her A1C was elevated at 5.9%. She wants to know if she should start medication now.

Prediabetes is a high-risk state that ­confers increased risk for type 2 ­diabetes (T2D). It is identified by impaired fasting glucose (fasting plasma glucose [FPG], 100-125 mg/dL), impaired glucose tolerance (2-hour oral glucose tolerance test, 140-199 mg/dL), or an elevated A1C (between 5.7% and 6.4%).²

An estimated 96 million ­Americans—38% of the US adult population—have prediabetes, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.³ Family physicians frequently encounter this condition when screening for T2D in asymptomatic adults (ages 35 to 70 years) with overweight or obesity, as recommended by the US Preventive Services Task Force (grade “B”).⁴

To treat, or not? Studies have shown that interventions such as lifestyle modification and use of metformin by patients with prediabetes can decrease their risk for T2D.^5,6 In the Diabetes Prevention Program (DPP) study, progression from prediabetes to T2D was reduced to 14% with lifestyle modification and 22% with metformin use, vs 29% with placebo.⁷

However, there is disagreement about whether to treat prediabetes, particularly with medication. Some argue that metformin is a safe, effective, and cost-saving treatment to prevent T2D and its associated health consequences.⁸ The current American Diabetes Association (ADA) guidelines suggest that metformin be considered in certain patients with prediabetes and high-risk factors, especially younger age, obesity or hyperglycemia, or a history of gestational diabetes.⁹ However, only an estimated 1% to 4% of adults with prediabetes are prescribed metformin.¹⁰

Others argue that treating a preclinical condition is not a patient-centered approach, especially since not all patients with prediabetes progress to T2D and the risk for development or progression of retinopathy and microalbuminuria is extremely low if A1C levels remain < 7.0%.¹¹ By this standard, pharmacologic treatment should be initiated only if, or when, a patient develops T2D, with a focus on intensive lifestyle intervention for high-risk patients in the interim.¹¹

Given the conflicting viewpoints, ongoing long-term studies on T2D prevention will help guide treatment decisions for patients with prediabetes. The study by Lee et al¹ was the first to evaluate the effect of metformin or intensive lifestyle modification on all-cause and cause-specific mortality in patients at high risk for T2D.

Continue to: STUDY SUMMARY

No mortality benefit from metformin or lifestyle modification

This secondary analysis evaluated mortality outcomes for patients at risk for T2D who were part of the DPP trial and then were ­followed long term in the Diabetes Prevention Program Outcomes Study (DPPOS).¹ The initial DPP trial included 3234 adult patients at high risk for T2D (defined as having a BMI ≥ 24; an FPG of 95-125 mg/dL; and a 2-hour glucose level of 140-199 mg/dL). Participants were randomized into groups receiving either intensive lifestyle intervention (which focused on achieving ≥ 150 min/wk of exercise and ≥ 7% body weight loss), metformin 850 mg twice daily, or placebo twice daily; the latter 2 groups also received standard exercise and diet recommendations. Mean age was 51 years, mean BMI was 34, and 68% of participants were female.

Both the metformin and lifestyle intervention groups experienced decreases in weight and cardiovascular risk factors but not in mortality.

At the conclusion of the initial 5-year trial, treatment was unmasked and 86% of the patients continued to be followed for long-term outcomes. Patients in the lifestyle group were offered semiannual lifestyle reinforcement, while the metformin group continued to receive the twice-daily 850-mg dose unless a contraindication developed. If FPG levels increased to ≥ 140 mg/dL in the DPP study, or A1C increased to ≥ 7% in the DPPOS, study metformin was discontinued and management of the patient’s diabetes was transferred to their health care provider. By the end of the DPPOS, 53% of patients in the lifestyle group and 55% in the metformin group had progressed to T2D, compared with 60% in the placebo group (P = 0.003).

After a median 21-year follow-up interval, the investigators collected data on cause of death for patients and evaluated hazard ratios (HRs) for overall and cause-specific mortality. In total, 14% of the participants died, with no statistically significant difference in rates between the 3 groups. Cancer (37%) was the leading cause of death in all groups, followed by cardiovascular disease (CVD; 29%).

Compared with the placebo group, patients taking metformin did not have a decreased rate of overall mortality (HR = 0.99; 95% CI, 0.79-1.25), mortality from cancer (HR = 1.04; 95% CI, 0.72-1.52), or mortality due to CVD (HR = 1.08; 95% CI, 0.70-1.66). Similarly, compared with the placebo group, lifestyle intervention did not decrease overall mortality (HR = 1.02; 95% CI, 0.81-1.28), mortality from cancer (HR = 1.07; 95% CI, 0.74-1.55), or mortality due to CVD (HR = 1.18; 95% CI, 0.77-1.81). Results were similar when adjusted for other factors, including out-of-study metformin use, T2D status and duration, BMI change, and other cardiovascular risk factors.

WHAT’S NEW

Long-term data clarifylimits to interventions’ utility

This study looked at long-term follow-up data on mortality outcomes for patients with prediabetes treated with metformin or lifestyle intervention. Although these interventions did support weight loss, reduce the incidence of T2D, and lower cardiovascular risk factors (eg, hypertension, dyslipidemia), the comorbidity benefits did not affect risk for all-cause or cause-specific mortality, which were similar between the treatment and placebo groups.

Continue to: CAVEATS

Exclusion criteria, residual confounding may limit the findings

Patients with significant cardiovascular or renal disease were excluded, so results may not apply to patients with these comorbidities. Additionally, there was a high amount of “drop-in” use of metformin prescribed by physicians once patients developed T2D, which may not have been controlled for completely. And while the intensive lifestyle intervention group had specific goals, the metformin and placebo groups also were encouraged to follow standard diet and lifestyle recommendations—and during a bridge period, all participants were offered a modified group lifestyle intervention. However, multivariable adjustment did not change the study conclusion.

CHALLENGES TO IMPLEMENTATION

Physicians may be unwilling to change their current prescribing habits

Physicians may not be willing to change their practice of prescribing metformin in prediabetes based on a singular study (with residual confounding) that showed no long-term mortality differences between the study groups. However, there may be long-term morbidity differences of interest to patients that were not specifically evaluated in this study—such as quality-of-life benefits from weight loss that may outweigh the risks (eg, gastrointestinal adverse effects such as diarrhea, nausea, and abdominal pain) of metformin for some patients. Therefore, a discussion of the risks and benefits of treatment for prediabetes should be had with patients at high risk who would prefer a pharmacologic intervention.

ILLUSTRATIVE CASE

A 51-year-old woman with a history of elevated cholesterol and a body mass index (BMI) of 31 presents to your clinic for a scheduled follow-up visit to review recent blood test results. Her A1C was elevated at 5.9%. She wants to know if she should start medication now.

Prediabetes is a high-risk state that ­confers increased risk for type 2 ­diabetes (T2D). It is identified by impaired fasting glucose (fasting plasma glucose [FPG], 100-125 mg/dL), impaired glucose tolerance (2-hour oral glucose tolerance test, 140-199 mg/dL), or an elevated A1C (between 5.7% and 6.4%).²

An estimated 96 million ­Americans—38% of the US adult population—have prediabetes, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.³ Family physicians frequently encounter this condition when screening for T2D in asymptomatic adults (ages 35 to 70 years) with overweight or obesity, as recommended by the US Preventive Services Task Force (grade “B”).⁴

To treat, or not? Studies have shown that interventions such as lifestyle modification and use of metformin by patients with prediabetes can decrease their risk for T2D.^5,6 In the Diabetes Prevention Program (DPP) study, progression from prediabetes to T2D was reduced to 14% with lifestyle modification and 22% with metformin use, vs 29% with placebo.⁷

However, there is disagreement about whether to treat prediabetes, particularly with medication. Some argue that metformin is a safe, effective, and cost-saving treatment to prevent T2D and its associated health consequences.⁸ The current American Diabetes Association (ADA) guidelines suggest that metformin be considered in certain patients with prediabetes and high-risk factors, especially younger age, obesity or hyperglycemia, or a history of gestational diabetes.⁹ However, only an estimated 1% to 4% of adults with prediabetes are prescribed metformin.¹⁰

Others argue that treating a preclinical condition is not a patient-centered approach, especially since not all patients with prediabetes progress to T2D and the risk for development or progression of retinopathy and microalbuminuria is extremely low if A1C levels remain < 7.0%.¹¹ By this standard, pharmacologic treatment should be initiated only if, or when, a patient develops T2D, with a focus on intensive lifestyle intervention for high-risk patients in the interim.¹¹

Given the conflicting viewpoints, ongoing long-term studies on T2D prevention will help guide treatment decisions for patients with prediabetes. The study by Lee et al¹ was the first to evaluate the effect of metformin or intensive lifestyle modification on all-cause and cause-specific mortality in patients at high risk for T2D.

Continue to: STUDY SUMMARY

No mortality benefit from metformin or lifestyle modification

This secondary analysis evaluated mortality outcomes for patients at risk for T2D who were part of the DPP trial and then were ­followed long term in the Diabetes Prevention Program Outcomes Study (DPPOS).¹ The initial DPP trial included 3234 adult patients at high risk for T2D (defined as having a BMI ≥ 24; an FPG of 95-125 mg/dL; and a 2-hour glucose level of 140-199 mg/dL). Participants were randomized into groups receiving either intensive lifestyle intervention (which focused on achieving ≥ 150 min/wk of exercise and ≥ 7% body weight loss), metformin 850 mg twice daily, or placebo twice daily; the latter 2 groups also received standard exercise and diet recommendations. Mean age was 51 years, mean BMI was 34, and 68% of participants were female.

Both the metformin and lifestyle intervention groups experienced decreases in weight and cardiovascular risk factors but not in mortality.

At the conclusion of the initial 5-year trial, treatment was unmasked and 86% of the patients continued to be followed for long-term outcomes. Patients in the lifestyle group were offered semiannual lifestyle reinforcement, while the metformin group continued to receive the twice-daily 850-mg dose unless a contraindication developed. If FPG levels increased to ≥ 140 mg/dL in the DPP study, or A1C increased to ≥ 7% in the DPPOS, study metformin was discontinued and management of the patient’s diabetes was transferred to their health care provider. By the end of the DPPOS, 53% of patients in the lifestyle group and 55% in the metformin group had progressed to T2D, compared with 60% in the placebo group (P = 0.003).

After a median 21-year follow-up interval, the investigators collected data on cause of death for patients and evaluated hazard ratios (HRs) for overall and cause-specific mortality. In total, 14% of the participants died, with no statistically significant difference in rates between the 3 groups. Cancer (37%) was the leading cause of death in all groups, followed by cardiovascular disease (CVD; 29%).

Compared with the placebo group, patients taking metformin did not have a decreased rate of overall mortality (HR = 0.99; 95% CI, 0.79-1.25), mortality from cancer (HR = 1.04; 95% CI, 0.72-1.52), or mortality due to CVD (HR = 1.08; 95% CI, 0.70-1.66). Similarly, compared with the placebo group, lifestyle intervention did not decrease overall mortality (HR = 1.02; 95% CI, 0.81-1.28), mortality from cancer (HR = 1.07; 95% CI, 0.74-1.55), or mortality due to CVD (HR = 1.18; 95% CI, 0.77-1.81). Results were similar when adjusted for other factors, including out-of-study metformin use, T2D status and duration, BMI change, and other cardiovascular risk factors.

WHAT’S NEW

Long-term data clarifylimits to interventions’ utility

This study looked at long-term follow-up data on mortality outcomes for patients with prediabetes treated with metformin or lifestyle intervention. Although these interventions did support weight loss, reduce the incidence of T2D, and lower cardiovascular risk factors (eg, hypertension, dyslipidemia), the comorbidity benefits did not affect risk for all-cause or cause-specific mortality, which were similar between the treatment and placebo groups.

Continue to: CAVEATS

Exclusion criteria, residual confounding may limit the findings

Patients with significant cardiovascular or renal disease were excluded, so results may not apply to patients with these comorbidities. Additionally, there was a high amount of “drop-in” use of metformin prescribed by physicians once patients developed T2D, which may not have been controlled for completely. And while the intensive lifestyle intervention group had specific goals, the metformin and placebo groups also were encouraged to follow standard diet and lifestyle recommendations—and during a bridge period, all participants were offered a modified group lifestyle intervention. However, multivariable adjustment did not change the study conclusion.

CHALLENGES TO IMPLEMENTATION

Physicians may be unwilling to change their current prescribing habits

Physicians may not be willing to change their practice of prescribing metformin in prediabetes based on a singular study (with residual confounding) that showed no long-term mortality differences between the study groups. However, there may be long-term morbidity differences of interest to patients that were not specifically evaluated in this study—such as quality-of-life benefits from weight loss that may outweigh the risks (eg, gastrointestinal adverse effects such as diarrhea, nausea, and abdominal pain) of metformin for some patients. Therefore, a discussion of the risks and benefits of treatment for prediabetes should be had with patients at high risk who would prefer a pharmacologic intervention.

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Michelle L. O’Donoghue, MD, MPH: Hi. This is Dr. Michelle O’Donoghue reporting for Medscape. Joining me today is Dr. Sahil Parikh, who’s a cardiologist and an interventionalist at Columbia University. He’s an associate professor of medicine.

We’ll be discussing two interesting trials that were presented at the ESC Congress here in Amsterdam. They do have the potential to be very practice-changing, so I think it’s worth talking about.
 

The FIRE trial

The first trial we’ll be talking about is the FIRE trial. Perhaps setting the stage, Sahil, I’d love to get your thoughts. We’ve had data in this space to suggest that, for patients with STEMI [ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction], a strategy of complete revascularization – and not only treating the culprit lesion but also treating additional lesions – may be of benefit. Where does that lead us in terms of what we didn’t know?

Sahil A. Parikh, MD: I think that the practice has moved, at least in the United States, over the past two decades, from staging percutaneous coronary interventions over 30 days from index to intervention to now trying to do patients in the same hospitalization whenever possible to achieve complete revascularization.

I think these data support not only that complete revascularization is compulsory now in these patients, but also doing it sooner rather than later, and that the benefit applies to most of the patients that we see in clinical practice. In the earlier data, the patients were relatively youthful – under Medicare age, less than 65 – and now this dataset has a median age of 80. This is more like the real-world clinical practice that most of us are encountering, and it extends the benefit, perhaps, greater than we’ve ever seen before.

O’Donoghue: The FIRE trial is interesting. As you say, it enrolled patients who were over the age of 75, where I think that some proceduralists are probably a little bit hesitant to think about complete revascularization due to concerns about any additional contrast load on their kidneys and other types of comorbidities. Of course, for any trial, there’s going to be some patient selection.

I think it’s very reassuring that even in this older patient group, a strategy of treating all the lesions – and not only in STEMI but also in non-STEMI patients – reduced cardiovascular events and mortality. I was really quite impressed by the mortality benefit.

Parikh: The mortality curve is almost surprising to me. On the other hand, it emboldens us now that we can treat these patients more completely and earlier in their clinical presentation. Certainly, we worried about contrast exposure and the duration of procedures in this older population, but it seems that the benefit that’s derived, which we saw in younger patients where we had a natural inclination to be more aggressive, extends also to this older population.
 

MULTISTARS AMI

O’Donoghue: To the question of timing, as you mentioned, prior to this, we had a study presented earlier this year, the BIOVASC trial, which also was suggestive that maybe earlier complete revascularization was better. But it wasn’t a significant difference, at least for the primary outcome. Now we have MULTISTARS AMI, which is very supportive of what we saw earlier this year, suggesting that complete revascularization really at the time that you’re treating the culprit may be the way to go.

Parikh: All of us, as interventionalists, are circumspect about what we might do in the middle of the night versus what we would do in the light of day. Certainly it seems clear, particularly if it’s straightforward anatomy, that taking care of it in the index procedure is not only saving contrast and fluoroscopy time, but it’s also providing a clinical benefit to the patients. That’s something that will also impact how clinicians interpret these data. Previously, there was always a question about whether we should just do it in the same hospitalization or do it at the same time. I think now, increasingly, we’re emboldened to do more in the index procedure.

O’Donoghue: When you’re thinking about nonculprit lesions and which ones to treat, do you always make that determination based on physiologic guidance of some kind? Are you using instantaneous wave-free ratio? What’s your practice?

Parikh: In the acute setting, imaging is superior for at least the assessment of which is a culprit. If you see a ruptured atherothrombotic situation on optical coherence tomography, for example, that’s fairly convincing and definitive. In the absence of that physiology, we are taught to avoid in the infarct-related artery because of potential spuriously false-negative findings.

In this situation, certainly, an imaging subgroup probably would be helpful because some of the benefit is almost certainly derived from identifying the infarct-related artery by accident – in other words, doing what you thought was the nonculprit artery, which is, in fact, the culprit. I think that probably is part of this. As somebody who uses imaging in the overwhelming number of my cases, I think that imaging would be an important surrogate to this.
 

Index procedure versus staged

O’Donoghue: For the operator who is coming in to do their STEMI case at 2:00 in the morning, would these data now push you toward doing complete revascularization at that time of night, or do you think that there is wiggle room in terms of interpreting these results regarding timing, where as long as you were doing it before hospital discharge and not, let’s say, 30 days out, that you may be able to derive the same benefit? What are some of the pros and cons?

Parikh: There’s definitely a fatigue factor in the middle of the night if it’s a particularly arduous intervention for the index infarct-related artery. I think there’s a human element where it may make sense just to stop and then bring the patient back in the same hospitalization. It’s clear, though, that doing complete revascularization is better and doing it sooner is better. How soon one actually does it is a judgment call, as ever.

In our practice, we’ve been pushing ourselves to get most of the patients done in their index hospitalization. If you have a left-sided culprit, the left anterior descending artery, for example, and there’s a high-grade stenosis in the circumflex, it may make sense to take care of that in the same index procedure. If, on the other hand, it’s in the right coronary artery where you have to put a new guide in and spend more time, that may be a patient whom you stage. I think those nuances will come up as interventionalists look at the subgroup analysis data more carefully.

O’Donoghue: Those are great points, and I think they also underscore that we always need to think about what type of patient was enrolled in these studies. Certainly, if you have somebody with renal dysfunction, there might be more concern about giving them a large contrast load all in one sitting, albeit hard to know whether they do or not. But spacing that out by just a couple of days would really have a big impact.

Parikh: Very often in the STEMI patient, you don’t have the benefit of knowing the creatinine. The patient will come in immediately, if not directly from the ambulance to the cath lab, and there are no laboratories at all to work with. If the patient has never been seen in the system before, you won’t know. Again, in those situations, one may have pause, particularly if it’s an older patient. I think what’s reassuring, though, is that the data are supportive of being more aggressive earlier, and certainly this is the dataset that we were looking for.

O’Donoghue: To summarize, the two key takeaways are that, one, we now have more data to support a complete revascularization strategy and even extending that now to non-STEMI patients. Two, sooner appears to be better, so ideally, all done at the time of the index procedure. I think this is very interesting science and we’ll see how it changes practice.

Thanks for joining me today. Signing off for Medscape, this is Dr. Michelle O’Donoghue.

Michelle O’Donoghue is a cardiologist at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and senior investigator with the TIMI Study Group.

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

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Michelle L. O’Donoghue, MD, MPH: Hi. This is Dr. Michelle O’Donoghue reporting for Medscape. Joining me today is Dr. Sahil Parikh, who’s a cardiologist and an interventionalist at Columbia University. He’s an associate professor of medicine.

We’ll be discussing two interesting trials that were presented at the ESC Congress here in Amsterdam. They do have the potential to be very practice-changing, so I think it’s worth talking about.
 

The FIRE trial

The first trial we’ll be talking about is the FIRE trial. Perhaps setting the stage, Sahil, I’d love to get your thoughts. We’ve had data in this space to suggest that, for patients with STEMI [ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction], a strategy of complete revascularization – and not only treating the culprit lesion but also treating additional lesions – may be of benefit. Where does that lead us in terms of what we didn’t know?

Sahil A. Parikh, MD: I think that the practice has moved, at least in the United States, over the past two decades, from staging percutaneous coronary interventions over 30 days from index to intervention to now trying to do patients in the same hospitalization whenever possible to achieve complete revascularization.

I think these data support not only that complete revascularization is compulsory now in these patients, but also doing it sooner rather than later, and that the benefit applies to most of the patients that we see in clinical practice. In the earlier data, the patients were relatively youthful – under Medicare age, less than 65 – and now this dataset has a median age of 80. This is more like the real-world clinical practice that most of us are encountering, and it extends the benefit, perhaps, greater than we’ve ever seen before.

O’Donoghue: The FIRE trial is interesting. As you say, it enrolled patients who were over the age of 75, where I think that some proceduralists are probably a little bit hesitant to think about complete revascularization due to concerns about any additional contrast load on their kidneys and other types of comorbidities. Of course, for any trial, there’s going to be some patient selection.

I think it’s very reassuring that even in this older patient group, a strategy of treating all the lesions – and not only in STEMI but also in non-STEMI patients – reduced cardiovascular events and mortality. I was really quite impressed by the mortality benefit.

Parikh: The mortality curve is almost surprising to me. On the other hand, it emboldens us now that we can treat these patients more completely and earlier in their clinical presentation. Certainly, we worried about contrast exposure and the duration of procedures in this older population, but it seems that the benefit that’s derived, which we saw in younger patients where we had a natural inclination to be more aggressive, extends also to this older population.
 

MULTISTARS AMI

O’Donoghue: To the question of timing, as you mentioned, prior to this, we had a study presented earlier this year, the BIOVASC trial, which also was suggestive that maybe earlier complete revascularization was better. But it wasn’t a significant difference, at least for the primary outcome. Now we have MULTISTARS AMI, which is very supportive of what we saw earlier this year, suggesting that complete revascularization really at the time that you’re treating the culprit may be the way to go.

Parikh: All of us, as interventionalists, are circumspect about what we might do in the middle of the night versus what we would do in the light of day. Certainly it seems clear, particularly if it’s straightforward anatomy, that taking care of it in the index procedure is not only saving contrast and fluoroscopy time, but it’s also providing a clinical benefit to the patients. That’s something that will also impact how clinicians interpret these data. Previously, there was always a question about whether we should just do it in the same hospitalization or do it at the same time. I think now, increasingly, we’re emboldened to do more in the index procedure.

O’Donoghue: When you’re thinking about nonculprit lesions and which ones to treat, do you always make that determination based on physiologic guidance of some kind? Are you using instantaneous wave-free ratio? What’s your practice?

Parikh: In the acute setting, imaging is superior for at least the assessment of which is a culprit. If you see a ruptured atherothrombotic situation on optical coherence tomography, for example, that’s fairly convincing and definitive. In the absence of that physiology, we are taught to avoid in the infarct-related artery because of potential spuriously false-negative findings.

In this situation, certainly, an imaging subgroup probably would be helpful because some of the benefit is almost certainly derived from identifying the infarct-related artery by accident – in other words, doing what you thought was the nonculprit artery, which is, in fact, the culprit. I think that probably is part of this. As somebody who uses imaging in the overwhelming number of my cases, I think that imaging would be an important surrogate to this.
 

Index procedure versus staged

O’Donoghue: For the operator who is coming in to do their STEMI case at 2:00 in the morning, would these data now push you toward doing complete revascularization at that time of night, or do you think that there is wiggle room in terms of interpreting these results regarding timing, where as long as you were doing it before hospital discharge and not, let’s say, 30 days out, that you may be able to derive the same benefit? What are some of the pros and cons?

Parikh: There’s definitely a fatigue factor in the middle of the night if it’s a particularly arduous intervention for the index infarct-related artery. I think there’s a human element where it may make sense just to stop and then bring the patient back in the same hospitalization. It’s clear, though, that doing complete revascularization is better and doing it sooner is better. How soon one actually does it is a judgment call, as ever.

In our practice, we’ve been pushing ourselves to get most of the patients done in their index hospitalization. If you have a left-sided culprit, the left anterior descending artery, for example, and there’s a high-grade stenosis in the circumflex, it may make sense to take care of that in the same index procedure. If, on the other hand, it’s in the right coronary artery where you have to put a new guide in and spend more time, that may be a patient whom you stage. I think those nuances will come up as interventionalists look at the subgroup analysis data more carefully.

O’Donoghue: Those are great points, and I think they also underscore that we always need to think about what type of patient was enrolled in these studies. Certainly, if you have somebody with renal dysfunction, there might be more concern about giving them a large contrast load all in one sitting, albeit hard to know whether they do or not. But spacing that out by just a couple of days would really have a big impact.

Parikh: Very often in the STEMI patient, you don’t have the benefit of knowing the creatinine. The patient will come in immediately, if not directly from the ambulance to the cath lab, and there are no laboratories at all to work with. If the patient has never been seen in the system before, you won’t know. Again, in those situations, one may have pause, particularly if it’s an older patient. I think what’s reassuring, though, is that the data are supportive of being more aggressive earlier, and certainly this is the dataset that we were looking for.

O’Donoghue: To summarize, the two key takeaways are that, one, we now have more data to support a complete revascularization strategy and even extending that now to non-STEMI patients. Two, sooner appears to be better, so ideally, all done at the time of the index procedure. I think this is very interesting science and we’ll see how it changes practice.

Thanks for joining me today. Signing off for Medscape, this is Dr. Michelle O’Donoghue.

Michelle O’Donoghue is a cardiologist at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and senior investigator with the TIMI Study Group.

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

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Michelle L. O’Donoghue, MD, MPH: Hi. This is Dr. Michelle O’Donoghue reporting for Medscape. Joining me today is Dr. Sahil Parikh, who’s a cardiologist and an interventionalist at Columbia University. He’s an associate professor of medicine.

We’ll be discussing two interesting trials that were presented at the ESC Congress here in Amsterdam. They do have the potential to be very practice-changing, so I think it’s worth talking about.
 

The FIRE trial

The first trial we’ll be talking about is the FIRE trial. Perhaps setting the stage, Sahil, I’d love to get your thoughts. We’ve had data in this space to suggest that, for patients with STEMI [ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction], a strategy of complete revascularization – and not only treating the culprit lesion but also treating additional lesions – may be of benefit. Where does that lead us in terms of what we didn’t know?

Sahil A. Parikh, MD: I think that the practice has moved, at least in the United States, over the past two decades, from staging percutaneous coronary interventions over 30 days from index to intervention to now trying to do patients in the same hospitalization whenever possible to achieve complete revascularization.

I think these data support not only that complete revascularization is compulsory now in these patients, but also doing it sooner rather than later, and that the benefit applies to most of the patients that we see in clinical practice. In the earlier data, the patients were relatively youthful – under Medicare age, less than 65 – and now this dataset has a median age of 80. This is more like the real-world clinical practice that most of us are encountering, and it extends the benefit, perhaps, greater than we’ve ever seen before.

O’Donoghue: The FIRE trial is interesting. As you say, it enrolled patients who were over the age of 75, where I think that some proceduralists are probably a little bit hesitant to think about complete revascularization due to concerns about any additional contrast load on their kidneys and other types of comorbidities. Of course, for any trial, there’s going to be some patient selection.

I think it’s very reassuring that even in this older patient group, a strategy of treating all the lesions – and not only in STEMI but also in non-STEMI patients – reduced cardiovascular events and mortality. I was really quite impressed by the mortality benefit.

Parikh: The mortality curve is almost surprising to me. On the other hand, it emboldens us now that we can treat these patients more completely and earlier in their clinical presentation. Certainly, we worried about contrast exposure and the duration of procedures in this older population, but it seems that the benefit that’s derived, which we saw in younger patients where we had a natural inclination to be more aggressive, extends also to this older population.
 

MULTISTARS AMI

O’Donoghue: To the question of timing, as you mentioned, prior to this, we had a study presented earlier this year, the BIOVASC trial, which also was suggestive that maybe earlier complete revascularization was better. But it wasn’t a significant difference, at least for the primary outcome. Now we have MULTISTARS AMI, which is very supportive of what we saw earlier this year, suggesting that complete revascularization really at the time that you’re treating the culprit may be the way to go.

Parikh: All of us, as interventionalists, are circumspect about what we might do in the middle of the night versus what we would do in the light of day. Certainly it seems clear, particularly if it’s straightforward anatomy, that taking care of it in the index procedure is not only saving contrast and fluoroscopy time, but it’s also providing a clinical benefit to the patients. That’s something that will also impact how clinicians interpret these data. Previously, there was always a question about whether we should just do it in the same hospitalization or do it at the same time. I think now, increasingly, we’re emboldened to do more in the index procedure.

O’Donoghue: When you’re thinking about nonculprit lesions and which ones to treat, do you always make that determination based on physiologic guidance of some kind? Are you using instantaneous wave-free ratio? What’s your practice?

Parikh: In the acute setting, imaging is superior for at least the assessment of which is a culprit. If you see a ruptured atherothrombotic situation on optical coherence tomography, for example, that’s fairly convincing and definitive. In the absence of that physiology, we are taught to avoid in the infarct-related artery because of potential spuriously false-negative findings.

In this situation, certainly, an imaging subgroup probably would be helpful because some of the benefit is almost certainly derived from identifying the infarct-related artery by accident – in other words, doing what you thought was the nonculprit artery, which is, in fact, the culprit. I think that probably is part of this. As somebody who uses imaging in the overwhelming number of my cases, I think that imaging would be an important surrogate to this.
 

Index procedure versus staged

O’Donoghue: For the operator who is coming in to do their STEMI case at 2:00 in the morning, would these data now push you toward doing complete revascularization at that time of night, or do you think that there is wiggle room in terms of interpreting these results regarding timing, where as long as you were doing it before hospital discharge and not, let’s say, 30 days out, that you may be able to derive the same benefit? What are some of the pros and cons?

Parikh: There’s definitely a fatigue factor in the middle of the night if it’s a particularly arduous intervention for the index infarct-related artery. I think there’s a human element where it may make sense just to stop and then bring the patient back in the same hospitalization. It’s clear, though, that doing complete revascularization is better and doing it sooner is better. How soon one actually does it is a judgment call, as ever.

In our practice, we’ve been pushing ourselves to get most of the patients done in their index hospitalization. If you have a left-sided culprit, the left anterior descending artery, for example, and there’s a high-grade stenosis in the circumflex, it may make sense to take care of that in the same index procedure. If, on the other hand, it’s in the right coronary artery where you have to put a new guide in and spend more time, that may be a patient whom you stage. I think those nuances will come up as interventionalists look at the subgroup analysis data more carefully.

O’Donoghue: Those are great points, and I think they also underscore that we always need to think about what type of patient was enrolled in these studies. Certainly, if you have somebody with renal dysfunction, there might be more concern about giving them a large contrast load all in one sitting, albeit hard to know whether they do or not. But spacing that out by just a couple of days would really have a big impact.

Parikh: Very often in the STEMI patient, you don’t have the benefit of knowing the creatinine. The patient will come in immediately, if not directly from the ambulance to the cath lab, and there are no laboratories at all to work with. If the patient has never been seen in the system before, you won’t know. Again, in those situations, one may have pause, particularly if it’s an older patient. I think what’s reassuring, though, is that the data are supportive of being more aggressive earlier, and certainly this is the dataset that we were looking for.

O’Donoghue: To summarize, the two key takeaways are that, one, we now have more data to support a complete revascularization strategy and even extending that now to non-STEMI patients. Two, sooner appears to be better, so ideally, all done at the time of the index procedure. I think this is very interesting science and we’ll see how it changes practice.

Thanks for joining me today. Signing off for Medscape, this is Dr. Michelle O’Donoghue.

Michelle O’Donoghue is a cardiologist at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and senior investigator with the TIMI Study Group.

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

ABSTRACT

Background: We sought to examine whether electrical impedance spectroscopy (EIS), a diagnostic tool approved by the US Food and Drug Administration for the evaluation of pigmented skin lesions (PSLs), is beneficial to primary care providers (PCPs) by comparing the accuracy of PCPs’ management decisions for PSLs based on visual examination alone with those based on concurrent visual and EIS evaluation.

Methods: Physicians and nurse practitioners (NPs) participated in an anonymous online survey in which they viewed clinical images of PSLs and were asked to make 2 clinical decisions before and after being provided an EIS score that indicated the likelihood that the lesion was a melanoma. They were asked (1) if they would biopsy the lesion/refer the patient out and (2) what they expected the pathology results would show.

Results: Forty-four physicians and 17 NPs participated, making clinical decisions for 1354 presented lesions. Overall, with the addition of EIS to visual inspection of clinical images, the sensitivity of biopsy/referral decisions for melanomas and severely dysplastic nevi (SDN) increased from 69.2% to 90.0% (P < .001), while specificity increased from 44.0% to 72.6% (P < .001). Physicians and NPs, regardless of years of experience, each saw significant improvements in sensitivity, specificity, and diagnostic accuracy with the addition of EIS scores.

Conclusions: The incorporation of EIS data into clinical decision-making by PCPs significantly increased the sensitivity and specificity of biopsy/referral decisions for melanomas and SDN and overall diagnostic accuracy compared with visual inspection alone. The results of this study suggest that diagnostic accuracy for PSLs by PCPs may be improved with adjunctive use of EIS with visual inspection.

Primary care providers (PCPs) are often the first line of defense in detecting skin cancers. For patients with concerning skin lesions, PCPs may choose to perform a biopsy or facilitate access to specialty services (eg, Dermatology). Consequently, PCPs play a critical role in the timely detection of skin cancers, and it is paramount to employ continually improving detection methods, such as the application of technologic advances.¹

Differentiating benign nevi from melanoma and severely dysplastic nevi (SDN), both of which warrant excision, poses a unique challenge to clinicians examining pigmented skin lesions (PSLs). PCPs often rely on visual inspection to differentiate benign skin lesions from malignant skin cancers. In some primary care practices, dermoscopy, which involves using a handheld device to evaluate lesions with polarized light and magnification, is used to improve melanoma detection. However, while visual inspection and dermoscopy are valid, effective techniques for the diagnosis of melanocytic lesions, in many instances they still can lead to missed cancers or unnecessary biopsies and specialty referrals. Adjunctive use of dermoscopy with visual inspection has been shown to increase the probability of skin cancer detection, but it fails to achieve a near-100% success rate.² Furthermore, dermoscopy is heavily user-dependent, requiring significant training and experience for appropriate use.³

Another option is an electrical impedance spectroscopy (EIS) device (Nevisense, Scibase, Stockholm, Sweden), which has been approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to assist in the detection of melanoma and differentiation from benign PSLs.⁴ EIS is a noninvasive, rapidly applied technology designed to accompany the visual examination of melanocytic lesions in office, with or without dermoscopy. Still relatively new, the technology is employed today by many dermatologists, increasing diagnostic accuracy for PSLs.⁵ The lightweight and portable instrument features a handheld probe, which is held against a lesion to obtain a reading. EIS uses a low-voltage electrode to apply a harmless electrical current to the skin at various frequencies.⁶ As benign and malignant tissues vary in cell shape, size, and composition, EIS distinguishes differential electrical resistance of the tissue to aid in diagnosis.⁷

Continue to: EIS provides high-sensitivity...

EIS provides high-sensitivity melanoma diagnosis vs histopathologic confirmation from biopsies, with 1 study showing a 96.6% sensitivity rating, detecting 256 of 265 melanomas.⁴ The EIS device, by measuring differences in electrical resistance between benign and cancerous cells, outputs a simple integer score ranging from 0 to 10 associated with the likelihood of the lesion being a melanoma.⁸ Based on data from the Nevisense pivotal trial,⁴ Nevisense reports that scores of 0 to 3 carry a negative predictive value of 99% for melanoma, whereas scores of 4 to 10 signify increasingly greater positive predictive values from 7% to 61%.

Findings suggest that the use of electrical impedance spectroscopy is particularly advantageous to clinicians who are less proficient in assessing melanocytic lesions.

We aimed to assess whether EIS may be beneficial to PCPs by comparing the accuracy of clinical decision-making for PSLs based on visual examination alone with that based on concurrent visual and EIS evaluation.

METHODS

A questionnaire was distributed via email to 142 clinicians at clinics affiliated with either of 2 organizations delivering care to the New York City area through a network of community health centers: the Institute for Family Health (IFH) and the Community Healthcare Network (CHN). Of these recipients, 72 were affiliated with IFH across 27 community health centers and 70 were affiliated with CHN across 14 community health centers. Recipients were physicians and nurse practitioners (NPs) practicing at primary health care facilities.

Survey instrument. The first section of the survey instrument (APPENDIX) solicited demographic information and explained how to apply the EIS scores for diagnostic ­decision-making. The second featured images of 12 randomly selected, histologically confirmed, and EIS-evaluated PSLs from a previously published prospective blinded trial of 2416 lesions.⁴ The Institutional Review Board of the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai reviewed and approved the study and survey instrument.

Clinical images of these lesions, comprising 4 melanocytic nevi, 4 dysplastic nevi (including 3 mild-moderately dysplastic and 1 severely dysplastic nevus), and 4 melanomas, were first presented to respondents with 2 tasks: (1) rate on a scale of 1 to 5 their likelihood to biopsy or refer this lesion to a dermatologist (1: not likely; 5: extremely likely); and (2) select what they expect the pathology results to be: melanocytic nevus, dysplastic nevus, or malignant melanoma. Subsequently, respondents repeated the assessments after being presented with the EIS score for the same lesion in conjunction with the clinical image.

Continue to: Analysis

Analysis. A biopsy or referral rating of 4 or 5 was considered a decision to biopsy or refer (ie, a diagnostic decision consistent with melanoma or SDN warranting excision), whereas a selection of 1 to 3 was considered a decision not to biopsy or refer (ie, a diagnostic decision consistent with a benign PSL). The sensitivity and specificity of biopsy/­referral decisions for melanomas and SDN, the proportion of missed melanomas and SDN, and the proportion of biopsy/referral decisions for benign lesions were separately determined for visual inspection alone and visual inspection with EIS score. Similarly, diagnostic accuracy was calculated for these clinical scenarios. These metrics were further stratified among different subsets of the respondent population. Differences in sensitivity, specificity, biopsy/referral decision proportions, and diagnostic accuracy were calculated using McNemar’s test for paired proportions.

RESULTS

Sixty-one respondents, comprising 44 physicians and 17 NPs, completed the survey, yielding a response rate of 43% (TABLE 1). In total, 1354 clinical decisions (677 based on visual inspection alone and 677 based on visual inspection plus EIS) were made. A biopsy/­referral decision was made after assessing 416 of 677 cases (61%) with visual inspection alone and 360 of 677 cases (53%) when relying on visual inspection plus EIS. None of the respondents reported any prior experience with EIS.

When incorporating EIS scores, respondents’ mean sensitivity for melanomas and SDN increased from 69.2% to 90.0% (P < .001) and specificity from 44.0% to 72.6% (P < .001; TABLE 2). At baseline, physicians demonstrated a sensitivity and specificity of 74.6% and 46.5%, respectively, while NPs demonstrated a sensitivity and specificity of 56.1% and 37.9%, respectively.

All respondent subgroups stratified by occupation and years of experience saw significant increases in both sensitivity and specificity upon the incorporation of EIS scores, with NPs seeing a greater increase in sensitivity (56.1% vs 85.4%; P < .001) and specificity (37.9% vs 69.0%; P < .001) than physicians (sensitivity: 74.6% vs 91.9%; P < .001; specificity: 46.5% vs 74.1%; P < .001). The only difference in diagnostic performance based on years of experience was a greater pre-EIS sensitivity by clinicians who had been in practice for ≥ 15 years, compared with those in practice for shorter periods (TABLE 2).

The improvements, seen in clinicians of varying training and experience, suggest that the learning curve of EIS may not be as steep as that of dermoscopy.

Diagnostic accuracy increased significantly from 48% when based on visual inspection alone to 73% with the addition of EIS scores (P < .001; TABLE 3). Physicians and NPs each significantly increased their diagnostic accuracy upon the incorporation of EIS, with NPs exhibiting the greatest increase (from 36.9% to 65.7%; P < .001). PCPs with 6 to 14 years of experience saw the greatest increase in diagnostic accuracy when adding EIS (45.9% vs 76.4%; P < .001). Overall, the addition of EIS scores resulted in 58 fewer missed melanomas and SDN and 114 fewer benign referrals or biopsies (TABLE 4).

Continue to: DISCUSSION

DISCUSSION

Primary care evaluation plays a significant role in the diagnosis and management of PSLs, ultimately shaping outcomes for patients with melanoma. Improved accuracy of PSL classification could yield greater sensitivity for the diagnosis of melanomas and high-risk melanocytic lesions at earlier stages, while also reducing the number of unnecessary biopsies and referrals—leading to decreased patient morbidity and mortality and reduced health care spending.⁹

Diagnostic tools are valuable insofar as they can improve accuracy and positively impact clinical management and patient outcomes.¹⁰ In this case, increased sensitivity reduced missed melanoma diagnoses, while increased specificity avoided the additional costs and patient toll associated with a biopsy or referral for a benign lesion.

Dermoscopy has been shown to improve the sensitivity and specificity of PSL diagnosis compared with visual inspection alone; however, without substantial training and experience, accuracy with dermoscopy can be no better than examination with the naked eye.^3,11,12 The dropout rates are high for training PCPs in its use, given that several months of training may be needed for competent use.^13,14 To improve the clinical management of PSLs broadly in primary care, a need exists for easy-to-use adjunctive tools that increase diagnostic accuracy.¹⁵

In this study, with only a brief explanation of how to interpret EIS scores, clinicians without any prior experience using EIS demonstrated significantly improved accuracy in deciding appropriate management and classifying melanocytic lesions with the addition of EIS to visual inspection. These improvements, seen in clinicians of varying training and experience, suggest that the learning curve of EIS may not be as steep as that of dermoscopy.

The greater baseline sensitivity, specificity, and diagnostic accuracy of physicians’ clinical decision-making compared with NPs before the incorporation of EIS in the study may be a product of comparatively more extensive medical training. In addition, EIS yielded a greater benefit to NPs than to physicians, with greater increases in sensitivity and specificity noted. This suggests that the use of EIS is particularly advantageous to clinicians who are less proficient in assessing melanocytic lesions. Using visual inspection alone, more experienced respondents made biopsy/referral decisions with greater sensitivity but similar specificity to those with less experience. With the incorporation of EIS scores, the sensitivity and specificity of respondents’ clinical decision-making rose to comparable levels across all experience groups, providing further indication of EIS’s particular value to clinicians who are less proficient in PSL evaluation.

Continue to: This technology holds the potential...

This technology holds the potential to be seamlessly implemented into primary care practice, given that dermatology expertise training is not required to use the EIS device; this could allow for EIS measurement of lesions to be delegated to office staff (eg, nurses, medical assistants).¹⁶ Future studies are needed to assess EIS use among PCPs in a real-world setting, where factors such as its application on nonmelanocytic lesions (eg, seborrheic keratoses) and its pairing with patient historical data could produce varying results.

Limitations. While revealing, this study had its limitations. Respondents did not have access to additional pertinent clinical information, such as patients’ histories and risk factors. Clinical decisions in this survey were made based on digital images rather than in vivo examination. This may not represent a real-life evaluation; there is the potential for minimization of the true consequences of a missed melanoma or unnecessary biopsy in the minds of participants, and this does not factor in the operation of the actual EIS device. The Hawthorne effect may also have influenced PCPs’ diagnostic selections. Also, the limited sample size constitutes another limitation.

The results of this preliminary study suggest that diagnostic accuracy for pigmented skin lesions by PCPs may be improved with the adjunctive use of electrical impedance spectroscopy with visual inspection.

Of note, in this survey format, respondents rated their inclination to biopsy or refer each lesion from 1 to 5. For statistical analyses, lesions rated 1 to 3 were considered as not biopsied/referred and those rated 4 to 5 as biopsied/referred. The sensitivity and specificity values observed, for both visual examination and concurrent visual and EIS evaluation, are therefore based on this classification system of participants’ provided ratings. It is conceivable that differing sensitivity and specificity values might have been detected if clinicians were instead given a binary choice for referral/biopsy decisions.

CONCLUSIONS

Among PCPs tasked with evaluating melanocytic lesions, the incorporation of EIS data into clinical decision-making in this study significantly increased the sensitivity, specificity, and overall diagnostic accuracy of biopsy or referral decisions for melanomas and SDN compared with visual inspection alone. Overall, the results of this preliminary study suggest that diagnostic accuracy for PSLs by PCPs may be improved with the adjunctive use of EIS with visual inspection. This would ultimately improve patient care and reduce the morbidity and mortality of a melanoma diagnosis.

CORRESPONDENCE
Jonathan Ungar, MD, Kimberly and Eric J. Waldman Department of Dermatology, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, 5 East 98th Street, 5th Floor, New York, NY 10029; [email protected]

ABSTRACT

Background: We sought to examine whether electrical impedance spectroscopy (EIS), a diagnostic tool approved by the US Food and Drug Administration for the evaluation of pigmented skin lesions (PSLs), is beneficial to primary care providers (PCPs) by comparing the accuracy of PCPs’ management decisions for PSLs based on visual examination alone with those based on concurrent visual and EIS evaluation.

Methods: Physicians and nurse practitioners (NPs) participated in an anonymous online survey in which they viewed clinical images of PSLs and were asked to make 2 clinical decisions before and after being provided an EIS score that indicated the likelihood that the lesion was a melanoma. They were asked (1) if they would biopsy the lesion/refer the patient out and (2) what they expected the pathology results would show.

Results: Forty-four physicians and 17 NPs participated, making clinical decisions for 1354 presented lesions. Overall, with the addition of EIS to visual inspection of clinical images, the sensitivity of biopsy/referral decisions for melanomas and severely dysplastic nevi (SDN) increased from 69.2% to 90.0% (P < .001), while specificity increased from 44.0% to 72.6% (P < .001). Physicians and NPs, regardless of years of experience, each saw significant improvements in sensitivity, specificity, and diagnostic accuracy with the addition of EIS scores.

Conclusions: The incorporation of EIS data into clinical decision-making by PCPs significantly increased the sensitivity and specificity of biopsy/referral decisions for melanomas and SDN and overall diagnostic accuracy compared with visual inspection alone. The results of this study suggest that diagnostic accuracy for PSLs by PCPs may be improved with adjunctive use of EIS with visual inspection.

Primary care providers (PCPs) are often the first line of defense in detecting skin cancers. For patients with concerning skin lesions, PCPs may choose to perform a biopsy or facilitate access to specialty services (eg, Dermatology). Consequently, PCPs play a critical role in the timely detection of skin cancers, and it is paramount to employ continually improving detection methods, such as the application of technologic advances.¹

Differentiating benign nevi from melanoma and severely dysplastic nevi (SDN), both of which warrant excision, poses a unique challenge to clinicians examining pigmented skin lesions (PSLs). PCPs often rely on visual inspection to differentiate benign skin lesions from malignant skin cancers. In some primary care practices, dermoscopy, which involves using a handheld device to evaluate lesions with polarized light and magnification, is used to improve melanoma detection. However, while visual inspection and dermoscopy are valid, effective techniques for the diagnosis of melanocytic lesions, in many instances they still can lead to missed cancers or unnecessary biopsies and specialty referrals. Adjunctive use of dermoscopy with visual inspection has been shown to increase the probability of skin cancer detection, but it fails to achieve a near-100% success rate.² Furthermore, dermoscopy is heavily user-dependent, requiring significant training and experience for appropriate use.³

Another option is an electrical impedance spectroscopy (EIS) device (Nevisense, Scibase, Stockholm, Sweden), which has been approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to assist in the detection of melanoma and differentiation from benign PSLs.⁴ EIS is a noninvasive, rapidly applied technology designed to accompany the visual examination of melanocytic lesions in office, with or without dermoscopy. Still relatively new, the technology is employed today by many dermatologists, increasing diagnostic accuracy for PSLs.⁵ The lightweight and portable instrument features a handheld probe, which is held against a lesion to obtain a reading. EIS uses a low-voltage electrode to apply a harmless electrical current to the skin at various frequencies.⁶ As benign and malignant tissues vary in cell shape, size, and composition, EIS distinguishes differential electrical resistance of the tissue to aid in diagnosis.⁷

Continue to: EIS provides high-sensitivity...

EIS provides high-sensitivity melanoma diagnosis vs histopathologic confirmation from biopsies, with 1 study showing a 96.6% sensitivity rating, detecting 256 of 265 melanomas.⁴ The EIS device, by measuring differences in electrical resistance between benign and cancerous cells, outputs a simple integer score ranging from 0 to 10 associated with the likelihood of the lesion being a melanoma.⁸ Based on data from the Nevisense pivotal trial,⁴ Nevisense reports that scores of 0 to 3 carry a negative predictive value of 99% for melanoma, whereas scores of 4 to 10 signify increasingly greater positive predictive values from 7% to 61%.

Findings suggest that the use of electrical impedance spectroscopy is particularly advantageous to clinicians who are less proficient in assessing melanocytic lesions.

We aimed to assess whether EIS may be beneficial to PCPs by comparing the accuracy of clinical decision-making for PSLs based on visual examination alone with that based on concurrent visual and EIS evaluation.

METHODS

A questionnaire was distributed via email to 142 clinicians at clinics affiliated with either of 2 organizations delivering care to the New York City area through a network of community health centers: the Institute for Family Health (IFH) and the Community Healthcare Network (CHN). Of these recipients, 72 were affiliated with IFH across 27 community health centers and 70 were affiliated with CHN across 14 community health centers. Recipients were physicians and nurse practitioners (NPs) practicing at primary health care facilities.

Survey instrument. The first section of the survey instrument (APPENDIX) solicited demographic information and explained how to apply the EIS scores for diagnostic ­decision-making. The second featured images of 12 randomly selected, histologically confirmed, and EIS-evaluated PSLs from a previously published prospective blinded trial of 2416 lesions.⁴ The Institutional Review Board of the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai reviewed and approved the study and survey instrument.

Clinical images of these lesions, comprising 4 melanocytic nevi, 4 dysplastic nevi (including 3 mild-moderately dysplastic and 1 severely dysplastic nevus), and 4 melanomas, were first presented to respondents with 2 tasks: (1) rate on a scale of 1 to 5 their likelihood to biopsy or refer this lesion to a dermatologist (1: not likely; 5: extremely likely); and (2) select what they expect the pathology results to be: melanocytic nevus, dysplastic nevus, or malignant melanoma. Subsequently, respondents repeated the assessments after being presented with the EIS score for the same lesion in conjunction with the clinical image.

Continue to: Analysis

Analysis. A biopsy or referral rating of 4 or 5 was considered a decision to biopsy or refer (ie, a diagnostic decision consistent with melanoma or SDN warranting excision), whereas a selection of 1 to 3 was considered a decision not to biopsy or refer (ie, a diagnostic decision consistent with a benign PSL). The sensitivity and specificity of biopsy/­referral decisions for melanomas and SDN, the proportion of missed melanomas and SDN, and the proportion of biopsy/referral decisions for benign lesions were separately determined for visual inspection alone and visual inspection with EIS score. Similarly, diagnostic accuracy was calculated for these clinical scenarios. These metrics were further stratified among different subsets of the respondent population. Differences in sensitivity, specificity, biopsy/referral decision proportions, and diagnostic accuracy were calculated using McNemar’s test for paired proportions.

RESULTS

Sixty-one respondents, comprising 44 physicians and 17 NPs, completed the survey, yielding a response rate of 43% (TABLE 1). In total, 1354 clinical decisions (677 based on visual inspection alone and 677 based on visual inspection plus EIS) were made. A biopsy/­referral decision was made after assessing 416 of 677 cases (61%) with visual inspection alone and 360 of 677 cases (53%) when relying on visual inspection plus EIS. None of the respondents reported any prior experience with EIS.

When incorporating EIS scores, respondents’ mean sensitivity for melanomas and SDN increased from 69.2% to 90.0% (P < .001) and specificity from 44.0% to 72.6% (P < .001; TABLE 2). At baseline, physicians demonstrated a sensitivity and specificity of 74.6% and 46.5%, respectively, while NPs demonstrated a sensitivity and specificity of 56.1% and 37.9%, respectively.

All respondent subgroups stratified by occupation and years of experience saw significant increases in both sensitivity and specificity upon the incorporation of EIS scores, with NPs seeing a greater increase in sensitivity (56.1% vs 85.4%; P < .001) and specificity (37.9% vs 69.0%; P < .001) than physicians (sensitivity: 74.6% vs 91.9%; P < .001; specificity: 46.5% vs 74.1%; P < .001). The only difference in diagnostic performance based on years of experience was a greater pre-EIS sensitivity by clinicians who had been in practice for ≥ 15 years, compared with those in practice for shorter periods (TABLE 2).

The improvements, seen in clinicians of varying training and experience, suggest that the learning curve of EIS may not be as steep as that of dermoscopy.

Diagnostic accuracy increased significantly from 48% when based on visual inspection alone to 73% with the addition of EIS scores (P < .001; TABLE 3). Physicians and NPs each significantly increased their diagnostic accuracy upon the incorporation of EIS, with NPs exhibiting the greatest increase (from 36.9% to 65.7%; P < .001). PCPs with 6 to 14 years of experience saw the greatest increase in diagnostic accuracy when adding EIS (45.9% vs 76.4%; P < .001). Overall, the addition of EIS scores resulted in 58 fewer missed melanomas and SDN and 114 fewer benign referrals or biopsies (TABLE 4).

Continue to: DISCUSSION

DISCUSSION

Primary care evaluation plays a significant role in the diagnosis and management of PSLs, ultimately shaping outcomes for patients with melanoma. Improved accuracy of PSL classification could yield greater sensitivity for the diagnosis of melanomas and high-risk melanocytic lesions at earlier stages, while also reducing the number of unnecessary biopsies and referrals—leading to decreased patient morbidity and mortality and reduced health care spending.⁹

Diagnostic tools are valuable insofar as they can improve accuracy and positively impact clinical management and patient outcomes.¹⁰ In this case, increased sensitivity reduced missed melanoma diagnoses, while increased specificity avoided the additional costs and patient toll associated with a biopsy or referral for a benign lesion.

Dermoscopy has been shown to improve the sensitivity and specificity of PSL diagnosis compared with visual inspection alone; however, without substantial training and experience, accuracy with dermoscopy can be no better than examination with the naked eye.^3,11,12 The dropout rates are high for training PCPs in its use, given that several months of training may be needed for competent use.^13,14 To improve the clinical management of PSLs broadly in primary care, a need exists for easy-to-use adjunctive tools that increase diagnostic accuracy.¹⁵

In this study, with only a brief explanation of how to interpret EIS scores, clinicians without any prior experience using EIS demonstrated significantly improved accuracy in deciding appropriate management and classifying melanocytic lesions with the addition of EIS to visual inspection. These improvements, seen in clinicians of varying training and experience, suggest that the learning curve of EIS may not be as steep as that of dermoscopy.

The greater baseline sensitivity, specificity, and diagnostic accuracy of physicians’ clinical decision-making compared with NPs before the incorporation of EIS in the study may be a product of comparatively more extensive medical training. In addition, EIS yielded a greater benefit to NPs than to physicians, with greater increases in sensitivity and specificity noted. This suggests that the use of EIS is particularly advantageous to clinicians who are less proficient in assessing melanocytic lesions. Using visual inspection alone, more experienced respondents made biopsy/referral decisions with greater sensitivity but similar specificity to those with less experience. With the incorporation of EIS scores, the sensitivity and specificity of respondents’ clinical decision-making rose to comparable levels across all experience groups, providing further indication of EIS’s particular value to clinicians who are less proficient in PSL evaluation.

Continue to: This technology holds the potential...

This technology holds the potential to be seamlessly implemented into primary care practice, given that dermatology expertise training is not required to use the EIS device; this could allow for EIS measurement of lesions to be delegated to office staff (eg, nurses, medical assistants).¹⁶ Future studies are needed to assess EIS use among PCPs in a real-world setting, where factors such as its application on nonmelanocytic lesions (eg, seborrheic keratoses) and its pairing with patient historical data could produce varying results.

Limitations. While revealing, this study had its limitations. Respondents did not have access to additional pertinent clinical information, such as patients’ histories and risk factors. Clinical decisions in this survey were made based on digital images rather than in vivo examination. This may not represent a real-life evaluation; there is the potential for minimization of the true consequences of a missed melanoma or unnecessary biopsy in the minds of participants, and this does not factor in the operation of the actual EIS device. The Hawthorne effect may also have influenced PCPs’ diagnostic selections. Also, the limited sample size constitutes another limitation.

The results of this preliminary study suggest that diagnostic accuracy for pigmented skin lesions by PCPs may be improved with the adjunctive use of electrical impedance spectroscopy with visual inspection.

Of note, in this survey format, respondents rated their inclination to biopsy or refer each lesion from 1 to 5. For statistical analyses, lesions rated 1 to 3 were considered as not biopsied/referred and those rated 4 to 5 as biopsied/referred. The sensitivity and specificity values observed, for both visual examination and concurrent visual and EIS evaluation, are therefore based on this classification system of participants’ provided ratings. It is conceivable that differing sensitivity and specificity values might have been detected if clinicians were instead given a binary choice for referral/biopsy decisions.

CONCLUSIONS

Among PCPs tasked with evaluating melanocytic lesions, the incorporation of EIS data into clinical decision-making in this study significantly increased the sensitivity, specificity, and overall diagnostic accuracy of biopsy or referral decisions for melanomas and SDN compared with visual inspection alone. Overall, the results of this preliminary study suggest that diagnostic accuracy for PSLs by PCPs may be improved with the adjunctive use of EIS with visual inspection. This would ultimately improve patient care and reduce the morbidity and mortality of a melanoma diagnosis.

CORRESPONDENCE
Jonathan Ungar, MD, Kimberly and Eric J. Waldman Department of Dermatology, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, 5 East 98th Street, 5th Floor, New York, NY 10029; [email protected]

ABSTRACT

Background: We sought to examine whether electrical impedance spectroscopy (EIS), a diagnostic tool approved by the US Food and Drug Administration for the evaluation of pigmented skin lesions (PSLs), is beneficial to primary care providers (PCPs) by comparing the accuracy of PCPs’ management decisions for PSLs based on visual examination alone with those based on concurrent visual and EIS evaluation.

Methods: Physicians and nurse practitioners (NPs) participated in an anonymous online survey in which they viewed clinical images of PSLs and were asked to make 2 clinical decisions before and after being provided an EIS score that indicated the likelihood that the lesion was a melanoma. They were asked (1) if they would biopsy the lesion/refer the patient out and (2) what they expected the pathology results would show.

Results: Forty-four physicians and 17 NPs participated, making clinical decisions for 1354 presented lesions. Overall, with the addition of EIS to visual inspection of clinical images, the sensitivity of biopsy/referral decisions for melanomas and severely dysplastic nevi (SDN) increased from 69.2% to 90.0% (P < .001), while specificity increased from 44.0% to 72.6% (P < .001). Physicians and NPs, regardless of years of experience, each saw significant improvements in sensitivity, specificity, and diagnostic accuracy with the addition of EIS scores.

Conclusions: The incorporation of EIS data into clinical decision-making by PCPs significantly increased the sensitivity and specificity of biopsy/referral decisions for melanomas and SDN and overall diagnostic accuracy compared with visual inspection alone. The results of this study suggest that diagnostic accuracy for PSLs by PCPs may be improved with adjunctive use of EIS with visual inspection.

Primary care providers (PCPs) are often the first line of defense in detecting skin cancers. For patients with concerning skin lesions, PCPs may choose to perform a biopsy or facilitate access to specialty services (eg, Dermatology). Consequently, PCPs play a critical role in the timely detection of skin cancers, and it is paramount to employ continually improving detection methods, such as the application of technologic advances.¹

Differentiating benign nevi from melanoma and severely dysplastic nevi (SDN), both of which warrant excision, poses a unique challenge to clinicians examining pigmented skin lesions (PSLs). PCPs often rely on visual inspection to differentiate benign skin lesions from malignant skin cancers. In some primary care practices, dermoscopy, which involves using a handheld device to evaluate lesions with polarized light and magnification, is used to improve melanoma detection. However, while visual inspection and dermoscopy are valid, effective techniques for the diagnosis of melanocytic lesions, in many instances they still can lead to missed cancers or unnecessary biopsies and specialty referrals. Adjunctive use of dermoscopy with visual inspection has been shown to increase the probability of skin cancer detection, but it fails to achieve a near-100% success rate.² Furthermore, dermoscopy is heavily user-dependent, requiring significant training and experience for appropriate use.³

Another option is an electrical impedance spectroscopy (EIS) device (Nevisense, Scibase, Stockholm, Sweden), which has been approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to assist in the detection of melanoma and differentiation from benign PSLs.⁴ EIS is a noninvasive, rapidly applied technology designed to accompany the visual examination of melanocytic lesions in office, with or without dermoscopy. Still relatively new, the technology is employed today by many dermatologists, increasing diagnostic accuracy for PSLs.⁵ The lightweight and portable instrument features a handheld probe, which is held against a lesion to obtain a reading. EIS uses a low-voltage electrode to apply a harmless electrical current to the skin at various frequencies.⁶ As benign and malignant tissues vary in cell shape, size, and composition, EIS distinguishes differential electrical resistance of the tissue to aid in diagnosis.⁷

Continue to: EIS provides high-sensitivity...

EIS provides high-sensitivity melanoma diagnosis vs histopathologic confirmation from biopsies, with 1 study showing a 96.6% sensitivity rating, detecting 256 of 265 melanomas.⁴ The EIS device, by measuring differences in electrical resistance between benign and cancerous cells, outputs a simple integer score ranging from 0 to 10 associated with the likelihood of the lesion being a melanoma.⁸ Based on data from the Nevisense pivotal trial,⁴ Nevisense reports that scores of 0 to 3 carry a negative predictive value of 99% for melanoma, whereas scores of 4 to 10 signify increasingly greater positive predictive values from 7% to 61%.

Findings suggest that the use of electrical impedance spectroscopy is particularly advantageous to clinicians who are less proficient in assessing melanocytic lesions.

We aimed to assess whether EIS may be beneficial to PCPs by comparing the accuracy of clinical decision-making for PSLs based on visual examination alone with that based on concurrent visual and EIS evaluation.

METHODS

A questionnaire was distributed via email to 142 clinicians at clinics affiliated with either of 2 organizations delivering care to the New York City area through a network of community health centers: the Institute for Family Health (IFH) and the Community Healthcare Network (CHN). Of these recipients, 72 were affiliated with IFH across 27 community health centers and 70 were affiliated with CHN across 14 community health centers. Recipients were physicians and nurse practitioners (NPs) practicing at primary health care facilities.

Survey instrument. The first section of the survey instrument (APPENDIX) solicited demographic information and explained how to apply the EIS scores for diagnostic ­decision-making. The second featured images of 12 randomly selected, histologically confirmed, and EIS-evaluated PSLs from a previously published prospective blinded trial of 2416 lesions.⁴ The Institutional Review Board of the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai reviewed and approved the study and survey instrument.

Clinical images of these lesions, comprising 4 melanocytic nevi, 4 dysplastic nevi (including 3 mild-moderately dysplastic and 1 severely dysplastic nevus), and 4 melanomas, were first presented to respondents with 2 tasks: (1) rate on a scale of 1 to 5 their likelihood to biopsy or refer this lesion to a dermatologist (1: not likely; 5: extremely likely); and (2) select what they expect the pathology results to be: melanocytic nevus, dysplastic nevus, or malignant melanoma. Subsequently, respondents repeated the assessments after being presented with the EIS score for the same lesion in conjunction with the clinical image.

Continue to: Analysis

Analysis. A biopsy or referral rating of 4 or 5 was considered a decision to biopsy or refer (ie, a diagnostic decision consistent with melanoma or SDN warranting excision), whereas a selection of 1 to 3 was considered a decision not to biopsy or refer (ie, a diagnostic decision consistent with a benign PSL). The sensitivity and specificity of biopsy/­referral decisions for melanomas and SDN, the proportion of missed melanomas and SDN, and the proportion of biopsy/referral decisions for benign lesions were separately determined for visual inspection alone and visual inspection with EIS score. Similarly, diagnostic accuracy was calculated for these clinical scenarios. These metrics were further stratified among different subsets of the respondent population. Differences in sensitivity, specificity, biopsy/referral decision proportions, and diagnostic accuracy were calculated using McNemar’s test for paired proportions.

RESULTS

Sixty-one respondents, comprising 44 physicians and 17 NPs, completed the survey, yielding a response rate of 43% (TABLE 1). In total, 1354 clinical decisions (677 based on visual inspection alone and 677 based on visual inspection plus EIS) were made. A biopsy/­referral decision was made after assessing 416 of 677 cases (61%) with visual inspection alone and 360 of 677 cases (53%) when relying on visual inspection plus EIS. None of the respondents reported any prior experience with EIS.

When incorporating EIS scores, respondents’ mean sensitivity for melanomas and SDN increased from 69.2% to 90.0% (P < .001) and specificity from 44.0% to 72.6% (P < .001; TABLE 2). At baseline, physicians demonstrated a sensitivity and specificity of 74.6% and 46.5%, respectively, while NPs demonstrated a sensitivity and specificity of 56.1% and 37.9%, respectively.

All respondent subgroups stratified by occupation and years of experience saw significant increases in both sensitivity and specificity upon the incorporation of EIS scores, with NPs seeing a greater increase in sensitivity (56.1% vs 85.4%; P < .001) and specificity (37.9% vs 69.0%; P < .001) than physicians (sensitivity: 74.6% vs 91.9%; P < .001; specificity: 46.5% vs 74.1%; P < .001). The only difference in diagnostic performance based on years of experience was a greater pre-EIS sensitivity by clinicians who had been in practice for ≥ 15 years, compared with those in practice for shorter periods (TABLE 2).

The improvements, seen in clinicians of varying training and experience, suggest that the learning curve of EIS may not be as steep as that of dermoscopy.

Diagnostic accuracy increased significantly from 48% when based on visual inspection alone to 73% with the addition of EIS scores (P < .001; TABLE 3). Physicians and NPs each significantly increased their diagnostic accuracy upon the incorporation of EIS, with NPs exhibiting the greatest increase (from 36.9% to 65.7%; P < .001). PCPs with 6 to 14 years of experience saw the greatest increase in diagnostic accuracy when adding EIS (45.9% vs 76.4%; P < .001). Overall, the addition of EIS scores resulted in 58 fewer missed melanomas and SDN and 114 fewer benign referrals or biopsies (TABLE 4).

Continue to: DISCUSSION

DISCUSSION

Primary care evaluation plays a significant role in the diagnosis and management of PSLs, ultimately shaping outcomes for patients with melanoma. Improved accuracy of PSL classification could yield greater sensitivity for the diagnosis of melanomas and high-risk melanocytic lesions at earlier stages, while also reducing the number of unnecessary biopsies and referrals—leading to decreased patient morbidity and mortality and reduced health care spending.⁹

Diagnostic tools are valuable insofar as they can improve accuracy and positively impact clinical management and patient outcomes.¹⁰ In this case, increased sensitivity reduced missed melanoma diagnoses, while increased specificity avoided the additional costs and patient toll associated with a biopsy or referral for a benign lesion.

Dermoscopy has been shown to improve the sensitivity and specificity of PSL diagnosis compared with visual inspection alone; however, without substantial training and experience, accuracy with dermoscopy can be no better than examination with the naked eye.^3,11,12 The dropout rates are high for training PCPs in its use, given that several months of training may be needed for competent use.^13,14 To improve the clinical management of PSLs broadly in primary care, a need exists for easy-to-use adjunctive tools that increase diagnostic accuracy.¹⁵

In this study, with only a brief explanation of how to interpret EIS scores, clinicians without any prior experience using EIS demonstrated significantly improved accuracy in deciding appropriate management and classifying melanocytic lesions with the addition of EIS to visual inspection. These improvements, seen in clinicians of varying training and experience, suggest that the learning curve of EIS may not be as steep as that of dermoscopy.

The greater baseline sensitivity, specificity, and diagnostic accuracy of physicians’ clinical decision-making compared with NPs before the incorporation of EIS in the study may be a product of comparatively more extensive medical training. In addition, EIS yielded a greater benefit to NPs than to physicians, with greater increases in sensitivity and specificity noted. This suggests that the use of EIS is particularly advantageous to clinicians who are less proficient in assessing melanocytic lesions. Using visual inspection alone, more experienced respondents made biopsy/referral decisions with greater sensitivity but similar specificity to those with less experience. With the incorporation of EIS scores, the sensitivity and specificity of respondents’ clinical decision-making rose to comparable levels across all experience groups, providing further indication of EIS’s particular value to clinicians who are less proficient in PSL evaluation.

Continue to: This technology holds the potential...

This technology holds the potential to be seamlessly implemented into primary care practice, given that dermatology expertise training is not required to use the EIS device; this could allow for EIS measurement of lesions to be delegated to office staff (eg, nurses, medical assistants).¹⁶ Future studies are needed to assess EIS use among PCPs in a real-world setting, where factors such as its application on nonmelanocytic lesions (eg, seborrheic keratoses) and its pairing with patient historical data could produce varying results.

Limitations. While revealing, this study had its limitations. Respondents did not have access to additional pertinent clinical information, such as patients’ histories and risk factors. Clinical decisions in this survey were made based on digital images rather than in vivo examination. This may not represent a real-life evaluation; there is the potential for minimization of the true consequences of a missed melanoma or unnecessary biopsy in the minds of participants, and this does not factor in the operation of the actual EIS device. The Hawthorne effect may also have influenced PCPs’ diagnostic selections. Also, the limited sample size constitutes another limitation.

The results of this preliminary study suggest that diagnostic accuracy for pigmented skin lesions by PCPs may be improved with the adjunctive use of electrical impedance spectroscopy with visual inspection.

Of note, in this survey format, respondents rated their inclination to biopsy or refer each lesion from 1 to 5. For statistical analyses, lesions rated 1 to 3 were considered as not biopsied/referred and those rated 4 to 5 as biopsied/referred. The sensitivity and specificity values observed, for both visual examination and concurrent visual and EIS evaluation, are therefore based on this classification system of participants’ provided ratings. It is conceivable that differing sensitivity and specificity values might have been detected if clinicians were instead given a binary choice for referral/biopsy decisions.

CONCLUSIONS

Among PCPs tasked with evaluating melanocytic lesions, the incorporation of EIS data into clinical decision-making in this study significantly increased the sensitivity, specificity, and overall diagnostic accuracy of biopsy or referral decisions for melanomas and SDN compared with visual inspection alone. Overall, the results of this preliminary study suggest that diagnostic accuracy for PSLs by PCPs may be improved with the adjunctive use of EIS with visual inspection. This would ultimately improve patient care and reduce the morbidity and mortality of a melanoma diagnosis.

CORRESPONDENCE
Jonathan Ungar, MD, Kimberly and Eric J. Waldman Department of Dermatology, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, 5 East 98th Street, 5th Floor, New York, NY 10029; [email protected]