User login
What 2019’s top five CAD trials tell us
SNOWMASS, COLO. – A repeated theme threading through much of one prominent interventional cardiologist’s personal list of the top five coronary artery disease (CAD) trials of the past year is that aspirin is very often more trouble than it’s worth.
“For some years I’ve been concerned that the only thing that aspirin does [in patients after percutaneous coronary intervention] is increase your risk of bleeding. It doesn’t really provide any additional ischemic protection,” Malcolm R. Bell, MBBS, said at the annual Cardiovascular Conference at Snowmass sponsored by the American College of Cardiology.
“I’ll remind you that, when we go back to the early stent days, observed Dr. Bell, professor of medicine and vice chair of the department of cardiovascular medicine at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn.
Here are the key takeaway messages from his five most important randomized trials in CAD during the last year.
AUGUSTUS
For years, cardiologists have grappled with how to best manage high-cardiovascular-risk patients with atrial fibrillation who seem like they might benefit from triple-antithrombotic therapy. AUGUSTUS supplied the answer: Don’t do it. Skip the aspirin and turn instead to a P2Y12 inhibitor plus a non–vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulant (NOAC), rather than warfarin.
“I would like you to think of triple therapy as a triple threat. That’s really what triple therapy is all about”– a three-pronged threat to patient safety, Dr. Bell commented.
In AUGUSTUS, 4,614 patients with atrial fibrillation and CAD with an acute coronary syndrome (ACS) and/or percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in 33 countries were placed on a P2Y12 inhibitor – most often clopidogrel – and randomized double blind to either apixaban (Eliquis) or warfarin, and further to aspirin or placebo, for 6 months of antithrombotic therapy. The strategy of a P2Y12 inhibitor and apixaban without aspirin was the clear winner, resulting in significantly less major bleeding, mortality, and hospitalizations than treatment with a P2Y12 inhibitor and warfarin, with or without aspirin. Most importantly, ischemic event rates didn’t differ between the apixaban and warfarin groups. And patients randomized to aspirin had rates of ischemic events and death or hospitalization similar to placebo-treated controls, meaning aspirin accomplished nothing (N Engl J Med. 2019 Apr 18;380[16]:1509-24).
Dr. Bell noted that a meta-analysis of AUGUSTUS and three smaller randomized trials including more than 10,000 AUGUSTUS-type patients with atrial fibrillation concluded that a treatment strategy utilizing a NOAC and a P2Y12 inhibitor resulted in less bleeding than warfarin plus DAPT, and at no cost in terms of excess ischemic events. Moreover, regimens without aspirin resulted in less intracranial and other major bleeding without any difference in major adverse cardiovascular events (JAMA Cardiol. 2019 Jun 19. doi: 10.1001/jamacardio.2019.1880).
A key message of these four trials is that a NOAC is preferable to warfarin, so much so that, in high-risk patients who are already on warfarin, it’s worth considering a switch to a NOAC.
“And we should really be avoiding DAPT,” Dr. Bell added.
How soon after an ACS and/or PCI should patients with atrial fibrillation stop taking aspirin?
“In AUGUSTUS, randomization occurred at a median of 6 days, so we know that half the patients stopped their aspirin by then. In our own practice, we’re just dropping the aspirin for the most part before the patient leaves the hospital. I think if you leave them with instructions to stop the aspirin in a week’s time or a month’s time it just leads to confusion. And we should also remember that half of the major bleeding after PCI or ACS happens in the first 30 days, so it doesn’t make a lot of sense to say that we should continue it for a month and then drop it,” according to the cardiologist.
SMART-CHOICE and STOPDAPT-2
These two large multicenter studies demonstrate that DAPT can safely be stopped early if needed. SMART-CHOICE from South Korea and STOPDAPT-2 from Japan each randomized roughly 3,000 patients undergoing PCI to 12 months of DAPT or to DAPT for only 3 months or 1 month, respectively, at which point the aspirin was dropped and patients in the abbreviated DAPT arm continued on P2Y12 inhibitor monotherapy, mostly clopidogrel, for the remainder of the 12 months. In the Japanese STOPDAPT-2 trial, 1 month of DAPT proved superior to 12 months of DAPT for the primary composite endpoint of cardiovascular death, MI, stroke, definite stent thrombosis, or major or minor bleeding at 12 months (JAMA. 2019 Jun 25;321[24]:2414-27). In the South Korean SMART-CHOICE trial, 3 months of DAPT was noninferior to 12 months for major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events, and superior in terms of bleeding risk (JAMA. 2019 Jun 25;321[24]:2428-37). Of note, roughly half of patients in the two trials were lower-risk individuals undergoing PCI for stable angina.
Dr. Bell noted that, while the TWILIGHT trial (Ticagrelor With or Without Aspirin in High-Risk Patients After PCI) didn’t make his top-five list, it certainly fits well with the two East Asian studies. The TWILIGHT investigators randomized more than 7,000 patients to 12 months of DAPT or discontinuation of aspirin after 3 months. The result: a lower incidence of clinically relevant bleeding with ticagrelor monotherapy, and with no increased risk of death, MI, or stroke, compared with 12 months of DAPT (N Engl J Med. 2019 Nov 21;381[21]:2032-42).
“Again, I would just question what the added value of aspirin is here,” Dr. Bell commented. “Many interventional cardiologists are absolutely terrified of their patients having stent thrombosis, but with second-generation drug-eluting stents – the stents we’re putting in day in and day out – the risk of stent thrombosis is less than 1%. And in these two trials it was less than 0.5%. There’s more risk of having major bleeding events than there is of ischemia, so I think the balance is in favor of preventing bleeding. We know that major bleeding predicts short- and long-term mortality.”
COLCOT
This double-blind trial randomized 4,745 patients within 30 days post MI to low-dose colchicine or placebo on top of excellent rates of background guideline-directed medical therapy. The goal was to see if this anti-inflammatory agent could reduce cardiovascular events independent of any lipid-lowering effect, as was earlier seen with canakinumab in the CANTOS trial. It did so to a statistically significant but relatively modest degree, with a 5.5% rate of the composite cardiovascular events endpoint in the colchicine group and 7.1% in placebo-treated controls (N Engl J Med. 2019 Dec 26;381[26]:2497-505). But Dr. Bell was unimpressed.
“All-cause mortality was identical at 1.8% in both groups. So colchicine is not saving lives. In fact, the only real differences were in stroke – but the study wasn’t powered to look at stroke – and in urgent hospitalization for angina leading to revascularization, which is a soft endpoint,” he observed.
Plus, 2.5% of patients were lost to follow-up, which Dr. Bell considers “a little concerning” in a trial conducted in the current era.
“In my opinion, the evidence that colchicine is effective is weak, and I don’t think really supports the drug’s routine use post MI. We already send these patients out on numerous medications. We have to think about cost/benefit, and if a patient asks me: ‘Is this going to prevent another heart attack or make me live longer?’ I think the unequivocal answer is no,” he said.
These days colchicine is no longer an inexpensive drug, either, at an average cost of $300-$400 per month, the cardiologist added.
COMPLETE
This study randomized more than 4,000 patients with ST-segment elevation MI (STEMI) and multivessel disease to primary PCI of the culprit lesion only or to staged complete revascularization via PCI of all angiographically significant nonculprit lesions. Complete revascularization proved to be the superior strategy, with a 26% reduction in the risk of the composite of cardiovascular death or MI at a median of 3 years (N Engl J Med. 2019 Oct 10;381[15]:1411-21).
The optimal timing of the staged procedure remains unclear, since the study didn’t specify a protocol.
“I’m still a bit uncomfortable doing multivessel PCI at 2 o’clock in the morning in the setting of STEMI in someone I’ve never met before. I don’t think there’s a rush to do anything then. Often in this middle-of-the-night stuff, we miss things or we overinterpret things. I think it’s better to let the patient cool down, get to know them,” according to Dr. Bell.
EXCEL
Publication of the 5-year outcomes of the largest-ever randomized trial of PCI versus coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) for left main coronary disease has led to furious controversy, with a few of the surgeons involved in the study opting to publically broadcast allegations of misbehavior on the part of the interventional cardiologist study leadership, charges that have been strongly denied.
The actual results are in line with findings reported from smaller randomized trials. At 5 years in EXCEL, there was no significant difference between the PCI and CABG groups in the primary composite endpoint of death, cerebrovascular accident, or MI (N Engl J Med. 2019 Nov 7;381[19]:1820-30). The all-cause mortality rate was 13% in the PCI arm and 9.9% with CABG, but this finding comes with a caveat.
“I’ll emphasize this trial was never powered to look at mortality. Neither were any of the other randomized trials. On the other hand, I don’t think you can necessarily ignore the finding of an absolute 3.1% difference,” Dr. Bell said.
PCI and CABG are both very good, mature therapies for left main disease, in his view. In the setting of more-complex coronary disease in younger patients, he often views the complete revascularization offered by surgery as the preferred option. On the other hand, in an 80-year-old with severe comorbidities, clearly PCI is attractive.
He considers the highly public nature of this interspecialty spat a regrettable black eye for the entire field of cardiovascular medicine. And he predicted that an ongoing outside neutral-party review of the study data and procedures will conclude, as he has, “there was no malfeasance at all in the trial.”
Dr. Bell reported having no financial conflicts regarding his presentation.
SNOWMASS, COLO. – A repeated theme threading through much of one prominent interventional cardiologist’s personal list of the top five coronary artery disease (CAD) trials of the past year is that aspirin is very often more trouble than it’s worth.
“For some years I’ve been concerned that the only thing that aspirin does [in patients after percutaneous coronary intervention] is increase your risk of bleeding. It doesn’t really provide any additional ischemic protection,” Malcolm R. Bell, MBBS, said at the annual Cardiovascular Conference at Snowmass sponsored by the American College of Cardiology.
“I’ll remind you that, when we go back to the early stent days, observed Dr. Bell, professor of medicine and vice chair of the department of cardiovascular medicine at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn.
Here are the key takeaway messages from his five most important randomized trials in CAD during the last year.
AUGUSTUS
For years, cardiologists have grappled with how to best manage high-cardiovascular-risk patients with atrial fibrillation who seem like they might benefit from triple-antithrombotic therapy. AUGUSTUS supplied the answer: Don’t do it. Skip the aspirin and turn instead to a P2Y12 inhibitor plus a non–vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulant (NOAC), rather than warfarin.
“I would like you to think of triple therapy as a triple threat. That’s really what triple therapy is all about”– a three-pronged threat to patient safety, Dr. Bell commented.
In AUGUSTUS, 4,614 patients with atrial fibrillation and CAD with an acute coronary syndrome (ACS) and/or percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in 33 countries were placed on a P2Y12 inhibitor – most often clopidogrel – and randomized double blind to either apixaban (Eliquis) or warfarin, and further to aspirin or placebo, for 6 months of antithrombotic therapy. The strategy of a P2Y12 inhibitor and apixaban without aspirin was the clear winner, resulting in significantly less major bleeding, mortality, and hospitalizations than treatment with a P2Y12 inhibitor and warfarin, with or without aspirin. Most importantly, ischemic event rates didn’t differ between the apixaban and warfarin groups. And patients randomized to aspirin had rates of ischemic events and death or hospitalization similar to placebo-treated controls, meaning aspirin accomplished nothing (N Engl J Med. 2019 Apr 18;380[16]:1509-24).
Dr. Bell noted that a meta-analysis of AUGUSTUS and three smaller randomized trials including more than 10,000 AUGUSTUS-type patients with atrial fibrillation concluded that a treatment strategy utilizing a NOAC and a P2Y12 inhibitor resulted in less bleeding than warfarin plus DAPT, and at no cost in terms of excess ischemic events. Moreover, regimens without aspirin resulted in less intracranial and other major bleeding without any difference in major adverse cardiovascular events (JAMA Cardiol. 2019 Jun 19. doi: 10.1001/jamacardio.2019.1880).
A key message of these four trials is that a NOAC is preferable to warfarin, so much so that, in high-risk patients who are already on warfarin, it’s worth considering a switch to a NOAC.
“And we should really be avoiding DAPT,” Dr. Bell added.
How soon after an ACS and/or PCI should patients with atrial fibrillation stop taking aspirin?
“In AUGUSTUS, randomization occurred at a median of 6 days, so we know that half the patients stopped their aspirin by then. In our own practice, we’re just dropping the aspirin for the most part before the patient leaves the hospital. I think if you leave them with instructions to stop the aspirin in a week’s time or a month’s time it just leads to confusion. And we should also remember that half of the major bleeding after PCI or ACS happens in the first 30 days, so it doesn’t make a lot of sense to say that we should continue it for a month and then drop it,” according to the cardiologist.
SMART-CHOICE and STOPDAPT-2
These two large multicenter studies demonstrate that DAPT can safely be stopped early if needed. SMART-CHOICE from South Korea and STOPDAPT-2 from Japan each randomized roughly 3,000 patients undergoing PCI to 12 months of DAPT or to DAPT for only 3 months or 1 month, respectively, at which point the aspirin was dropped and patients in the abbreviated DAPT arm continued on P2Y12 inhibitor monotherapy, mostly clopidogrel, for the remainder of the 12 months. In the Japanese STOPDAPT-2 trial, 1 month of DAPT proved superior to 12 months of DAPT for the primary composite endpoint of cardiovascular death, MI, stroke, definite stent thrombosis, or major or minor bleeding at 12 months (JAMA. 2019 Jun 25;321[24]:2414-27). In the South Korean SMART-CHOICE trial, 3 months of DAPT was noninferior to 12 months for major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events, and superior in terms of bleeding risk (JAMA. 2019 Jun 25;321[24]:2428-37). Of note, roughly half of patients in the two trials were lower-risk individuals undergoing PCI for stable angina.
Dr. Bell noted that, while the TWILIGHT trial (Ticagrelor With or Without Aspirin in High-Risk Patients After PCI) didn’t make his top-five list, it certainly fits well with the two East Asian studies. The TWILIGHT investigators randomized more than 7,000 patients to 12 months of DAPT or discontinuation of aspirin after 3 months. The result: a lower incidence of clinically relevant bleeding with ticagrelor monotherapy, and with no increased risk of death, MI, or stroke, compared with 12 months of DAPT (N Engl J Med. 2019 Nov 21;381[21]:2032-42).
“Again, I would just question what the added value of aspirin is here,” Dr. Bell commented. “Many interventional cardiologists are absolutely terrified of their patients having stent thrombosis, but with second-generation drug-eluting stents – the stents we’re putting in day in and day out – the risk of stent thrombosis is less than 1%. And in these two trials it was less than 0.5%. There’s more risk of having major bleeding events than there is of ischemia, so I think the balance is in favor of preventing bleeding. We know that major bleeding predicts short- and long-term mortality.”
COLCOT
This double-blind trial randomized 4,745 patients within 30 days post MI to low-dose colchicine or placebo on top of excellent rates of background guideline-directed medical therapy. The goal was to see if this anti-inflammatory agent could reduce cardiovascular events independent of any lipid-lowering effect, as was earlier seen with canakinumab in the CANTOS trial. It did so to a statistically significant but relatively modest degree, with a 5.5% rate of the composite cardiovascular events endpoint in the colchicine group and 7.1% in placebo-treated controls (N Engl J Med. 2019 Dec 26;381[26]:2497-505). But Dr. Bell was unimpressed.
“All-cause mortality was identical at 1.8% in both groups. So colchicine is not saving lives. In fact, the only real differences were in stroke – but the study wasn’t powered to look at stroke – and in urgent hospitalization for angina leading to revascularization, which is a soft endpoint,” he observed.
Plus, 2.5% of patients were lost to follow-up, which Dr. Bell considers “a little concerning” in a trial conducted in the current era.
“In my opinion, the evidence that colchicine is effective is weak, and I don’t think really supports the drug’s routine use post MI. We already send these patients out on numerous medications. We have to think about cost/benefit, and if a patient asks me: ‘Is this going to prevent another heart attack or make me live longer?’ I think the unequivocal answer is no,” he said.
These days colchicine is no longer an inexpensive drug, either, at an average cost of $300-$400 per month, the cardiologist added.
COMPLETE
This study randomized more than 4,000 patients with ST-segment elevation MI (STEMI) and multivessel disease to primary PCI of the culprit lesion only or to staged complete revascularization via PCI of all angiographically significant nonculprit lesions. Complete revascularization proved to be the superior strategy, with a 26% reduction in the risk of the composite of cardiovascular death or MI at a median of 3 years (N Engl J Med. 2019 Oct 10;381[15]:1411-21).
The optimal timing of the staged procedure remains unclear, since the study didn’t specify a protocol.
“I’m still a bit uncomfortable doing multivessel PCI at 2 o’clock in the morning in the setting of STEMI in someone I’ve never met before. I don’t think there’s a rush to do anything then. Often in this middle-of-the-night stuff, we miss things or we overinterpret things. I think it’s better to let the patient cool down, get to know them,” according to Dr. Bell.
EXCEL
Publication of the 5-year outcomes of the largest-ever randomized trial of PCI versus coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) for left main coronary disease has led to furious controversy, with a few of the surgeons involved in the study opting to publically broadcast allegations of misbehavior on the part of the interventional cardiologist study leadership, charges that have been strongly denied.
The actual results are in line with findings reported from smaller randomized trials. At 5 years in EXCEL, there was no significant difference between the PCI and CABG groups in the primary composite endpoint of death, cerebrovascular accident, or MI (N Engl J Med. 2019 Nov 7;381[19]:1820-30). The all-cause mortality rate was 13% in the PCI arm and 9.9% with CABG, but this finding comes with a caveat.
“I’ll emphasize this trial was never powered to look at mortality. Neither were any of the other randomized trials. On the other hand, I don’t think you can necessarily ignore the finding of an absolute 3.1% difference,” Dr. Bell said.
PCI and CABG are both very good, mature therapies for left main disease, in his view. In the setting of more-complex coronary disease in younger patients, he often views the complete revascularization offered by surgery as the preferred option. On the other hand, in an 80-year-old with severe comorbidities, clearly PCI is attractive.
He considers the highly public nature of this interspecialty spat a regrettable black eye for the entire field of cardiovascular medicine. And he predicted that an ongoing outside neutral-party review of the study data and procedures will conclude, as he has, “there was no malfeasance at all in the trial.”
Dr. Bell reported having no financial conflicts regarding his presentation.
SNOWMASS, COLO. – A repeated theme threading through much of one prominent interventional cardiologist’s personal list of the top five coronary artery disease (CAD) trials of the past year is that aspirin is very often more trouble than it’s worth.
“For some years I’ve been concerned that the only thing that aspirin does [in patients after percutaneous coronary intervention] is increase your risk of bleeding. It doesn’t really provide any additional ischemic protection,” Malcolm R. Bell, MBBS, said at the annual Cardiovascular Conference at Snowmass sponsored by the American College of Cardiology.
“I’ll remind you that, when we go back to the early stent days, observed Dr. Bell, professor of medicine and vice chair of the department of cardiovascular medicine at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn.
Here are the key takeaway messages from his five most important randomized trials in CAD during the last year.
AUGUSTUS
For years, cardiologists have grappled with how to best manage high-cardiovascular-risk patients with atrial fibrillation who seem like they might benefit from triple-antithrombotic therapy. AUGUSTUS supplied the answer: Don’t do it. Skip the aspirin and turn instead to a P2Y12 inhibitor plus a non–vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulant (NOAC), rather than warfarin.
“I would like you to think of triple therapy as a triple threat. That’s really what triple therapy is all about”– a three-pronged threat to patient safety, Dr. Bell commented.
In AUGUSTUS, 4,614 patients with atrial fibrillation and CAD with an acute coronary syndrome (ACS) and/or percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in 33 countries were placed on a P2Y12 inhibitor – most often clopidogrel – and randomized double blind to either apixaban (Eliquis) or warfarin, and further to aspirin or placebo, for 6 months of antithrombotic therapy. The strategy of a P2Y12 inhibitor and apixaban without aspirin was the clear winner, resulting in significantly less major bleeding, mortality, and hospitalizations than treatment with a P2Y12 inhibitor and warfarin, with or without aspirin. Most importantly, ischemic event rates didn’t differ between the apixaban and warfarin groups. And patients randomized to aspirin had rates of ischemic events and death or hospitalization similar to placebo-treated controls, meaning aspirin accomplished nothing (N Engl J Med. 2019 Apr 18;380[16]:1509-24).
Dr. Bell noted that a meta-analysis of AUGUSTUS and three smaller randomized trials including more than 10,000 AUGUSTUS-type patients with atrial fibrillation concluded that a treatment strategy utilizing a NOAC and a P2Y12 inhibitor resulted in less bleeding than warfarin plus DAPT, and at no cost in terms of excess ischemic events. Moreover, regimens without aspirin resulted in less intracranial and other major bleeding without any difference in major adverse cardiovascular events (JAMA Cardiol. 2019 Jun 19. doi: 10.1001/jamacardio.2019.1880).
A key message of these four trials is that a NOAC is preferable to warfarin, so much so that, in high-risk patients who are already on warfarin, it’s worth considering a switch to a NOAC.
“And we should really be avoiding DAPT,” Dr. Bell added.
How soon after an ACS and/or PCI should patients with atrial fibrillation stop taking aspirin?
“In AUGUSTUS, randomization occurred at a median of 6 days, so we know that half the patients stopped their aspirin by then. In our own practice, we’re just dropping the aspirin for the most part before the patient leaves the hospital. I think if you leave them with instructions to stop the aspirin in a week’s time or a month’s time it just leads to confusion. And we should also remember that half of the major bleeding after PCI or ACS happens in the first 30 days, so it doesn’t make a lot of sense to say that we should continue it for a month and then drop it,” according to the cardiologist.
SMART-CHOICE and STOPDAPT-2
These two large multicenter studies demonstrate that DAPT can safely be stopped early if needed. SMART-CHOICE from South Korea and STOPDAPT-2 from Japan each randomized roughly 3,000 patients undergoing PCI to 12 months of DAPT or to DAPT for only 3 months or 1 month, respectively, at which point the aspirin was dropped and patients in the abbreviated DAPT arm continued on P2Y12 inhibitor monotherapy, mostly clopidogrel, for the remainder of the 12 months. In the Japanese STOPDAPT-2 trial, 1 month of DAPT proved superior to 12 months of DAPT for the primary composite endpoint of cardiovascular death, MI, stroke, definite stent thrombosis, or major or minor bleeding at 12 months (JAMA. 2019 Jun 25;321[24]:2414-27). In the South Korean SMART-CHOICE trial, 3 months of DAPT was noninferior to 12 months for major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events, and superior in terms of bleeding risk (JAMA. 2019 Jun 25;321[24]:2428-37). Of note, roughly half of patients in the two trials were lower-risk individuals undergoing PCI for stable angina.
Dr. Bell noted that, while the TWILIGHT trial (Ticagrelor With or Without Aspirin in High-Risk Patients After PCI) didn’t make his top-five list, it certainly fits well with the two East Asian studies. The TWILIGHT investigators randomized more than 7,000 patients to 12 months of DAPT or discontinuation of aspirin after 3 months. The result: a lower incidence of clinically relevant bleeding with ticagrelor monotherapy, and with no increased risk of death, MI, or stroke, compared with 12 months of DAPT (N Engl J Med. 2019 Nov 21;381[21]:2032-42).
“Again, I would just question what the added value of aspirin is here,” Dr. Bell commented. “Many interventional cardiologists are absolutely terrified of their patients having stent thrombosis, but with second-generation drug-eluting stents – the stents we’re putting in day in and day out – the risk of stent thrombosis is less than 1%. And in these two trials it was less than 0.5%. There’s more risk of having major bleeding events than there is of ischemia, so I think the balance is in favor of preventing bleeding. We know that major bleeding predicts short- and long-term mortality.”
COLCOT
This double-blind trial randomized 4,745 patients within 30 days post MI to low-dose colchicine or placebo on top of excellent rates of background guideline-directed medical therapy. The goal was to see if this anti-inflammatory agent could reduce cardiovascular events independent of any lipid-lowering effect, as was earlier seen with canakinumab in the CANTOS trial. It did so to a statistically significant but relatively modest degree, with a 5.5% rate of the composite cardiovascular events endpoint in the colchicine group and 7.1% in placebo-treated controls (N Engl J Med. 2019 Dec 26;381[26]:2497-505). But Dr. Bell was unimpressed.
“All-cause mortality was identical at 1.8% in both groups. So colchicine is not saving lives. In fact, the only real differences were in stroke – but the study wasn’t powered to look at stroke – and in urgent hospitalization for angina leading to revascularization, which is a soft endpoint,” he observed.
Plus, 2.5% of patients were lost to follow-up, which Dr. Bell considers “a little concerning” in a trial conducted in the current era.
“In my opinion, the evidence that colchicine is effective is weak, and I don’t think really supports the drug’s routine use post MI. We already send these patients out on numerous medications. We have to think about cost/benefit, and if a patient asks me: ‘Is this going to prevent another heart attack or make me live longer?’ I think the unequivocal answer is no,” he said.
These days colchicine is no longer an inexpensive drug, either, at an average cost of $300-$400 per month, the cardiologist added.
COMPLETE
This study randomized more than 4,000 patients with ST-segment elevation MI (STEMI) and multivessel disease to primary PCI of the culprit lesion only or to staged complete revascularization via PCI of all angiographically significant nonculprit lesions. Complete revascularization proved to be the superior strategy, with a 26% reduction in the risk of the composite of cardiovascular death or MI at a median of 3 years (N Engl J Med. 2019 Oct 10;381[15]:1411-21).
The optimal timing of the staged procedure remains unclear, since the study didn’t specify a protocol.
“I’m still a bit uncomfortable doing multivessel PCI at 2 o’clock in the morning in the setting of STEMI in someone I’ve never met before. I don’t think there’s a rush to do anything then. Often in this middle-of-the-night stuff, we miss things or we overinterpret things. I think it’s better to let the patient cool down, get to know them,” according to Dr. Bell.
EXCEL
Publication of the 5-year outcomes of the largest-ever randomized trial of PCI versus coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) for left main coronary disease has led to furious controversy, with a few of the surgeons involved in the study opting to publically broadcast allegations of misbehavior on the part of the interventional cardiologist study leadership, charges that have been strongly denied.
The actual results are in line with findings reported from smaller randomized trials. At 5 years in EXCEL, there was no significant difference between the PCI and CABG groups in the primary composite endpoint of death, cerebrovascular accident, or MI (N Engl J Med. 2019 Nov 7;381[19]:1820-30). The all-cause mortality rate was 13% in the PCI arm and 9.9% with CABG, but this finding comes with a caveat.
“I’ll emphasize this trial was never powered to look at mortality. Neither were any of the other randomized trials. On the other hand, I don’t think you can necessarily ignore the finding of an absolute 3.1% difference,” Dr. Bell said.
PCI and CABG are both very good, mature therapies for left main disease, in his view. In the setting of more-complex coronary disease in younger patients, he often views the complete revascularization offered by surgery as the preferred option. On the other hand, in an 80-year-old with severe comorbidities, clearly PCI is attractive.
He considers the highly public nature of this interspecialty spat a regrettable black eye for the entire field of cardiovascular medicine. And he predicted that an ongoing outside neutral-party review of the study data and procedures will conclude, as he has, “there was no malfeasance at all in the trial.”
Dr. Bell reported having no financial conflicts regarding his presentation.
REPORTING FROM ACC SNOWMASS 2020
HHS: Coronavirus risk low in U.S., vaccine development underway
U.S. public health officials attempted to stymie concerns about the coronavirus during a press conference on Tuesday,
“Right now, there is no spread of this virus in our communities here at home,” Centers for Disease Control and Prevention director Robert Redfield, MD, said during the Jan. 28 press conference. “This is why our current assessment is that the immediate health risk of this new virus to the general public is low in our nation. The coming days and weeks are likely to bring more confirmed cases here and around the world, including the possibility of some person-to-person spreading, but our goal of the ongoing U.S. public health response is to contain this outbreak and prevent sustained spread of the virus in our country.”
During the press conference, Department Health & Human Services Secretary Alex M. Azar II, reiterated there have been only five confirmed U.S. cases of the coronavirus thus far and all were associated with travel to Wuhan, China, where the virus first appeared. The number of confirmed cases in China, meanwhile, has risen to more than 4,500 with about 100 associated deaths.
U.S. health providers should be on the lookout for any patient who has traveled to China recently, particularly to Hubei province, and they should pay close attention to any relevant symptoms, Secretary Azar said during the press conference.
He defended the decision not to declare a public health emergency at this time, stressing that such a move is based on standards and requirements not yet met by the coronavirus.
“It’s important to remember where we are right now; we have five cases in the United States, each of those individuals with direct contact to Wuhan and no person-to-person transmission in the United States,” Secretary Azar said. “I won’t hesitate at all to invoke any authorities that I need to ensure that we’re taking all the steps to protect the American people, but I’ll do it when it’s appropriate under the standards that we have and the authorities that I need.”
In the meantime, a number of efforts are underway by U.S. agencies to assess the nation’s emergency preparedness stockpile, to assist American families in China with evacuation, and to pursue research into diagnostics and a potential vaccine for the virus, Secretary Azar said.
With regard to countermeasures, the CDC has rapidly developed a diagnostic based on the published sequence of the virus, said Anthony Fauci, MD, director for the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID). The National Institutes of Health and the CDC are now working on the development of next-generation diagnostics to better identify the virus in the United States and throughout the world, Dr. Fauci said during the press conference.
Currently, there are no proven therapeutics for the coronavirus infection, Dr. Fauci said. Based on experiences with SARS and MERS, however, researchers are studying certain antiviral drugs that could potentially treat the virus, he said. This includes the antiviral drug remdesivir, which was developed for the treatment of the Ebola virus, and lopinavir/ritonavir (Kaletra), a combination therapy commonly used to treat HIV. In addition, monoclonal antibodies developed during the SARS outbreak are also being studied.
“Given the somewhat close homology between SARS and the new novel coronavirus, there could be some cross reactivity there that could be utilized,” he said.
Most importantly, he said, vaccine development is underway. Since China isolated the virus and published its sequence, U.S. researchers have already analyzed the components and determined an immunogen to be used in a vaccine, Dr. Fauci said. He anticipates moving to a Phase 1 trial within the next 3 months. The trial would then move to Phase 2 after another few more months for safety data.
“What we do from that point will be determined by what has happened with the outbreak over those months,” he said. “We are proceeding as if we will have to deploy a vaccine. In other words, we’re looking at the worst scenario that this becomes a bigger outbreak.”
Federal health officials, however, stressed that more data about infected patients in China is needed for research. HHS has repeatedly offered to send a CDC team to China to help with public health efforts, research, and response, but China has so far declined the offer, Secretary Azar added.
In addition, the CDC has updated its travel advisory in response to the illness. The latest travel guidance recommends that travelers avoid all nonessential travel to all parts of China.
U.S. public health officials attempted to stymie concerns about the coronavirus during a press conference on Tuesday,
“Right now, there is no spread of this virus in our communities here at home,” Centers for Disease Control and Prevention director Robert Redfield, MD, said during the Jan. 28 press conference. “This is why our current assessment is that the immediate health risk of this new virus to the general public is low in our nation. The coming days and weeks are likely to bring more confirmed cases here and around the world, including the possibility of some person-to-person spreading, but our goal of the ongoing U.S. public health response is to contain this outbreak and prevent sustained spread of the virus in our country.”
During the press conference, Department Health & Human Services Secretary Alex M. Azar II, reiterated there have been only five confirmed U.S. cases of the coronavirus thus far and all were associated with travel to Wuhan, China, where the virus first appeared. The number of confirmed cases in China, meanwhile, has risen to more than 4,500 with about 100 associated deaths.
U.S. health providers should be on the lookout for any patient who has traveled to China recently, particularly to Hubei province, and they should pay close attention to any relevant symptoms, Secretary Azar said during the press conference.
He defended the decision not to declare a public health emergency at this time, stressing that such a move is based on standards and requirements not yet met by the coronavirus.
“It’s important to remember where we are right now; we have five cases in the United States, each of those individuals with direct contact to Wuhan and no person-to-person transmission in the United States,” Secretary Azar said. “I won’t hesitate at all to invoke any authorities that I need to ensure that we’re taking all the steps to protect the American people, but I’ll do it when it’s appropriate under the standards that we have and the authorities that I need.”
In the meantime, a number of efforts are underway by U.S. agencies to assess the nation’s emergency preparedness stockpile, to assist American families in China with evacuation, and to pursue research into diagnostics and a potential vaccine for the virus, Secretary Azar said.
With regard to countermeasures, the CDC has rapidly developed a diagnostic based on the published sequence of the virus, said Anthony Fauci, MD, director for the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID). The National Institutes of Health and the CDC are now working on the development of next-generation diagnostics to better identify the virus in the United States and throughout the world, Dr. Fauci said during the press conference.
Currently, there are no proven therapeutics for the coronavirus infection, Dr. Fauci said. Based on experiences with SARS and MERS, however, researchers are studying certain antiviral drugs that could potentially treat the virus, he said. This includes the antiviral drug remdesivir, which was developed for the treatment of the Ebola virus, and lopinavir/ritonavir (Kaletra), a combination therapy commonly used to treat HIV. In addition, monoclonal antibodies developed during the SARS outbreak are also being studied.
“Given the somewhat close homology between SARS and the new novel coronavirus, there could be some cross reactivity there that could be utilized,” he said.
Most importantly, he said, vaccine development is underway. Since China isolated the virus and published its sequence, U.S. researchers have already analyzed the components and determined an immunogen to be used in a vaccine, Dr. Fauci said. He anticipates moving to a Phase 1 trial within the next 3 months. The trial would then move to Phase 2 after another few more months for safety data.
“What we do from that point will be determined by what has happened with the outbreak over those months,” he said. “We are proceeding as if we will have to deploy a vaccine. In other words, we’re looking at the worst scenario that this becomes a bigger outbreak.”
Federal health officials, however, stressed that more data about infected patients in China is needed for research. HHS has repeatedly offered to send a CDC team to China to help with public health efforts, research, and response, but China has so far declined the offer, Secretary Azar added.
In addition, the CDC has updated its travel advisory in response to the illness. The latest travel guidance recommends that travelers avoid all nonessential travel to all parts of China.
U.S. public health officials attempted to stymie concerns about the coronavirus during a press conference on Tuesday,
“Right now, there is no spread of this virus in our communities here at home,” Centers for Disease Control and Prevention director Robert Redfield, MD, said during the Jan. 28 press conference. “This is why our current assessment is that the immediate health risk of this new virus to the general public is low in our nation. The coming days and weeks are likely to bring more confirmed cases here and around the world, including the possibility of some person-to-person spreading, but our goal of the ongoing U.S. public health response is to contain this outbreak and prevent sustained spread of the virus in our country.”
During the press conference, Department Health & Human Services Secretary Alex M. Azar II, reiterated there have been only five confirmed U.S. cases of the coronavirus thus far and all were associated with travel to Wuhan, China, where the virus first appeared. The number of confirmed cases in China, meanwhile, has risen to more than 4,500 with about 100 associated deaths.
U.S. health providers should be on the lookout for any patient who has traveled to China recently, particularly to Hubei province, and they should pay close attention to any relevant symptoms, Secretary Azar said during the press conference.
He defended the decision not to declare a public health emergency at this time, stressing that such a move is based on standards and requirements not yet met by the coronavirus.
“It’s important to remember where we are right now; we have five cases in the United States, each of those individuals with direct contact to Wuhan and no person-to-person transmission in the United States,” Secretary Azar said. “I won’t hesitate at all to invoke any authorities that I need to ensure that we’re taking all the steps to protect the American people, but I’ll do it when it’s appropriate under the standards that we have and the authorities that I need.”
In the meantime, a number of efforts are underway by U.S. agencies to assess the nation’s emergency preparedness stockpile, to assist American families in China with evacuation, and to pursue research into diagnostics and a potential vaccine for the virus, Secretary Azar said.
With regard to countermeasures, the CDC has rapidly developed a diagnostic based on the published sequence of the virus, said Anthony Fauci, MD, director for the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID). The National Institutes of Health and the CDC are now working on the development of next-generation diagnostics to better identify the virus in the United States and throughout the world, Dr. Fauci said during the press conference.
Currently, there are no proven therapeutics for the coronavirus infection, Dr. Fauci said. Based on experiences with SARS and MERS, however, researchers are studying certain antiviral drugs that could potentially treat the virus, he said. This includes the antiviral drug remdesivir, which was developed for the treatment of the Ebola virus, and lopinavir/ritonavir (Kaletra), a combination therapy commonly used to treat HIV. In addition, monoclonal antibodies developed during the SARS outbreak are also being studied.
“Given the somewhat close homology between SARS and the new novel coronavirus, there could be some cross reactivity there that could be utilized,” he said.
Most importantly, he said, vaccine development is underway. Since China isolated the virus and published its sequence, U.S. researchers have already analyzed the components and determined an immunogen to be used in a vaccine, Dr. Fauci said. He anticipates moving to a Phase 1 trial within the next 3 months. The trial would then move to Phase 2 after another few more months for safety data.
“What we do from that point will be determined by what has happened with the outbreak over those months,” he said. “We are proceeding as if we will have to deploy a vaccine. In other words, we’re looking at the worst scenario that this becomes a bigger outbreak.”
Federal health officials, however, stressed that more data about infected patients in China is needed for research. HHS has repeatedly offered to send a CDC team to China to help with public health efforts, research, and response, but China has so far declined the offer, Secretary Azar added.
In addition, the CDC has updated its travel advisory in response to the illness. The latest travel guidance recommends that travelers avoid all nonessential travel to all parts of China.
Echoes of SARS mark 2019 novel coronavirus outbreak
The current outbreak of severe respiratory infections caused by the 2019 novel coronarvirus (2019-nCoV) has a clinical presentation resembling the Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome coronavirus (SARS-CoV) outbreak that began in 2002, Chinese investigators caution.
By Jan. 2, 2020, 41 patients with confirmed 2019-nCoV had been admitted to a designated hospital in the city of Wuhan, Hubei Province, in central China. Thirteen required ICU admission and six died, reported Chaolin Huang, MD, from Jin Yin-tan Hospital in Wuhan, and colleagues.
“2019-nCoV still needs to be studied deeply in case it becomes a global health threat. Reliable quick pathogen tests and feasible differential diagnosis based on clinical description are crucial for clinicians in their first contact with suspected patients. Because of the pandemic potential of 2019-nCoV, careful surveillance is essential to monitor its future host adaption, viral evolution, infectivity, transmissibility, and pathogenicity,” they wrote in a review published online by The Lancet.
According to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, as of Jan. 28, 2020, the total number of 2019-nCoV cases reported in the United States stood at five, but further cases of the infection – which Chinese health officials have confirmed can be transmitted person-to-person – are expected.
Dr. Huang and colleagues note that although most human coronavirus infections are mild, SARS-CoV and the Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus (MERS-CoV) were responsible for more than 10,000 infections, with mortality rates ranging from 10% with SARS to 37% with MERS. To date, 2019-nCoV has “caused clusters of fatal pneumonia greatly resembling SARS-CoV,” they write.
The authors studied the epidemiological, clinical, laboratory, and radiological characteristics as well as treatments and clinical outcomes of 41 patients admitted or transferred to the Jin Yin-tan Hospital with laboratory-confirmed 2019-nCoV infections.
The median patient age was 49 years. Thirty of the 41 patients (73%) were male. Comorbid conditions included diabetes in 13 of the 41 patients (32%), hypertension in 6 (15%), and cardiovascular disease in 6.
In all 27 of the 41 patients had been exposed to the Huanan seafood market in Wuhan, the suspected epicenter of the outbreak that was shut down by health authorities on Jan. 1 of this year.
The most common symptoms at the onset of the illness were fever in all but one of the 41 patients, cough in 31, and myalgia or fatigue in 18. Other, less frequent symptoms included sputum production in 11, headache in three, hemoptysis in two, and diarrhea in one.
“In this cohort, most patients presented with fever, dry cough, dyspnoea, and bilateral ground-glass opacities on chest CT scans. These features of 2019-nCoV infection bear some resemblance to SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV infections. However, few patients with 2019-nCoV infection had prominent upper respiratory tract signs and symptoms (e.g., rhinorrhoea, sneezing, or sore throat), indicating that the target cells might be located in the lower airway. Furthermore, 2019-nCoV patients rarely developed intestinal signs and symptoms (e.g., diarrhoea), whereas about 20%-25% of patients with MERS-CoV or SARS-CoV infection had diarrhoea.”
In all, 22 patients developed dyspnea, with a median time from illness onset to dyspnea of 8 days. The median time from illness onset to admission was 7 days, median time to shortness of breath was 8 days, median time to acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) was 9 days, and median time to both mechanical ventilation and ICU admission was 10.5 days.
All of the patients developed pneumonia with abnormal findings on chest CT scan. In addition, 12 patients developed ARDS, six had RNAaemia, five developed acute cardiac injury, and four developed a secondary infection. As noted before, 13 of the 14 patients were admitted to an ICU, and six died. RNAaemia is a positive result for real-time polymerase chain reaction in plasma samples. Patients admitted to the ICU had higher initial concentrations of multiple inflammatory cytokines than patients who did not need ICU care, “suggesting that the cytokine storm was associated with disease severity.”
All of the patients received empirical antibiotics, 38 were treated with oseltamivir (Tamiflu), and 9 received systemic corticosteroids.
The investigators have initiated a randomized controlled trial of the antiviral agents lopinavir and ritonavir for patients hospitalized with 2019-nCoV infection.
The study was funded by the Chinese Ministry of Science and Technology, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences, National Natural Science Foundation of China, and Beijing Municipal Science and Technology Commission. All authors declared having no competing interests.
SOURCE: Huang C et al. Lancet. 2020 Jan 24. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(20)30183-5.
The current outbreak of severe respiratory infections caused by the 2019 novel coronarvirus (2019-nCoV) has a clinical presentation resembling the Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome coronavirus (SARS-CoV) outbreak that began in 2002, Chinese investigators caution.
By Jan. 2, 2020, 41 patients with confirmed 2019-nCoV had been admitted to a designated hospital in the city of Wuhan, Hubei Province, in central China. Thirteen required ICU admission and six died, reported Chaolin Huang, MD, from Jin Yin-tan Hospital in Wuhan, and colleagues.
“2019-nCoV still needs to be studied deeply in case it becomes a global health threat. Reliable quick pathogen tests and feasible differential diagnosis based on clinical description are crucial for clinicians in their first contact with suspected patients. Because of the pandemic potential of 2019-nCoV, careful surveillance is essential to monitor its future host adaption, viral evolution, infectivity, transmissibility, and pathogenicity,” they wrote in a review published online by The Lancet.
According to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, as of Jan. 28, 2020, the total number of 2019-nCoV cases reported in the United States stood at five, but further cases of the infection – which Chinese health officials have confirmed can be transmitted person-to-person – are expected.
Dr. Huang and colleagues note that although most human coronavirus infections are mild, SARS-CoV and the Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus (MERS-CoV) were responsible for more than 10,000 infections, with mortality rates ranging from 10% with SARS to 37% with MERS. To date, 2019-nCoV has “caused clusters of fatal pneumonia greatly resembling SARS-CoV,” they write.
The authors studied the epidemiological, clinical, laboratory, and radiological characteristics as well as treatments and clinical outcomes of 41 patients admitted or transferred to the Jin Yin-tan Hospital with laboratory-confirmed 2019-nCoV infections.
The median patient age was 49 years. Thirty of the 41 patients (73%) were male. Comorbid conditions included diabetes in 13 of the 41 patients (32%), hypertension in 6 (15%), and cardiovascular disease in 6.
In all 27 of the 41 patients had been exposed to the Huanan seafood market in Wuhan, the suspected epicenter of the outbreak that was shut down by health authorities on Jan. 1 of this year.
The most common symptoms at the onset of the illness were fever in all but one of the 41 patients, cough in 31, and myalgia or fatigue in 18. Other, less frequent symptoms included sputum production in 11, headache in three, hemoptysis in two, and diarrhea in one.
“In this cohort, most patients presented with fever, dry cough, dyspnoea, and bilateral ground-glass opacities on chest CT scans. These features of 2019-nCoV infection bear some resemblance to SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV infections. However, few patients with 2019-nCoV infection had prominent upper respiratory tract signs and symptoms (e.g., rhinorrhoea, sneezing, or sore throat), indicating that the target cells might be located in the lower airway. Furthermore, 2019-nCoV patients rarely developed intestinal signs and symptoms (e.g., diarrhoea), whereas about 20%-25% of patients with MERS-CoV or SARS-CoV infection had diarrhoea.”
In all, 22 patients developed dyspnea, with a median time from illness onset to dyspnea of 8 days. The median time from illness onset to admission was 7 days, median time to shortness of breath was 8 days, median time to acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) was 9 days, and median time to both mechanical ventilation and ICU admission was 10.5 days.
All of the patients developed pneumonia with abnormal findings on chest CT scan. In addition, 12 patients developed ARDS, six had RNAaemia, five developed acute cardiac injury, and four developed a secondary infection. As noted before, 13 of the 14 patients were admitted to an ICU, and six died. RNAaemia is a positive result for real-time polymerase chain reaction in plasma samples. Patients admitted to the ICU had higher initial concentrations of multiple inflammatory cytokines than patients who did not need ICU care, “suggesting that the cytokine storm was associated with disease severity.”
All of the patients received empirical antibiotics, 38 were treated with oseltamivir (Tamiflu), and 9 received systemic corticosteroids.
The investigators have initiated a randomized controlled trial of the antiviral agents lopinavir and ritonavir for patients hospitalized with 2019-nCoV infection.
The study was funded by the Chinese Ministry of Science and Technology, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences, National Natural Science Foundation of China, and Beijing Municipal Science and Technology Commission. All authors declared having no competing interests.
SOURCE: Huang C et al. Lancet. 2020 Jan 24. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(20)30183-5.
The current outbreak of severe respiratory infections caused by the 2019 novel coronarvirus (2019-nCoV) has a clinical presentation resembling the Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome coronavirus (SARS-CoV) outbreak that began in 2002, Chinese investigators caution.
By Jan. 2, 2020, 41 patients with confirmed 2019-nCoV had been admitted to a designated hospital in the city of Wuhan, Hubei Province, in central China. Thirteen required ICU admission and six died, reported Chaolin Huang, MD, from Jin Yin-tan Hospital in Wuhan, and colleagues.
“2019-nCoV still needs to be studied deeply in case it becomes a global health threat. Reliable quick pathogen tests and feasible differential diagnosis based on clinical description are crucial for clinicians in their first contact with suspected patients. Because of the pandemic potential of 2019-nCoV, careful surveillance is essential to monitor its future host adaption, viral evolution, infectivity, transmissibility, and pathogenicity,” they wrote in a review published online by The Lancet.
According to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, as of Jan. 28, 2020, the total number of 2019-nCoV cases reported in the United States stood at five, but further cases of the infection – which Chinese health officials have confirmed can be transmitted person-to-person – are expected.
Dr. Huang and colleagues note that although most human coronavirus infections are mild, SARS-CoV and the Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus (MERS-CoV) were responsible for more than 10,000 infections, with mortality rates ranging from 10% with SARS to 37% with MERS. To date, 2019-nCoV has “caused clusters of fatal pneumonia greatly resembling SARS-CoV,” they write.
The authors studied the epidemiological, clinical, laboratory, and radiological characteristics as well as treatments and clinical outcomes of 41 patients admitted or transferred to the Jin Yin-tan Hospital with laboratory-confirmed 2019-nCoV infections.
The median patient age was 49 years. Thirty of the 41 patients (73%) were male. Comorbid conditions included diabetes in 13 of the 41 patients (32%), hypertension in 6 (15%), and cardiovascular disease in 6.
In all 27 of the 41 patients had been exposed to the Huanan seafood market in Wuhan, the suspected epicenter of the outbreak that was shut down by health authorities on Jan. 1 of this year.
The most common symptoms at the onset of the illness were fever in all but one of the 41 patients, cough in 31, and myalgia or fatigue in 18. Other, less frequent symptoms included sputum production in 11, headache in three, hemoptysis in two, and diarrhea in one.
“In this cohort, most patients presented with fever, dry cough, dyspnoea, and bilateral ground-glass opacities on chest CT scans. These features of 2019-nCoV infection bear some resemblance to SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV infections. However, few patients with 2019-nCoV infection had prominent upper respiratory tract signs and symptoms (e.g., rhinorrhoea, sneezing, or sore throat), indicating that the target cells might be located in the lower airway. Furthermore, 2019-nCoV patients rarely developed intestinal signs and symptoms (e.g., diarrhoea), whereas about 20%-25% of patients with MERS-CoV or SARS-CoV infection had diarrhoea.”
In all, 22 patients developed dyspnea, with a median time from illness onset to dyspnea of 8 days. The median time from illness onset to admission was 7 days, median time to shortness of breath was 8 days, median time to acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) was 9 days, and median time to both mechanical ventilation and ICU admission was 10.5 days.
All of the patients developed pneumonia with abnormal findings on chest CT scan. In addition, 12 patients developed ARDS, six had RNAaemia, five developed acute cardiac injury, and four developed a secondary infection. As noted before, 13 of the 14 patients were admitted to an ICU, and six died. RNAaemia is a positive result for real-time polymerase chain reaction in plasma samples. Patients admitted to the ICU had higher initial concentrations of multiple inflammatory cytokines than patients who did not need ICU care, “suggesting that the cytokine storm was associated with disease severity.”
All of the patients received empirical antibiotics, 38 were treated with oseltamivir (Tamiflu), and 9 received systemic corticosteroids.
The investigators have initiated a randomized controlled trial of the antiviral agents lopinavir and ritonavir for patients hospitalized with 2019-nCoV infection.
The study was funded by the Chinese Ministry of Science and Technology, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences, National Natural Science Foundation of China, and Beijing Municipal Science and Technology Commission. All authors declared having no competing interests.
SOURCE: Huang C et al. Lancet. 2020 Jan 24. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(20)30183-5.
FROM THE LANCET
CDC: Five confirmed 2019-nCoV cases in the U.S.
Five cases of the new infectious coronavirus, 2019-nCoV, have been confirmed in the United States, Nancy Messonnier, MD, director of the National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, said during a Jan. 27 press briefing.
A total of 110 individuals are under investigation in 26 states, she said. While five cases have been confirmed positive for the virus, 32 cases were confirmed negative. There have been no new cases overnight.
Last week, CDC scientists developed a real-time polymerase chain reaction (PCR) test that can diagnose the virus in respiratory and serum samples from clinical specimens. On Jan. 24, the protocol for this test was publicly posted. “This is essentially a blueprint to make the test,” Dr. Messonnier explained. “Currently, we are refining the use of the test so that it can provide optimal guidance to states and labs on how to use it. We are working on a plan so that priority states get these test kits as soon as possible. In the coming weeks, we will share these tests with domestic and international partners so they can test for this virus themselves.”
The CDC uploaded the entire genome of the virus from the first two cases in the United States to GenBank. It was similar to the one that China had previously posted. “Right now, based on CDC’s analysis of the available data, it doesn’t look like the virus has mutated,” she said. “And we are growing the virus in cell culture, which is necessary for further studies, including the additional genetic characterization.”
As of today, 16 international locations, including the United States, have identified cases of the virus. CDC officials are continuing to screen passengers from Wuhan, China, at five designated airports. “This serves two purposes: first to detect the illness and rapidly respond to [affected] people entering the country,” Dr. Messonnier said. “The second purpose is to educate travelers about the symptoms of this new virus, and what to do if they develop symptoms. I expect that in the coming days, our travel recommendations will change. Risk depends on exposure. Right now, we have an handful of new patients with this new virus here in the U.S. However, at this time in the U.S., this virus is not spreading in the community. For that reason, we believe that the immediate health risk of the new virus to the general American public is low.”
The CDC is asking its clinical lab partners to send virus samples to the CDC to ensure that results are analyzed as accurately as possible.
Five cases of the new infectious coronavirus, 2019-nCoV, have been confirmed in the United States, Nancy Messonnier, MD, director of the National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, said during a Jan. 27 press briefing.
A total of 110 individuals are under investigation in 26 states, she said. While five cases have been confirmed positive for the virus, 32 cases were confirmed negative. There have been no new cases overnight.
Last week, CDC scientists developed a real-time polymerase chain reaction (PCR) test that can diagnose the virus in respiratory and serum samples from clinical specimens. On Jan. 24, the protocol for this test was publicly posted. “This is essentially a blueprint to make the test,” Dr. Messonnier explained. “Currently, we are refining the use of the test so that it can provide optimal guidance to states and labs on how to use it. We are working on a plan so that priority states get these test kits as soon as possible. In the coming weeks, we will share these tests with domestic and international partners so they can test for this virus themselves.”
The CDC uploaded the entire genome of the virus from the first two cases in the United States to GenBank. It was similar to the one that China had previously posted. “Right now, based on CDC’s analysis of the available data, it doesn’t look like the virus has mutated,” she said. “And we are growing the virus in cell culture, which is necessary for further studies, including the additional genetic characterization.”
As of today, 16 international locations, including the United States, have identified cases of the virus. CDC officials are continuing to screen passengers from Wuhan, China, at five designated airports. “This serves two purposes: first to detect the illness and rapidly respond to [affected] people entering the country,” Dr. Messonnier said. “The second purpose is to educate travelers about the symptoms of this new virus, and what to do if they develop symptoms. I expect that in the coming days, our travel recommendations will change. Risk depends on exposure. Right now, we have an handful of new patients with this new virus here in the U.S. However, at this time in the U.S., this virus is not spreading in the community. For that reason, we believe that the immediate health risk of the new virus to the general American public is low.”
The CDC is asking its clinical lab partners to send virus samples to the CDC to ensure that results are analyzed as accurately as possible.
Five cases of the new infectious coronavirus, 2019-nCoV, have been confirmed in the United States, Nancy Messonnier, MD, director of the National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, said during a Jan. 27 press briefing.
A total of 110 individuals are under investigation in 26 states, she said. While five cases have been confirmed positive for the virus, 32 cases were confirmed negative. There have been no new cases overnight.
Last week, CDC scientists developed a real-time polymerase chain reaction (PCR) test that can diagnose the virus in respiratory and serum samples from clinical specimens. On Jan. 24, the protocol for this test was publicly posted. “This is essentially a blueprint to make the test,” Dr. Messonnier explained. “Currently, we are refining the use of the test so that it can provide optimal guidance to states and labs on how to use it. We are working on a plan so that priority states get these test kits as soon as possible. In the coming weeks, we will share these tests with domestic and international partners so they can test for this virus themselves.”
The CDC uploaded the entire genome of the virus from the first two cases in the United States to GenBank. It was similar to the one that China had previously posted. “Right now, based on CDC’s analysis of the available data, it doesn’t look like the virus has mutated,” she said. “And we are growing the virus in cell culture, which is necessary for further studies, including the additional genetic characterization.”
As of today, 16 international locations, including the United States, have identified cases of the virus. CDC officials are continuing to screen passengers from Wuhan, China, at five designated airports. “This serves two purposes: first to detect the illness and rapidly respond to [affected] people entering the country,” Dr. Messonnier said. “The second purpose is to educate travelers about the symptoms of this new virus, and what to do if they develop symptoms. I expect that in the coming days, our travel recommendations will change. Risk depends on exposure. Right now, we have an handful of new patients with this new virus here in the U.S. However, at this time in the U.S., this virus is not spreading in the community. For that reason, we believe that the immediate health risk of the new virus to the general American public is low.”
The CDC is asking its clinical lab partners to send virus samples to the CDC to ensure that results are analyzed as accurately as possible.
Zika virus: Birth defects rose fourfold in U.S. hardest-hit areas
according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
That spike in the prevalence of brain abnormalities and/or microcephaly or eye abnormalities without brain abnormalities came during January through March 2017, about 6 months after the Zika outbreak’s reported peak in the jurisdictions with widespread local transmission, Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands, wrote Ashley N. Smoots, MPH, of the CDC’s National Center on Birth Defects and Developmental Disabilities and associates in the Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report.
In those two territories, the prevalence of birth defects potentially related to Zika virus infection was 5.6 per 1,000 live births during January through March 2017, compared with 1.3 per 1,000 in January through March 2016, they reported.
In the southern areas of Florida and Texas, where there was limited local Zika transmission, the highest prevalence of birth defects, 2.7 per 1,000, occurred during October through December 2016, and was only slightly greater than the baseline rate of 2.2 per 1,000 in January through March 2016, the investigators reported.
Among the other 19 jurisdictions (including Illinois, Louisiana, New Jersey, South Carolina, and Virginia) involved in the analysis, the rate of Zika virus–related birth defects never reached any higher than the 1.7 per 1,000 recorded at the start of the study period in January through March 2016, they said.
“Population-based birth defects surveillance is critical for identifying infants and fetuses with birth defects potentially related to Zika virus regardless of whether Zika virus testing was conducted, especially given the high prevalence of asymptomatic disease. These data can be used to inform follow-up care and services as well as strengthen surveillance,” the investigators wrote.
SOURCE: Smoots AN et al. MMWR. 2020 Jan 24;69(3):67-71.
according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
That spike in the prevalence of brain abnormalities and/or microcephaly or eye abnormalities without brain abnormalities came during January through March 2017, about 6 months after the Zika outbreak’s reported peak in the jurisdictions with widespread local transmission, Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands, wrote Ashley N. Smoots, MPH, of the CDC’s National Center on Birth Defects and Developmental Disabilities and associates in the Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report.
In those two territories, the prevalence of birth defects potentially related to Zika virus infection was 5.6 per 1,000 live births during January through March 2017, compared with 1.3 per 1,000 in January through March 2016, they reported.
In the southern areas of Florida and Texas, where there was limited local Zika transmission, the highest prevalence of birth defects, 2.7 per 1,000, occurred during October through December 2016, and was only slightly greater than the baseline rate of 2.2 per 1,000 in January through March 2016, the investigators reported.
Among the other 19 jurisdictions (including Illinois, Louisiana, New Jersey, South Carolina, and Virginia) involved in the analysis, the rate of Zika virus–related birth defects never reached any higher than the 1.7 per 1,000 recorded at the start of the study period in January through March 2016, they said.
“Population-based birth defects surveillance is critical for identifying infants and fetuses with birth defects potentially related to Zika virus regardless of whether Zika virus testing was conducted, especially given the high prevalence of asymptomatic disease. These data can be used to inform follow-up care and services as well as strengthen surveillance,” the investigators wrote.
SOURCE: Smoots AN et al. MMWR. 2020 Jan 24;69(3):67-71.
according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
That spike in the prevalence of brain abnormalities and/or microcephaly or eye abnormalities without brain abnormalities came during January through March 2017, about 6 months after the Zika outbreak’s reported peak in the jurisdictions with widespread local transmission, Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands, wrote Ashley N. Smoots, MPH, of the CDC’s National Center on Birth Defects and Developmental Disabilities and associates in the Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report.
In those two territories, the prevalence of birth defects potentially related to Zika virus infection was 5.6 per 1,000 live births during January through March 2017, compared with 1.3 per 1,000 in January through March 2016, they reported.
In the southern areas of Florida and Texas, where there was limited local Zika transmission, the highest prevalence of birth defects, 2.7 per 1,000, occurred during October through December 2016, and was only slightly greater than the baseline rate of 2.2 per 1,000 in January through March 2016, the investigators reported.
Among the other 19 jurisdictions (including Illinois, Louisiana, New Jersey, South Carolina, and Virginia) involved in the analysis, the rate of Zika virus–related birth defects never reached any higher than the 1.7 per 1,000 recorded at the start of the study period in January through March 2016, they said.
“Population-based birth defects surveillance is critical for identifying infants and fetuses with birth defects potentially related to Zika virus regardless of whether Zika virus testing was conducted, especially given the high prevalence of asymptomatic disease. These data can be used to inform follow-up care and services as well as strengthen surveillance,” the investigators wrote.
SOURCE: Smoots AN et al. MMWR. 2020 Jan 24;69(3):67-71.
FROM MMWR
IBD: Inpatient opioids linked with outpatient use
, based on a retrospective analysis of more than 800 patients.
Awareness of this dose-dependent relationship and IBD-related risks of opioid use should encourage physicians to consider alternative analgesics, according to lead author Rahul S. Dalal, MD, of Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, and colleagues.
“Recent evidence has demonstrated that opioid use is associated with severe infections and increased mortality among IBD patients,” the investigators wrote in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology. “Despite these concerns, opioids are commonly prescribed to IBD patients in the outpatient setting and to as many as 70% of IBD patients who are hospitalized.”
To look for a possible relationship between inpatient and outpatient opioid use, the investigators reviewed electronic medical records of 862 IBD patients who were treated at three urban hospitals in the University of Pennsylvania Health System. The primary outcome was opioid prescription within 12 months of discharge, including prescriptions at time of hospital dismissal.
During hospitalization, about two-thirds (67.6%) of patients received intravenous opioids. Of the total population, slightly more than half (54.6%) received intravenous hydromorphone and about one-quarter (25.9%) received intravenous morphine. Following discharge, almost half of the population (44.7%) was prescribed opioids, and about 3 out of 4 patients (77.9%) received an additional opioid prescription within the same year.
After accounting for confounders such as IBD severity, preadmission opioid use, pain scores, and psychiatric conditions, data analysis showed that inpatients who received intravenous opioids had a threefold (odds ratio [OR], 3.3) increased likelihood of receiving postdischarge opioid prescription, compared with patients who received no opioids while hospitalized. This association was stronger among those who had IBD flares (OR, 5.4). Furthermore, intravenous dose was positively correlated with postdischarge opioid prescription.
Avoiding intravenous opioids had no impact on the relationship between inpatient and outpatient opioid use. Among inpatients who received only oral or transdermal opioids, a similarly increased likelihood of postdischarge opioid prescription was observed (OR, 4.2), although this was a small cohort (n = 67).
Compared with other physicians, gastroenterologists were the least likely to prescribe opioids. Considering that gastroenterologists were also most likely aware of IBD-related risks of opioid use, the investigators concluded that more interdisciplinary communication and education are needed.
“Alternative analgesics such as acetaminophen, dicyclomine, hyoscyamine, and celecoxib could be advised, as many of these therapies have been deemed relatively safe and effective in this population,” they wrote.The investigators disclosed relationships with Abbott, Gilead, Romark, and others.
SOURCE: Dalal RS et al. Clin Gastro Hepatol. 2019 Dec 27. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2019.12.024.
, based on a retrospective analysis of more than 800 patients.
Awareness of this dose-dependent relationship and IBD-related risks of opioid use should encourage physicians to consider alternative analgesics, according to lead author Rahul S. Dalal, MD, of Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, and colleagues.
“Recent evidence has demonstrated that opioid use is associated with severe infections and increased mortality among IBD patients,” the investigators wrote in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology. “Despite these concerns, opioids are commonly prescribed to IBD patients in the outpatient setting and to as many as 70% of IBD patients who are hospitalized.”
To look for a possible relationship between inpatient and outpatient opioid use, the investigators reviewed electronic medical records of 862 IBD patients who were treated at three urban hospitals in the University of Pennsylvania Health System. The primary outcome was opioid prescription within 12 months of discharge, including prescriptions at time of hospital dismissal.
During hospitalization, about two-thirds (67.6%) of patients received intravenous opioids. Of the total population, slightly more than half (54.6%) received intravenous hydromorphone and about one-quarter (25.9%) received intravenous morphine. Following discharge, almost half of the population (44.7%) was prescribed opioids, and about 3 out of 4 patients (77.9%) received an additional opioid prescription within the same year.
After accounting for confounders such as IBD severity, preadmission opioid use, pain scores, and psychiatric conditions, data analysis showed that inpatients who received intravenous opioids had a threefold (odds ratio [OR], 3.3) increased likelihood of receiving postdischarge opioid prescription, compared with patients who received no opioids while hospitalized. This association was stronger among those who had IBD flares (OR, 5.4). Furthermore, intravenous dose was positively correlated with postdischarge opioid prescription.
Avoiding intravenous opioids had no impact on the relationship between inpatient and outpatient opioid use. Among inpatients who received only oral or transdermal opioids, a similarly increased likelihood of postdischarge opioid prescription was observed (OR, 4.2), although this was a small cohort (n = 67).
Compared with other physicians, gastroenterologists were the least likely to prescribe opioids. Considering that gastroenterologists were also most likely aware of IBD-related risks of opioid use, the investigators concluded that more interdisciplinary communication and education are needed.
“Alternative analgesics such as acetaminophen, dicyclomine, hyoscyamine, and celecoxib could be advised, as many of these therapies have been deemed relatively safe and effective in this population,” they wrote.The investigators disclosed relationships with Abbott, Gilead, Romark, and others.
SOURCE: Dalal RS et al. Clin Gastro Hepatol. 2019 Dec 27. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2019.12.024.
, based on a retrospective analysis of more than 800 patients.
Awareness of this dose-dependent relationship and IBD-related risks of opioid use should encourage physicians to consider alternative analgesics, according to lead author Rahul S. Dalal, MD, of Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, and colleagues.
“Recent evidence has demonstrated that opioid use is associated with severe infections and increased mortality among IBD patients,” the investigators wrote in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology. “Despite these concerns, opioids are commonly prescribed to IBD patients in the outpatient setting and to as many as 70% of IBD patients who are hospitalized.”
To look for a possible relationship between inpatient and outpatient opioid use, the investigators reviewed electronic medical records of 862 IBD patients who were treated at three urban hospitals in the University of Pennsylvania Health System. The primary outcome was opioid prescription within 12 months of discharge, including prescriptions at time of hospital dismissal.
During hospitalization, about two-thirds (67.6%) of patients received intravenous opioids. Of the total population, slightly more than half (54.6%) received intravenous hydromorphone and about one-quarter (25.9%) received intravenous morphine. Following discharge, almost half of the population (44.7%) was prescribed opioids, and about 3 out of 4 patients (77.9%) received an additional opioid prescription within the same year.
After accounting for confounders such as IBD severity, preadmission opioid use, pain scores, and psychiatric conditions, data analysis showed that inpatients who received intravenous opioids had a threefold (odds ratio [OR], 3.3) increased likelihood of receiving postdischarge opioid prescription, compared with patients who received no opioids while hospitalized. This association was stronger among those who had IBD flares (OR, 5.4). Furthermore, intravenous dose was positively correlated with postdischarge opioid prescription.
Avoiding intravenous opioids had no impact on the relationship between inpatient and outpatient opioid use. Among inpatients who received only oral or transdermal opioids, a similarly increased likelihood of postdischarge opioid prescription was observed (OR, 4.2), although this was a small cohort (n = 67).
Compared with other physicians, gastroenterologists were the least likely to prescribe opioids. Considering that gastroenterologists were also most likely aware of IBD-related risks of opioid use, the investigators concluded that more interdisciplinary communication and education are needed.
“Alternative analgesics such as acetaminophen, dicyclomine, hyoscyamine, and celecoxib could be advised, as many of these therapies have been deemed relatively safe and effective in this population,” they wrote.The investigators disclosed relationships with Abbott, Gilead, Romark, and others.
SOURCE: Dalal RS et al. Clin Gastro Hepatol. 2019 Dec 27. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2019.12.024.
FROM CLINICAL GASTROENTEROLOGY AND HEPATOLOGY
Key clinical point: Patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) who receive opioids while hospitalized are three times as likely to be prescribed opioids after discharge.
Major finding: Patients who were given intravenous opioids while hospitalized were three times as likely to receive a postdischarge opioid prescription, compared with patients who did not receive inpatient intravenous opioids (odds ratio, 3.3).
Study details: A retrospective cohort study involving 862 patients with inflammatory bowel disease.
Disclosures: The investigators disclosed relationships Abbott, Gilead, Romark, and others.
Source: Dalal RS et al. Clin Gastro Hepatol. 2019 Dec 27. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2019.12.024.
Wuhan virus: What clinicians need to know
As the Wuhan coronavirus story unfolds, , according to infectious disease experts.
“We are asking that of everyone with fever and respiratory symptoms who comes to our clinics, hospital, or emergency room. It’s a powerful screening tool,” said William Schaffner, MD, professor of preventive medicine and infectious diseases at Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tenn.
In addition to fever, common signs of infection include cough, shortness of breath, and breathing difficulties. Some patients have had diarrhea, vomiting, and other gastrointestinal symptoms. In more severe cases, infection can cause pneumonia, severe acute respiratory syndrome, kidney failure, and death. The incubation period appears to be up to 2 weeks, according to the World Health Organization (WHO).
If patients exhibit symptoms and either they or a close contact has returned from China recently, take standard airborne precautions and send specimens – a serum sample, oral and nasal pharyngeal swabs, and lower respiratory tract specimens if available – to the local health department, which will forward them to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) for testing. Turnaround time is 24-48 hours.
The 2019 Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV), identified as the cause of an outbreak of respiratory illness first detected in December in association with a live animal market in Wuhan, China, has been implicated in almost 2,000 cases and 56 deaths in that country. Cases have been reported in 13 countries besides China. Five cases of 2019-nCoV infection have been confirmed in the United States, all in people recently returned from Wuhan. As the virus spreads in China, however, it’s almost certain more cases will show up in the United States. Travel history is key, Dr. Schaffner and others said.
Plan and rehearse
The first step to prepare is to use the CDC’s Interim Guidance for Healthcare Professionals to make a written plan specific to your practice to respond to a potential case. The plan must include notifying the local health department, the CDC liaison for testing, and tracking down patient contacts.
“It’s not good enough to just download CDC’s guidance; use it to make your own local plan and know what to do 24/7,” said Daniel Lucey, MD, an infectious disease expert at Georgetown University Medical Center, Washington, D.C.
“Know who is on call at the health department on weekends and nights,” he said. Know where the patient is going to be isolated; figure out what to do if there’s more than one, and tests come back positive. Have masks on hand, and rehearse the response. “Make a coronavirus team, and absolutely have the nurses involved,” as well as other providers who may come into contact with a case, he added.
“You want to be able to do as well as your counterparts in Washington state and Chicago,” where the first two U.S. cases emerged. “They were prepared. They knew what to do,” Dr. Lucey said.
Those first two U.S. patients – a man in Everett, Wash., and a Chicago woman – developed symptoms after returning from Wuhan, a city of 11 million just over 400 miles inland from the port city of Shanghai. On Jan. 26 three more cases were confirmed by the CDC, two in California and one in Arizona, and each had recently traveled to Wuhan. All five patients remain hospitalized, and there’s no evidence they spread the infection further. There is also no evidence of human-to-human transmission of other cases exported from China to any other countries, according to the WHO.
WHO declined to declare a global health emergency – a Public Health Emergency of International Concern, in its parlance – on Jan. 23. The step would have triggered travel and trade restrictions in member states, including the United States. For now, at least, the group said it wasn’t warranted at this point.
Fatality rates
The focus right now is China. The outbreak has spread beyond Wuhan to other parts of the country, and there’s evidence of fourth-generation spread.
Transportation into and out of Wuhan and other cities has been curtailed, Lunar New Year festivals have been canceled, and the Shanghai Disneyland has been closed, among other measures taken by Chinese officials.
The government could be taking drastic measures in part to prevent the public criticism it took in the early 2000’s for the delayed response and lack of transparency during the global outbreak of another wildlife market coronavirus epidemic, severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS). In a press conference Jan. 22, WHO officials commended the government’s containment efforts but did not say they recommended them.
According to WHO, serious cases in China have mostly been in people over 40 years old with significant comorbidities and have skewed towards men. Spread seems to be limited to family members, health care providers, and other close contacts, probably by respiratory droplets. If that pattern holds, WHO officials said, the outbreak is containable.
The fatality rate appears to be around 3%, a good deal lower than the 10% reported for SARS and much lower than the nearly 40% reported for Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS), another recent coronavirus mutation from the animal trade.
The Wuhan virus fatality rate might drop as milder cases are detected and added to the denominator. “It definitely appears to be less severe than SARS and MERS,” said Amesh Adalja, MD, an infectious disease physician in Pittsburgh and emerging infectious disease researcher at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore.
SARS: Lessons learned
In general, the world is much better equipped for coronavirus outbreaks than when SARS, in particular, emerged in 2003.
WHO officials in their press conference lauded China for it openness with the current outbreak, and for isolating and sequencing the virus immediately, which gave the world a diagnostic test in the first days of the outbreak, something that wasn’t available for SARS. China and other countries also are cooperating and working closely to contain the Wuhan virus.
“What we know today might change tomorrow, so we have to keep tuned in to new information, but we learned a lot from SARS,” Dr. Shaffner said. Overall, it’s likely “the impact on the United States of this new coronavirus is going to be trivial,” he predicted.
Dr. Lucey, however, recalled that the SARS outbreak in Toronto in 2003 started with one missed case. A woman returned asymptomatic from Hong Kong and spread the infection to her family members before she died. Her cause of death wasn’t immediately recognized, nor was the reason her family members were sick, since they hadn’t been to Hong Kong recently.
The infection ultimately spread to more than 200 people, about half of them health care workers. A few people died.
If a virus is sufficiently contagious, “it just takes one. You don’t want to be the one who misses that first patient,” Dr. Lucey said.
Currently, there are no antivirals or vaccines for coronaviruses; researchers are working on both, but for now, care is supportive.
This article was updated with new case numbers on 1/26/20.
As the Wuhan coronavirus story unfolds, , according to infectious disease experts.
“We are asking that of everyone with fever and respiratory symptoms who comes to our clinics, hospital, or emergency room. It’s a powerful screening tool,” said William Schaffner, MD, professor of preventive medicine and infectious diseases at Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tenn.
In addition to fever, common signs of infection include cough, shortness of breath, and breathing difficulties. Some patients have had diarrhea, vomiting, and other gastrointestinal symptoms. In more severe cases, infection can cause pneumonia, severe acute respiratory syndrome, kidney failure, and death. The incubation period appears to be up to 2 weeks, according to the World Health Organization (WHO).
If patients exhibit symptoms and either they or a close contact has returned from China recently, take standard airborne precautions and send specimens – a serum sample, oral and nasal pharyngeal swabs, and lower respiratory tract specimens if available – to the local health department, which will forward them to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) for testing. Turnaround time is 24-48 hours.
The 2019 Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV), identified as the cause of an outbreak of respiratory illness first detected in December in association with a live animal market in Wuhan, China, has been implicated in almost 2,000 cases and 56 deaths in that country. Cases have been reported in 13 countries besides China. Five cases of 2019-nCoV infection have been confirmed in the United States, all in people recently returned from Wuhan. As the virus spreads in China, however, it’s almost certain more cases will show up in the United States. Travel history is key, Dr. Schaffner and others said.
Plan and rehearse
The first step to prepare is to use the CDC’s Interim Guidance for Healthcare Professionals to make a written plan specific to your practice to respond to a potential case. The plan must include notifying the local health department, the CDC liaison for testing, and tracking down patient contacts.
“It’s not good enough to just download CDC’s guidance; use it to make your own local plan and know what to do 24/7,” said Daniel Lucey, MD, an infectious disease expert at Georgetown University Medical Center, Washington, D.C.
“Know who is on call at the health department on weekends and nights,” he said. Know where the patient is going to be isolated; figure out what to do if there’s more than one, and tests come back positive. Have masks on hand, and rehearse the response. “Make a coronavirus team, and absolutely have the nurses involved,” as well as other providers who may come into contact with a case, he added.
“You want to be able to do as well as your counterparts in Washington state and Chicago,” where the first two U.S. cases emerged. “They were prepared. They knew what to do,” Dr. Lucey said.
Those first two U.S. patients – a man in Everett, Wash., and a Chicago woman – developed symptoms after returning from Wuhan, a city of 11 million just over 400 miles inland from the port city of Shanghai. On Jan. 26 three more cases were confirmed by the CDC, two in California and one in Arizona, and each had recently traveled to Wuhan. All five patients remain hospitalized, and there’s no evidence they spread the infection further. There is also no evidence of human-to-human transmission of other cases exported from China to any other countries, according to the WHO.
WHO declined to declare a global health emergency – a Public Health Emergency of International Concern, in its parlance – on Jan. 23. The step would have triggered travel and trade restrictions in member states, including the United States. For now, at least, the group said it wasn’t warranted at this point.
Fatality rates
The focus right now is China. The outbreak has spread beyond Wuhan to other parts of the country, and there’s evidence of fourth-generation spread.
Transportation into and out of Wuhan and other cities has been curtailed, Lunar New Year festivals have been canceled, and the Shanghai Disneyland has been closed, among other measures taken by Chinese officials.
The government could be taking drastic measures in part to prevent the public criticism it took in the early 2000’s for the delayed response and lack of transparency during the global outbreak of another wildlife market coronavirus epidemic, severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS). In a press conference Jan. 22, WHO officials commended the government’s containment efforts but did not say they recommended them.
According to WHO, serious cases in China have mostly been in people over 40 years old with significant comorbidities and have skewed towards men. Spread seems to be limited to family members, health care providers, and other close contacts, probably by respiratory droplets. If that pattern holds, WHO officials said, the outbreak is containable.
The fatality rate appears to be around 3%, a good deal lower than the 10% reported for SARS and much lower than the nearly 40% reported for Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS), another recent coronavirus mutation from the animal trade.
The Wuhan virus fatality rate might drop as milder cases are detected and added to the denominator. “It definitely appears to be less severe than SARS and MERS,” said Amesh Adalja, MD, an infectious disease physician in Pittsburgh and emerging infectious disease researcher at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore.
SARS: Lessons learned
In general, the world is much better equipped for coronavirus outbreaks than when SARS, in particular, emerged in 2003.
WHO officials in their press conference lauded China for it openness with the current outbreak, and for isolating and sequencing the virus immediately, which gave the world a diagnostic test in the first days of the outbreak, something that wasn’t available for SARS. China and other countries also are cooperating and working closely to contain the Wuhan virus.
“What we know today might change tomorrow, so we have to keep tuned in to new information, but we learned a lot from SARS,” Dr. Shaffner said. Overall, it’s likely “the impact on the United States of this new coronavirus is going to be trivial,” he predicted.
Dr. Lucey, however, recalled that the SARS outbreak in Toronto in 2003 started with one missed case. A woman returned asymptomatic from Hong Kong and spread the infection to her family members before she died. Her cause of death wasn’t immediately recognized, nor was the reason her family members were sick, since they hadn’t been to Hong Kong recently.
The infection ultimately spread to more than 200 people, about half of them health care workers. A few people died.
If a virus is sufficiently contagious, “it just takes one. You don’t want to be the one who misses that first patient,” Dr. Lucey said.
Currently, there are no antivirals or vaccines for coronaviruses; researchers are working on both, but for now, care is supportive.
This article was updated with new case numbers on 1/26/20.
As the Wuhan coronavirus story unfolds, , according to infectious disease experts.
“We are asking that of everyone with fever and respiratory symptoms who comes to our clinics, hospital, or emergency room. It’s a powerful screening tool,” said William Schaffner, MD, professor of preventive medicine and infectious diseases at Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tenn.
In addition to fever, common signs of infection include cough, shortness of breath, and breathing difficulties. Some patients have had diarrhea, vomiting, and other gastrointestinal symptoms. In more severe cases, infection can cause pneumonia, severe acute respiratory syndrome, kidney failure, and death. The incubation period appears to be up to 2 weeks, according to the World Health Organization (WHO).
If patients exhibit symptoms and either they or a close contact has returned from China recently, take standard airborne precautions and send specimens – a serum sample, oral and nasal pharyngeal swabs, and lower respiratory tract specimens if available – to the local health department, which will forward them to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) for testing. Turnaround time is 24-48 hours.
The 2019 Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV), identified as the cause of an outbreak of respiratory illness first detected in December in association with a live animal market in Wuhan, China, has been implicated in almost 2,000 cases and 56 deaths in that country. Cases have been reported in 13 countries besides China. Five cases of 2019-nCoV infection have been confirmed in the United States, all in people recently returned from Wuhan. As the virus spreads in China, however, it’s almost certain more cases will show up in the United States. Travel history is key, Dr. Schaffner and others said.
Plan and rehearse
The first step to prepare is to use the CDC’s Interim Guidance for Healthcare Professionals to make a written plan specific to your practice to respond to a potential case. The plan must include notifying the local health department, the CDC liaison for testing, and tracking down patient contacts.
“It’s not good enough to just download CDC’s guidance; use it to make your own local plan and know what to do 24/7,” said Daniel Lucey, MD, an infectious disease expert at Georgetown University Medical Center, Washington, D.C.
“Know who is on call at the health department on weekends and nights,” he said. Know where the patient is going to be isolated; figure out what to do if there’s more than one, and tests come back positive. Have masks on hand, and rehearse the response. “Make a coronavirus team, and absolutely have the nurses involved,” as well as other providers who may come into contact with a case, he added.
“You want to be able to do as well as your counterparts in Washington state and Chicago,” where the first two U.S. cases emerged. “They were prepared. They knew what to do,” Dr. Lucey said.
Those first two U.S. patients – a man in Everett, Wash., and a Chicago woman – developed symptoms after returning from Wuhan, a city of 11 million just over 400 miles inland from the port city of Shanghai. On Jan. 26 three more cases were confirmed by the CDC, two in California and one in Arizona, and each had recently traveled to Wuhan. All five patients remain hospitalized, and there’s no evidence they spread the infection further. There is also no evidence of human-to-human transmission of other cases exported from China to any other countries, according to the WHO.
WHO declined to declare a global health emergency – a Public Health Emergency of International Concern, in its parlance – on Jan. 23. The step would have triggered travel and trade restrictions in member states, including the United States. For now, at least, the group said it wasn’t warranted at this point.
Fatality rates
The focus right now is China. The outbreak has spread beyond Wuhan to other parts of the country, and there’s evidence of fourth-generation spread.
Transportation into and out of Wuhan and other cities has been curtailed, Lunar New Year festivals have been canceled, and the Shanghai Disneyland has been closed, among other measures taken by Chinese officials.
The government could be taking drastic measures in part to prevent the public criticism it took in the early 2000’s for the delayed response and lack of transparency during the global outbreak of another wildlife market coronavirus epidemic, severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS). In a press conference Jan. 22, WHO officials commended the government’s containment efforts but did not say they recommended them.
According to WHO, serious cases in China have mostly been in people over 40 years old with significant comorbidities and have skewed towards men. Spread seems to be limited to family members, health care providers, and other close contacts, probably by respiratory droplets. If that pattern holds, WHO officials said, the outbreak is containable.
The fatality rate appears to be around 3%, a good deal lower than the 10% reported for SARS and much lower than the nearly 40% reported for Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS), another recent coronavirus mutation from the animal trade.
The Wuhan virus fatality rate might drop as milder cases are detected and added to the denominator. “It definitely appears to be less severe than SARS and MERS,” said Amesh Adalja, MD, an infectious disease physician in Pittsburgh and emerging infectious disease researcher at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore.
SARS: Lessons learned
In general, the world is much better equipped for coronavirus outbreaks than when SARS, in particular, emerged in 2003.
WHO officials in their press conference lauded China for it openness with the current outbreak, and for isolating and sequencing the virus immediately, which gave the world a diagnostic test in the first days of the outbreak, something that wasn’t available for SARS. China and other countries also are cooperating and working closely to contain the Wuhan virus.
“What we know today might change tomorrow, so we have to keep tuned in to new information, but we learned a lot from SARS,” Dr. Shaffner said. Overall, it’s likely “the impact on the United States of this new coronavirus is going to be trivial,” he predicted.
Dr. Lucey, however, recalled that the SARS outbreak in Toronto in 2003 started with one missed case. A woman returned asymptomatic from Hong Kong and spread the infection to her family members before she died. Her cause of death wasn’t immediately recognized, nor was the reason her family members were sick, since they hadn’t been to Hong Kong recently.
The infection ultimately spread to more than 200 people, about half of them health care workers. A few people died.
If a virus is sufficiently contagious, “it just takes one. You don’t want to be the one who misses that first patient,” Dr. Lucey said.
Currently, there are no antivirals or vaccines for coronaviruses; researchers are working on both, but for now, care is supportive.
This article was updated with new case numbers on 1/26/20.
EVALI update warns of chemicals in vaping products
A report issued by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention confirms that 82% of patients presenting with e-cigarette– or vaping product use–associated lung injury (EVALI) used products containing tetrahydrocannabinol (THC).
Another report published in the CDC’s Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report assessed cases in which the patients reported using only nicotine-containing vaping products.
“As of Jan. 14, 2020, a total of 2,668 hospitalized EVALI cases had been reported to CDC,” based on data from the National Syndromic Surveillance Program (NSSP), wrote Vikram P. Krishnasamy, MD, of the National Center for Injury Prevention and Control at the CDC, Atlanta, and colleagues. Cases have occurred in all 50 states, the District of Columbia, the U.S. Virgin Islands, and Puerto Rico. The age of the patients ranged from 13 to 85 years, with an average age of 24 years; 66% were male, and 73% were non-Hispanic white.
In addition, 57% of the patients reported using any nicotine-containing product, and 14% of these reported use of nicotine products exclusively.
Previous studies have shown that vitamin E acetate is associated with the EVALI outbreak, which peaked during the week of Sept. 15, 2019, with 215 reported hospital admissions, Dr. Krishnasamy and associates noted. “However, evidence is not sufficient to rule out the contribution of other chemicals of concern, including chemicals in either THC- or non-THC–containing products, in some reported EVALI cases,” they said.
The study findings were limited by several factors, including incomplete data on product use, increased reporting of vaping product use at emergency department visits after increased public awareness of risk, and inconsistency in the health care facilities contributing data via the NSSP, the researchers wrote.
The decline in EVALI cases since September 2019 may be related to factors including the rapid public health response to increase awareness of the risks of vaping, and the possible removal of vitamin E acetate as a diluent in THC-containing products, but clinicians and public health professionals should remain on alert for new EVALI cases and continue to discourage the use of THC-containing e-cigarette or vaping products, Dr. Krishnasamy and associates concluded.
Nicotine-only vaping products
In a second report published in MMWR, Isaac Ghinai, MBBS, of the Illinois Department of Public Health and CDC researchers examined characteristics of EVALI patients in Illinois who reported using only nicotine-containing vaping products.
A total of 9 of 121 (7%) EVALI patients surveyed in Illinois reported no indication of THC use. These patients were more likely than those who reported any use of THC-containing products to be female (78% vs. 25%) and aged 45 years and older (33% vs. 2%); P less than .01 in both cases.
In addition, EVALI patients with no indication of THC-containing product use were less likely than THC product users to present with constitutional symptoms (56% vs. 96%) or initial leukocytosis (38% vs. 91%), or to have previously visited an outpatient provider or ED before being hospitalized (25% vs. 80%).
Other presenting characteristics including initial vital signs and lab results, as well as the frequency of severe outcomes such as death or respiratory failure, were not significantly different between users and nonusers of THC-containing vaping products.
The study findings were limited by factors including the use of self-reports, the small sample size, and lack of initial and follow-up interviews for all EVALI patients, the researchers noted. However, the results support the CDC’s recommendation that “persons should not use THC-containing e-cigarette, or vaping, products, particularly those obtained from informal sources such as friends, family members, or from in-person or online dealers,” and should not add vitamin E acetate or other substances to these products, they said.
In addition, users of nicotine-containing e-cigarette or vaping products as an alternative to cigarettes should not return to cigarettes, but should explore other options to help them quit, Dr. Ghinai, and associates said.
The studies were supported by the CDC. The researchers in both studies had no financial conflicts to disclose.
SOURCES: Krishnasamy VP et al. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 17 Jan 2020. doi: 10.15585/mmwr.mm6903e2; Ghinai I et al. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 17 Jan 2020. doi: 10.15585/mmwr.mm6903e1.
A report issued by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention confirms that 82% of patients presenting with e-cigarette– or vaping product use–associated lung injury (EVALI) used products containing tetrahydrocannabinol (THC).
Another report published in the CDC’s Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report assessed cases in which the patients reported using only nicotine-containing vaping products.
“As of Jan. 14, 2020, a total of 2,668 hospitalized EVALI cases had been reported to CDC,” based on data from the National Syndromic Surveillance Program (NSSP), wrote Vikram P. Krishnasamy, MD, of the National Center for Injury Prevention and Control at the CDC, Atlanta, and colleagues. Cases have occurred in all 50 states, the District of Columbia, the U.S. Virgin Islands, and Puerto Rico. The age of the patients ranged from 13 to 85 years, with an average age of 24 years; 66% were male, and 73% were non-Hispanic white.
In addition, 57% of the patients reported using any nicotine-containing product, and 14% of these reported use of nicotine products exclusively.
Previous studies have shown that vitamin E acetate is associated with the EVALI outbreak, which peaked during the week of Sept. 15, 2019, with 215 reported hospital admissions, Dr. Krishnasamy and associates noted. “However, evidence is not sufficient to rule out the contribution of other chemicals of concern, including chemicals in either THC- or non-THC–containing products, in some reported EVALI cases,” they said.
The study findings were limited by several factors, including incomplete data on product use, increased reporting of vaping product use at emergency department visits after increased public awareness of risk, and inconsistency in the health care facilities contributing data via the NSSP, the researchers wrote.
The decline in EVALI cases since September 2019 may be related to factors including the rapid public health response to increase awareness of the risks of vaping, and the possible removal of vitamin E acetate as a diluent in THC-containing products, but clinicians and public health professionals should remain on alert for new EVALI cases and continue to discourage the use of THC-containing e-cigarette or vaping products, Dr. Krishnasamy and associates concluded.
Nicotine-only vaping products
In a second report published in MMWR, Isaac Ghinai, MBBS, of the Illinois Department of Public Health and CDC researchers examined characteristics of EVALI patients in Illinois who reported using only nicotine-containing vaping products.
A total of 9 of 121 (7%) EVALI patients surveyed in Illinois reported no indication of THC use. These patients were more likely than those who reported any use of THC-containing products to be female (78% vs. 25%) and aged 45 years and older (33% vs. 2%); P less than .01 in both cases.
In addition, EVALI patients with no indication of THC-containing product use were less likely than THC product users to present with constitutional symptoms (56% vs. 96%) or initial leukocytosis (38% vs. 91%), or to have previously visited an outpatient provider or ED before being hospitalized (25% vs. 80%).
Other presenting characteristics including initial vital signs and lab results, as well as the frequency of severe outcomes such as death or respiratory failure, were not significantly different between users and nonusers of THC-containing vaping products.
The study findings were limited by factors including the use of self-reports, the small sample size, and lack of initial and follow-up interviews for all EVALI patients, the researchers noted. However, the results support the CDC’s recommendation that “persons should not use THC-containing e-cigarette, or vaping, products, particularly those obtained from informal sources such as friends, family members, or from in-person or online dealers,” and should not add vitamin E acetate or other substances to these products, they said.
In addition, users of nicotine-containing e-cigarette or vaping products as an alternative to cigarettes should not return to cigarettes, but should explore other options to help them quit, Dr. Ghinai, and associates said.
The studies were supported by the CDC. The researchers in both studies had no financial conflicts to disclose.
SOURCES: Krishnasamy VP et al. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 17 Jan 2020. doi: 10.15585/mmwr.mm6903e2; Ghinai I et al. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 17 Jan 2020. doi: 10.15585/mmwr.mm6903e1.
A report issued by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention confirms that 82% of patients presenting with e-cigarette– or vaping product use–associated lung injury (EVALI) used products containing tetrahydrocannabinol (THC).
Another report published in the CDC’s Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report assessed cases in which the patients reported using only nicotine-containing vaping products.
“As of Jan. 14, 2020, a total of 2,668 hospitalized EVALI cases had been reported to CDC,” based on data from the National Syndromic Surveillance Program (NSSP), wrote Vikram P. Krishnasamy, MD, of the National Center for Injury Prevention and Control at the CDC, Atlanta, and colleagues. Cases have occurred in all 50 states, the District of Columbia, the U.S. Virgin Islands, and Puerto Rico. The age of the patients ranged from 13 to 85 years, with an average age of 24 years; 66% were male, and 73% were non-Hispanic white.
In addition, 57% of the patients reported using any nicotine-containing product, and 14% of these reported use of nicotine products exclusively.
Previous studies have shown that vitamin E acetate is associated with the EVALI outbreak, which peaked during the week of Sept. 15, 2019, with 215 reported hospital admissions, Dr. Krishnasamy and associates noted. “However, evidence is not sufficient to rule out the contribution of other chemicals of concern, including chemicals in either THC- or non-THC–containing products, in some reported EVALI cases,” they said.
The study findings were limited by several factors, including incomplete data on product use, increased reporting of vaping product use at emergency department visits after increased public awareness of risk, and inconsistency in the health care facilities contributing data via the NSSP, the researchers wrote.
The decline in EVALI cases since September 2019 may be related to factors including the rapid public health response to increase awareness of the risks of vaping, and the possible removal of vitamin E acetate as a diluent in THC-containing products, but clinicians and public health professionals should remain on alert for new EVALI cases and continue to discourage the use of THC-containing e-cigarette or vaping products, Dr. Krishnasamy and associates concluded.
Nicotine-only vaping products
In a second report published in MMWR, Isaac Ghinai, MBBS, of the Illinois Department of Public Health and CDC researchers examined characteristics of EVALI patients in Illinois who reported using only nicotine-containing vaping products.
A total of 9 of 121 (7%) EVALI patients surveyed in Illinois reported no indication of THC use. These patients were more likely than those who reported any use of THC-containing products to be female (78% vs. 25%) and aged 45 years and older (33% vs. 2%); P less than .01 in both cases.
In addition, EVALI patients with no indication of THC-containing product use were less likely than THC product users to present with constitutional symptoms (56% vs. 96%) or initial leukocytosis (38% vs. 91%), or to have previously visited an outpatient provider or ED before being hospitalized (25% vs. 80%).
Other presenting characteristics including initial vital signs and lab results, as well as the frequency of severe outcomes such as death or respiratory failure, were not significantly different between users and nonusers of THC-containing vaping products.
The study findings were limited by factors including the use of self-reports, the small sample size, and lack of initial and follow-up interviews for all EVALI patients, the researchers noted. However, the results support the CDC’s recommendation that “persons should not use THC-containing e-cigarette, or vaping, products, particularly those obtained from informal sources such as friends, family members, or from in-person or online dealers,” and should not add vitamin E acetate or other substances to these products, they said.
In addition, users of nicotine-containing e-cigarette or vaping products as an alternative to cigarettes should not return to cigarettes, but should explore other options to help them quit, Dr. Ghinai, and associates said.
The studies were supported by the CDC. The researchers in both studies had no financial conflicts to disclose.
SOURCES: Krishnasamy VP et al. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 17 Jan 2020. doi: 10.15585/mmwr.mm6903e2; Ghinai I et al. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 17 Jan 2020. doi: 10.15585/mmwr.mm6903e1.
FROM MMWR
Second U.S. coronavirus patient confirmed
at a Jan. 24, 2020, press briefing.
The first U.S. case, a traveler who entered the United States at Seattle-Tacoma International Airport, was confirmed on Jan. 20.
A Chicago resident returning from Wuhan, China, on Jan. 13, 2020, developed symptoms of the disease and contacted her health care clinician and is currently being treated in isolation at an unnamed hospital, according to Nancy Messonnier, MD, director of the National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases at the CDC. The patient, a woman in her 60s, is in stable condition and remains hospitalized. She was not symptomatic on her flight to Chicago but developed symptoms in the following days after her return from Wuhan. She had limited contacts after her return, and all potential contacts are being tracked.
Dr. Messonnier said the CDC expects more cases in the United States but stressed that, although this is a serious public health threat, the risk to the American public is low. She noted that the situation is evolving rapidly and that the CDC is following the developments hour by hour.
Jennifer Layden, MD, PhD, chief medical officer and state epidemiologist with the Illinois Department of Public Health, said public health preparations made it possible to quickly identify and arrange appropriate hospitalization for this patient. Allison Arwady, MD, Chicago Department of Health commissioner, said the Illinois Department of Health partnered with the CDC to test specimens quickly, which led to the diagnosis in this patient.
So far, 63 U.S. patients have been investigated for possible infection with the 2019-nCoV; 11 so far have tested negative and 2 have tested positive. Testing of the remaining potential cases and others is ongoing.
Currently, samples from patients with suspected 2010-nCoV infections are being sent to the CDC for testing, Dr. Messonnier said. The turnaround for testing is currently 4-6 hours. Respiratory samples and some blood samples are being tested by the CDC labs.
The CDC is developing diagnostic kits for public health authorities in the United States for local testing and will work with the World Health Organization to make these kits available to the international community when possible.
Dr. Messonnier said that, at present, the incubation period for this disease appears to be about 14 days, but she suggested that further study will be required to identify the range of time for contagion. She also said it is premature to compare the 2019-nCoV with previous coronavirus outbreaks, such as severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) or Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS), in terms of contagion or fatality rates.
Meanwhile, Andrew D. Mesecar, PhD, the Walther Professor in Cancer Structural Biology and head of the department of biochemistry at Purdue University, West Lafayette, Ind., said on Jan. 24 in a news release that 2019-nCoV is genetically similar to the SARS variant. “MERS virus and the SARS virus are more different genetically,” noted Dr. Mesecar, whose team received the genome of 2019-nCoV on Jan. 17 and analyzed it the next day. “But the Wuhan virus is genetically almost identical to the SARS virus and, therefore, it is expected to look and act nearly the same. In another week or two, we’ll be able to begin to see if the virus is mutating.”
Dr. Messonnier said that nonessential travel to Wuhan is not recommended. In addition, she said, and all other visitors to China need to take appropriate precautions, such as handwashing and avoiding other individuals with respiratory illness.
Screenings at five U.S. airports will continue. So far, approximately 200 flights and 2,000 travelers have been screened as of Jan. 23. No cases were reported, but one traveler has been identified for further for evaluation. Possible contacts with those suspected of infection have been identified and alerted in 22 states.
The CDC will continue to update the public and will post information on the CDC newsroom website.
at a Jan. 24, 2020, press briefing.
The first U.S. case, a traveler who entered the United States at Seattle-Tacoma International Airport, was confirmed on Jan. 20.
A Chicago resident returning from Wuhan, China, on Jan. 13, 2020, developed symptoms of the disease and contacted her health care clinician and is currently being treated in isolation at an unnamed hospital, according to Nancy Messonnier, MD, director of the National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases at the CDC. The patient, a woman in her 60s, is in stable condition and remains hospitalized. She was not symptomatic on her flight to Chicago but developed symptoms in the following days after her return from Wuhan. She had limited contacts after her return, and all potential contacts are being tracked.
Dr. Messonnier said the CDC expects more cases in the United States but stressed that, although this is a serious public health threat, the risk to the American public is low. She noted that the situation is evolving rapidly and that the CDC is following the developments hour by hour.
Jennifer Layden, MD, PhD, chief medical officer and state epidemiologist with the Illinois Department of Public Health, said public health preparations made it possible to quickly identify and arrange appropriate hospitalization for this patient. Allison Arwady, MD, Chicago Department of Health commissioner, said the Illinois Department of Health partnered with the CDC to test specimens quickly, which led to the diagnosis in this patient.
So far, 63 U.S. patients have been investigated for possible infection with the 2019-nCoV; 11 so far have tested negative and 2 have tested positive. Testing of the remaining potential cases and others is ongoing.
Currently, samples from patients with suspected 2010-nCoV infections are being sent to the CDC for testing, Dr. Messonnier said. The turnaround for testing is currently 4-6 hours. Respiratory samples and some blood samples are being tested by the CDC labs.
The CDC is developing diagnostic kits for public health authorities in the United States for local testing and will work with the World Health Organization to make these kits available to the international community when possible.
Dr. Messonnier said that, at present, the incubation period for this disease appears to be about 14 days, but she suggested that further study will be required to identify the range of time for contagion. She also said it is premature to compare the 2019-nCoV with previous coronavirus outbreaks, such as severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) or Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS), in terms of contagion or fatality rates.
Meanwhile, Andrew D. Mesecar, PhD, the Walther Professor in Cancer Structural Biology and head of the department of biochemistry at Purdue University, West Lafayette, Ind., said on Jan. 24 in a news release that 2019-nCoV is genetically similar to the SARS variant. “MERS virus and the SARS virus are more different genetically,” noted Dr. Mesecar, whose team received the genome of 2019-nCoV on Jan. 17 and analyzed it the next day. “But the Wuhan virus is genetically almost identical to the SARS virus and, therefore, it is expected to look and act nearly the same. In another week or two, we’ll be able to begin to see if the virus is mutating.”
Dr. Messonnier said that nonessential travel to Wuhan is not recommended. In addition, she said, and all other visitors to China need to take appropriate precautions, such as handwashing and avoiding other individuals with respiratory illness.
Screenings at five U.S. airports will continue. So far, approximately 200 flights and 2,000 travelers have been screened as of Jan. 23. No cases were reported, but one traveler has been identified for further for evaluation. Possible contacts with those suspected of infection have been identified and alerted in 22 states.
The CDC will continue to update the public and will post information on the CDC newsroom website.
at a Jan. 24, 2020, press briefing.
The first U.S. case, a traveler who entered the United States at Seattle-Tacoma International Airport, was confirmed on Jan. 20.
A Chicago resident returning from Wuhan, China, on Jan. 13, 2020, developed symptoms of the disease and contacted her health care clinician and is currently being treated in isolation at an unnamed hospital, according to Nancy Messonnier, MD, director of the National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases at the CDC. The patient, a woman in her 60s, is in stable condition and remains hospitalized. She was not symptomatic on her flight to Chicago but developed symptoms in the following days after her return from Wuhan. She had limited contacts after her return, and all potential contacts are being tracked.
Dr. Messonnier said the CDC expects more cases in the United States but stressed that, although this is a serious public health threat, the risk to the American public is low. She noted that the situation is evolving rapidly and that the CDC is following the developments hour by hour.
Jennifer Layden, MD, PhD, chief medical officer and state epidemiologist with the Illinois Department of Public Health, said public health preparations made it possible to quickly identify and arrange appropriate hospitalization for this patient. Allison Arwady, MD, Chicago Department of Health commissioner, said the Illinois Department of Health partnered with the CDC to test specimens quickly, which led to the diagnosis in this patient.
So far, 63 U.S. patients have been investigated for possible infection with the 2019-nCoV; 11 so far have tested negative and 2 have tested positive. Testing of the remaining potential cases and others is ongoing.
Currently, samples from patients with suspected 2010-nCoV infections are being sent to the CDC for testing, Dr. Messonnier said. The turnaround for testing is currently 4-6 hours. Respiratory samples and some blood samples are being tested by the CDC labs.
The CDC is developing diagnostic kits for public health authorities in the United States for local testing and will work with the World Health Organization to make these kits available to the international community when possible.
Dr. Messonnier said that, at present, the incubation period for this disease appears to be about 14 days, but she suggested that further study will be required to identify the range of time for contagion. She also said it is premature to compare the 2019-nCoV with previous coronavirus outbreaks, such as severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) or Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS), in terms of contagion or fatality rates.
Meanwhile, Andrew D. Mesecar, PhD, the Walther Professor in Cancer Structural Biology and head of the department of biochemistry at Purdue University, West Lafayette, Ind., said on Jan. 24 in a news release that 2019-nCoV is genetically similar to the SARS variant. “MERS virus and the SARS virus are more different genetically,” noted Dr. Mesecar, whose team received the genome of 2019-nCoV on Jan. 17 and analyzed it the next day. “But the Wuhan virus is genetically almost identical to the SARS virus and, therefore, it is expected to look and act nearly the same. In another week or two, we’ll be able to begin to see if the virus is mutating.”
Dr. Messonnier said that nonessential travel to Wuhan is not recommended. In addition, she said, and all other visitors to China need to take appropriate precautions, such as handwashing and avoiding other individuals with respiratory illness.
Screenings at five U.S. airports will continue. So far, approximately 200 flights and 2,000 travelers have been screened as of Jan. 23. No cases were reported, but one traveler has been identified for further for evaluation. Possible contacts with those suspected of infection have been identified and alerted in 22 states.
The CDC will continue to update the public and will post information on the CDC newsroom website.
DOACs for treatment of cancer-associated venous thromboembolism
Bleeding risk may determine best option
Case
A 52-year-old female with past medical history of diabetes, hypertension, and stage 4 lung cancer on palliative chemotherapy presents with acute-onset dyspnea, pleuritic chest pain, and cough. Her exam is notable for tachycardia, hypoxemia, and diminished breath sounds. A CT pulmonary embolism study shows new left segmental thrombus. What is her preferred method of anticoagulation?
Brief overview of the issue
Venous thromboembolism (VTE) including deep vein thrombosis (DVT) and pulmonary embolism (PE), is a significant concern in the context of malignancy and is associated with higher rates of mortality at 1 year.
The standard of care in the recent past has relied on low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) after several trials showed decreased VTE recurrence in cancer patients, compared with vitamin K antagonist (VKA) treatment.1,2 LMWH has been recommended as a first-line treatment by clinical guidelines for cancer-related VTE given lower drug-drug interactions between LMWH and chemotherapy regimens, as compared with traditional VKAs, and it does not rely on intestinal absorption.3
In more recent years, the focus has shifted to direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) as potential treatment options for cancer-related VTE given their ease of administration, low side-effect profile, and decreased cost. Until recently, studies have mainly been small and largely retrospective, however, several larger randomized control studies have recently been published.
Overview of the data
Several retrospective trials have investigated the use of DOACs in cancer-associated VTE. One study looking at VTE recurrence rates showed a trend towards lower rates with rivaroxaban, compared with LMWH at 6 months (13% vs. 17%) that was significantly lower at 12 months (16.5 % vs. 22%). Similar results were found when comparing rivaroxaban to warfarin. Major bleeding rates were similar among cohorts.4
Several other retrospective cohort studies looking at treatment of cancer-associated VTE treated with LMWH vs. DOACs found that overall patients treated with DOACs had cancers with lower risk for VTE and had lower burden of metastatic disease. When this was adjusted for, there was no significant difference in the rate of recurrent cancer-associated thrombosis or major bleeding.5,6
Recently several prospective studies have corroborated the noninferiority or slight superiority of DOACs when compared with LMWH in treatment of cancer-associated VTE, while showing similar rates of bleeding. These are summarized as follows: a prospective, open-label, randomized controlled (RCT), noninferiority trial of 1,046 patients with malignancy-related VTE assigned to either LMWH for at least 5 days, followed by oral edoxaban vs. subcutaneous dalteparin for at least 6 months and up to 12 months. Investigators found no significant difference in the rate of recurrent VTE in the edoxaban group (12.8%), as compared to the dalteparin group (13.5%, P = .006 for noninferiority). Risk of major bleeding was not significantly different between the groups.7
A small RCT of 203 patients comparing recurrent VTE rates with rivaroxaban vs. dalteparin found significantly fewer recurrent clots in the rivaroxaban group compared to the dalteparin group (11% vs 4%) with no significant difference in the 6-month cumulative rate of major bleeding, 4% in the dalteparin group and 6% for the rivaroxaban group.8 Preliminary results from the ADAM VTE trial comparing apixaban to dalteparin found significantly fewer recurrent VTE in the apixaban group (3.4% vs. 14.1%) with no significant difference in major bleeding events (0% vs 2.1%).9 The Caravaggio study is a large multinational randomized, controlled, open-label, noninferiority trial looking at apixaban vs. dalteparin with endpoints being 6-month recurrent VTE and bleeding risk that will likely report results soon.
Risk of bleeding is also a major consideration in VTE treatment as studies suggest that patients with metastatic cancer are at sixfold higher risk for anticoagulant-associated bleeding.3 Subgroup analysis of Hokusai VTE cancer study found that major bleeding occurred in 32 of 522 patients given edoxaban and 16 of 524 patients treated with dalteparin. Excess of major bleeding with edoxaban was confined to patients with GI cancer. However, rates of severe major bleeding at presentation were similar.10
Overall, the existing data suggests that DOACs may be a viable option in the treatment of malignancy-associated VTE given its similar efficacy in preventing recurrent VTE without significant increased risk of major bleeding. The 2018 International Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis VTE in cancer guidelines have been updated to include rivaroxaban and edoxaban for use in patients at low risk of bleeding, but recommend an informed discussion between patients and clinicians in deciding between DOAC and LMWH.11 The Chest VTE guidelines have not been updated since 2016, prior to when the above mentioned DOAC studies were published.
Application of data to our patient
Compared with patients without cancer, anticoagulation in cancer patients with acute VTE is challenging because of higher rates of VTE recurrence and bleeding, as well as the potential for drug interactions with anticancer agents. Our patient is not at increased risk for gastrointestinal bleeding and no drug interactions exist between her current chemotherapy regimen and the available DOACs, therefore she is a candidate for treatment with a DOAC.
After an informed discussion, she chose to start rivaroxaban for treatment of her pulmonary embolism. While more studies are needed to definitively determine the best treatment for cancer-associated VTE, DOACs appear to be an attractive alternative to LMWH. Patient preferences of taking oral medications over injections as well as the significant cost savings of DOACs over LMWH will likely play into many patients’ and providers’ anticoagulant choices.
Bottom line
Direct oral anticoagulants are a treatment option for cancer-associated VTE in patients at low risk of bleeding complications. Patients at increased risk of bleeding (especially patients with GI malignancies) should continue to be treated with LMWH.
Dr. Spence is a hospitalist and palliative care physician at Denver Health, and an assistant professor of medicine at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora. Dr. Miller and Dr. Liu are hospitalists at Denver Health, and assistant professors of medicine at the University of Colorado at Denver.
References
1. Hull RD et al. Long term low-molecular-weight heparin versus usual care in proximal-vein thrombosis patient with cancer. Am J Med. 2006;19(12):1062-72.
2. Lee AY et al. Low-molecular-weight heparin versus Coumadin for the prevention of recurrent venous thromboembolism in patients with cancer. N Engl J Med. 2003;349(2):146-53.
3. Ay C et al. Treatment of cancer-associated venous thromboembolism in the age of direct oral anticoagulants. Ann Oncol. 2019 Mar 27 [epub].
4. Streiff MB et al. Effectiveness and safety of anticoagulants for the treatment of venous thromboembolism in patients with cancer. Am J Hematol. 2018 May;93(5):664-71.
5. Phelps MK et al. A single center retrospective cohort study comparing low-molecular-weight heparins to direct oral anticoagulants for the treatment of venous thromboembolism in patients with cancer – A real-world experience. J Oncol Pharm Pract. 2019 Jun;25(4):793-800.
6. Simmons B et al. Efficacy and safety of rivaroxaban compared to enoxaparin in treatment of cancer-associated venous thromboembolism. Eur J Haematol. 2018 Apr 4. (Epub).
7. Raskob GE et al.; Hokusai VTE Cancer Investigators. Edoxaban for the treatment of cancer-associated venous thromboembolism. N Engl J Med. 2018 Feb 15;378(7):615-24.
8. Young AM et al. Comparison of an oral factor Xa inhibitor with low molecular weight heparin in patients with cancer with venous thromboembolism: Results of a randomized trial (SELECT-D). J Clin Oncol. 2018 Jul 10;36(20):2017-23.
9. McBane, RD et al. Apixaban, dalteparin, in active cancer associated venous thromboembolism, the ADAM VTE trial. Blood. 2018 Nov 29;132(suppl 1):421.
10. Kraaijpoel N et al. Clinical impact of bleeding in cancer-associated venous thromboembolism: Results from the Hokusai VTE cancer study. Thromb Haemost. 2018 Aug;118(8):1439-49.
11. Khorana AA et al. Role of direct oral anticoagulants in the treatment of cancer-associated venous thromboembolism: Guidance from the SSC of the ISTH. J Thromb Haemost. 2018 Sep;16(9):1891-94.
Key points
- DOACs are a reasonable treatment option for malignancy-associated VTE in patients without GI tract malignancies and at low risk for bleeding complications.
- In patients with gastrointestinal malignancies or increased risk of bleeding, DOACs may have an increased bleeding risk and therefore LMWH is recommended.
- An informed discussion should occur between providers and patients to determine the best treatment option for cancer patients with VTE.
Additional reading
Dong Y et al. Efficacy and safety of direct oral anticoagulants versus low-molecular-weight heparin in patients with cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Thromb Thrombolysis. 2019 May 6.
Khorana AA et al. Role of direct oral anticoagulants in the treatment of cancer-associated venous thromboembolism: guidance from the SSC of the ISTH. J Thromb Haemost. 2018 Sep;16(9):1891-94.
Tritschler T et al. Venous thromboembolism advances in diagnosis and treatment. JAMA. 2018 Oct;320(15):1583-94.
Quiz
Which of the following is the recommended treatment of VTE in a patient with brain metastases?
A. Unfractionated heparin
B. Low molecular weight heparin
C. Direct oral anticoagulant
D. Vitamin K antagonist
The answer is B. Although there are very few data, LMWH is the recommended agent in patients with VTE and brain metastases.
A. LMWH has been shown to decrease mortality in patients with VTE and cancer, compared with unfractionated heparin (risk ratio, 0.66).
C. The safety of DOACs is not yet well established in patients with brain tumors. Antidotes and/or specific reversal agents for some DOACs are not available.
D. Vitamin K antagonists such as warfarin are not recommended in cancer patients because LMWH has a reduced risk of recurrent VTE without increased risk of bleeding.
Bleeding risk may determine best option
Bleeding risk may determine best option
Case
A 52-year-old female with past medical history of diabetes, hypertension, and stage 4 lung cancer on palliative chemotherapy presents with acute-onset dyspnea, pleuritic chest pain, and cough. Her exam is notable for tachycardia, hypoxemia, and diminished breath sounds. A CT pulmonary embolism study shows new left segmental thrombus. What is her preferred method of anticoagulation?
Brief overview of the issue
Venous thromboembolism (VTE) including deep vein thrombosis (DVT) and pulmonary embolism (PE), is a significant concern in the context of malignancy and is associated with higher rates of mortality at 1 year.
The standard of care in the recent past has relied on low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) after several trials showed decreased VTE recurrence in cancer patients, compared with vitamin K antagonist (VKA) treatment.1,2 LMWH has been recommended as a first-line treatment by clinical guidelines for cancer-related VTE given lower drug-drug interactions between LMWH and chemotherapy regimens, as compared with traditional VKAs, and it does not rely on intestinal absorption.3
In more recent years, the focus has shifted to direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) as potential treatment options for cancer-related VTE given their ease of administration, low side-effect profile, and decreased cost. Until recently, studies have mainly been small and largely retrospective, however, several larger randomized control studies have recently been published.
Overview of the data
Several retrospective trials have investigated the use of DOACs in cancer-associated VTE. One study looking at VTE recurrence rates showed a trend towards lower rates with rivaroxaban, compared with LMWH at 6 months (13% vs. 17%) that was significantly lower at 12 months (16.5 % vs. 22%). Similar results were found when comparing rivaroxaban to warfarin. Major bleeding rates were similar among cohorts.4
Several other retrospective cohort studies looking at treatment of cancer-associated VTE treated with LMWH vs. DOACs found that overall patients treated with DOACs had cancers with lower risk for VTE and had lower burden of metastatic disease. When this was adjusted for, there was no significant difference in the rate of recurrent cancer-associated thrombosis or major bleeding.5,6
Recently several prospective studies have corroborated the noninferiority or slight superiority of DOACs when compared with LMWH in treatment of cancer-associated VTE, while showing similar rates of bleeding. These are summarized as follows: a prospective, open-label, randomized controlled (RCT), noninferiority trial of 1,046 patients with malignancy-related VTE assigned to either LMWH for at least 5 days, followed by oral edoxaban vs. subcutaneous dalteparin for at least 6 months and up to 12 months. Investigators found no significant difference in the rate of recurrent VTE in the edoxaban group (12.8%), as compared to the dalteparin group (13.5%, P = .006 for noninferiority). Risk of major bleeding was not significantly different between the groups.7
A small RCT of 203 patients comparing recurrent VTE rates with rivaroxaban vs. dalteparin found significantly fewer recurrent clots in the rivaroxaban group compared to the dalteparin group (11% vs 4%) with no significant difference in the 6-month cumulative rate of major bleeding, 4% in the dalteparin group and 6% for the rivaroxaban group.8 Preliminary results from the ADAM VTE trial comparing apixaban to dalteparin found significantly fewer recurrent VTE in the apixaban group (3.4% vs. 14.1%) with no significant difference in major bleeding events (0% vs 2.1%).9 The Caravaggio study is a large multinational randomized, controlled, open-label, noninferiority trial looking at apixaban vs. dalteparin with endpoints being 6-month recurrent VTE and bleeding risk that will likely report results soon.
Risk of bleeding is also a major consideration in VTE treatment as studies suggest that patients with metastatic cancer are at sixfold higher risk for anticoagulant-associated bleeding.3 Subgroup analysis of Hokusai VTE cancer study found that major bleeding occurred in 32 of 522 patients given edoxaban and 16 of 524 patients treated with dalteparin. Excess of major bleeding with edoxaban was confined to patients with GI cancer. However, rates of severe major bleeding at presentation were similar.10
Overall, the existing data suggests that DOACs may be a viable option in the treatment of malignancy-associated VTE given its similar efficacy in preventing recurrent VTE without significant increased risk of major bleeding. The 2018 International Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis VTE in cancer guidelines have been updated to include rivaroxaban and edoxaban for use in patients at low risk of bleeding, but recommend an informed discussion between patients and clinicians in deciding between DOAC and LMWH.11 The Chest VTE guidelines have not been updated since 2016, prior to when the above mentioned DOAC studies were published.
Application of data to our patient
Compared with patients without cancer, anticoagulation in cancer patients with acute VTE is challenging because of higher rates of VTE recurrence and bleeding, as well as the potential for drug interactions with anticancer agents. Our patient is not at increased risk for gastrointestinal bleeding and no drug interactions exist between her current chemotherapy regimen and the available DOACs, therefore she is a candidate for treatment with a DOAC.
After an informed discussion, she chose to start rivaroxaban for treatment of her pulmonary embolism. While more studies are needed to definitively determine the best treatment for cancer-associated VTE, DOACs appear to be an attractive alternative to LMWH. Patient preferences of taking oral medications over injections as well as the significant cost savings of DOACs over LMWH will likely play into many patients’ and providers’ anticoagulant choices.
Bottom line
Direct oral anticoagulants are a treatment option for cancer-associated VTE in patients at low risk of bleeding complications. Patients at increased risk of bleeding (especially patients with GI malignancies) should continue to be treated with LMWH.
Dr. Spence is a hospitalist and palliative care physician at Denver Health, and an assistant professor of medicine at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora. Dr. Miller and Dr. Liu are hospitalists at Denver Health, and assistant professors of medicine at the University of Colorado at Denver.
References
1. Hull RD et al. Long term low-molecular-weight heparin versus usual care in proximal-vein thrombosis patient with cancer. Am J Med. 2006;19(12):1062-72.
2. Lee AY et al. Low-molecular-weight heparin versus Coumadin for the prevention of recurrent venous thromboembolism in patients with cancer. N Engl J Med. 2003;349(2):146-53.
3. Ay C et al. Treatment of cancer-associated venous thromboembolism in the age of direct oral anticoagulants. Ann Oncol. 2019 Mar 27 [epub].
4. Streiff MB et al. Effectiveness and safety of anticoagulants for the treatment of venous thromboembolism in patients with cancer. Am J Hematol. 2018 May;93(5):664-71.
5. Phelps MK et al. A single center retrospective cohort study comparing low-molecular-weight heparins to direct oral anticoagulants for the treatment of venous thromboembolism in patients with cancer – A real-world experience. J Oncol Pharm Pract. 2019 Jun;25(4):793-800.
6. Simmons B et al. Efficacy and safety of rivaroxaban compared to enoxaparin in treatment of cancer-associated venous thromboembolism. Eur J Haematol. 2018 Apr 4. (Epub).
7. Raskob GE et al.; Hokusai VTE Cancer Investigators. Edoxaban for the treatment of cancer-associated venous thromboembolism. N Engl J Med. 2018 Feb 15;378(7):615-24.
8. Young AM et al. Comparison of an oral factor Xa inhibitor with low molecular weight heparin in patients with cancer with venous thromboembolism: Results of a randomized trial (SELECT-D). J Clin Oncol. 2018 Jul 10;36(20):2017-23.
9. McBane, RD et al. Apixaban, dalteparin, in active cancer associated venous thromboembolism, the ADAM VTE trial. Blood. 2018 Nov 29;132(suppl 1):421.
10. Kraaijpoel N et al. Clinical impact of bleeding in cancer-associated venous thromboembolism: Results from the Hokusai VTE cancer study. Thromb Haemost. 2018 Aug;118(8):1439-49.
11. Khorana AA et al. Role of direct oral anticoagulants in the treatment of cancer-associated venous thromboembolism: Guidance from the SSC of the ISTH. J Thromb Haemost. 2018 Sep;16(9):1891-94.
Key points
- DOACs are a reasonable treatment option for malignancy-associated VTE in patients without GI tract malignancies and at low risk for bleeding complications.
- In patients with gastrointestinal malignancies or increased risk of bleeding, DOACs may have an increased bleeding risk and therefore LMWH is recommended.
- An informed discussion should occur between providers and patients to determine the best treatment option for cancer patients with VTE.
Additional reading
Dong Y et al. Efficacy and safety of direct oral anticoagulants versus low-molecular-weight heparin in patients with cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Thromb Thrombolysis. 2019 May 6.
Khorana AA et al. Role of direct oral anticoagulants in the treatment of cancer-associated venous thromboembolism: guidance from the SSC of the ISTH. J Thromb Haemost. 2018 Sep;16(9):1891-94.
Tritschler T et al. Venous thromboembolism advances in diagnosis and treatment. JAMA. 2018 Oct;320(15):1583-94.
Quiz
Which of the following is the recommended treatment of VTE in a patient with brain metastases?
A. Unfractionated heparin
B. Low molecular weight heparin
C. Direct oral anticoagulant
D. Vitamin K antagonist
The answer is B. Although there are very few data, LMWH is the recommended agent in patients with VTE and brain metastases.
A. LMWH has been shown to decrease mortality in patients with VTE and cancer, compared with unfractionated heparin (risk ratio, 0.66).
C. The safety of DOACs is not yet well established in patients with brain tumors. Antidotes and/or specific reversal agents for some DOACs are not available.
D. Vitamin K antagonists such as warfarin are not recommended in cancer patients because LMWH has a reduced risk of recurrent VTE without increased risk of bleeding.
Case
A 52-year-old female with past medical history of diabetes, hypertension, and stage 4 lung cancer on palliative chemotherapy presents with acute-onset dyspnea, pleuritic chest pain, and cough. Her exam is notable for tachycardia, hypoxemia, and diminished breath sounds. A CT pulmonary embolism study shows new left segmental thrombus. What is her preferred method of anticoagulation?
Brief overview of the issue
Venous thromboembolism (VTE) including deep vein thrombosis (DVT) and pulmonary embolism (PE), is a significant concern in the context of malignancy and is associated with higher rates of mortality at 1 year.
The standard of care in the recent past has relied on low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) after several trials showed decreased VTE recurrence in cancer patients, compared with vitamin K antagonist (VKA) treatment.1,2 LMWH has been recommended as a first-line treatment by clinical guidelines for cancer-related VTE given lower drug-drug interactions between LMWH and chemotherapy regimens, as compared with traditional VKAs, and it does not rely on intestinal absorption.3
In more recent years, the focus has shifted to direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) as potential treatment options for cancer-related VTE given their ease of administration, low side-effect profile, and decreased cost. Until recently, studies have mainly been small and largely retrospective, however, several larger randomized control studies have recently been published.
Overview of the data
Several retrospective trials have investigated the use of DOACs in cancer-associated VTE. One study looking at VTE recurrence rates showed a trend towards lower rates with rivaroxaban, compared with LMWH at 6 months (13% vs. 17%) that was significantly lower at 12 months (16.5 % vs. 22%). Similar results were found when comparing rivaroxaban to warfarin. Major bleeding rates were similar among cohorts.4
Several other retrospective cohort studies looking at treatment of cancer-associated VTE treated with LMWH vs. DOACs found that overall patients treated with DOACs had cancers with lower risk for VTE and had lower burden of metastatic disease. When this was adjusted for, there was no significant difference in the rate of recurrent cancer-associated thrombosis or major bleeding.5,6
Recently several prospective studies have corroborated the noninferiority or slight superiority of DOACs when compared with LMWH in treatment of cancer-associated VTE, while showing similar rates of bleeding. These are summarized as follows: a prospective, open-label, randomized controlled (RCT), noninferiority trial of 1,046 patients with malignancy-related VTE assigned to either LMWH for at least 5 days, followed by oral edoxaban vs. subcutaneous dalteparin for at least 6 months and up to 12 months. Investigators found no significant difference in the rate of recurrent VTE in the edoxaban group (12.8%), as compared to the dalteparin group (13.5%, P = .006 for noninferiority). Risk of major bleeding was not significantly different between the groups.7
A small RCT of 203 patients comparing recurrent VTE rates with rivaroxaban vs. dalteparin found significantly fewer recurrent clots in the rivaroxaban group compared to the dalteparin group (11% vs 4%) with no significant difference in the 6-month cumulative rate of major bleeding, 4% in the dalteparin group and 6% for the rivaroxaban group.8 Preliminary results from the ADAM VTE trial comparing apixaban to dalteparin found significantly fewer recurrent VTE in the apixaban group (3.4% vs. 14.1%) with no significant difference in major bleeding events (0% vs 2.1%).9 The Caravaggio study is a large multinational randomized, controlled, open-label, noninferiority trial looking at apixaban vs. dalteparin with endpoints being 6-month recurrent VTE and bleeding risk that will likely report results soon.
Risk of bleeding is also a major consideration in VTE treatment as studies suggest that patients with metastatic cancer are at sixfold higher risk for anticoagulant-associated bleeding.3 Subgroup analysis of Hokusai VTE cancer study found that major bleeding occurred in 32 of 522 patients given edoxaban and 16 of 524 patients treated with dalteparin. Excess of major bleeding with edoxaban was confined to patients with GI cancer. However, rates of severe major bleeding at presentation were similar.10
Overall, the existing data suggests that DOACs may be a viable option in the treatment of malignancy-associated VTE given its similar efficacy in preventing recurrent VTE without significant increased risk of major bleeding. The 2018 International Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis VTE in cancer guidelines have been updated to include rivaroxaban and edoxaban for use in patients at low risk of bleeding, but recommend an informed discussion between patients and clinicians in deciding between DOAC and LMWH.11 The Chest VTE guidelines have not been updated since 2016, prior to when the above mentioned DOAC studies were published.
Application of data to our patient
Compared with patients without cancer, anticoagulation in cancer patients with acute VTE is challenging because of higher rates of VTE recurrence and bleeding, as well as the potential for drug interactions with anticancer agents. Our patient is not at increased risk for gastrointestinal bleeding and no drug interactions exist between her current chemotherapy regimen and the available DOACs, therefore she is a candidate for treatment with a DOAC.
After an informed discussion, she chose to start rivaroxaban for treatment of her pulmonary embolism. While more studies are needed to definitively determine the best treatment for cancer-associated VTE, DOACs appear to be an attractive alternative to LMWH. Patient preferences of taking oral medications over injections as well as the significant cost savings of DOACs over LMWH will likely play into many patients’ and providers’ anticoagulant choices.
Bottom line
Direct oral anticoagulants are a treatment option for cancer-associated VTE in patients at low risk of bleeding complications. Patients at increased risk of bleeding (especially patients with GI malignancies) should continue to be treated with LMWH.
Dr. Spence is a hospitalist and palliative care physician at Denver Health, and an assistant professor of medicine at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora. Dr. Miller and Dr. Liu are hospitalists at Denver Health, and assistant professors of medicine at the University of Colorado at Denver.
References
1. Hull RD et al. Long term low-molecular-weight heparin versus usual care in proximal-vein thrombosis patient with cancer. Am J Med. 2006;19(12):1062-72.
2. Lee AY et al. Low-molecular-weight heparin versus Coumadin for the prevention of recurrent venous thromboembolism in patients with cancer. N Engl J Med. 2003;349(2):146-53.
3. Ay C et al. Treatment of cancer-associated venous thromboembolism in the age of direct oral anticoagulants. Ann Oncol. 2019 Mar 27 [epub].
4. Streiff MB et al. Effectiveness and safety of anticoagulants for the treatment of venous thromboembolism in patients with cancer. Am J Hematol. 2018 May;93(5):664-71.
5. Phelps MK et al. A single center retrospective cohort study comparing low-molecular-weight heparins to direct oral anticoagulants for the treatment of venous thromboembolism in patients with cancer – A real-world experience. J Oncol Pharm Pract. 2019 Jun;25(4):793-800.
6. Simmons B et al. Efficacy and safety of rivaroxaban compared to enoxaparin in treatment of cancer-associated venous thromboembolism. Eur J Haematol. 2018 Apr 4. (Epub).
7. Raskob GE et al.; Hokusai VTE Cancer Investigators. Edoxaban for the treatment of cancer-associated venous thromboembolism. N Engl J Med. 2018 Feb 15;378(7):615-24.
8. Young AM et al. Comparison of an oral factor Xa inhibitor with low molecular weight heparin in patients with cancer with venous thromboembolism: Results of a randomized trial (SELECT-D). J Clin Oncol. 2018 Jul 10;36(20):2017-23.
9. McBane, RD et al. Apixaban, dalteparin, in active cancer associated venous thromboembolism, the ADAM VTE trial. Blood. 2018 Nov 29;132(suppl 1):421.
10. Kraaijpoel N et al. Clinical impact of bleeding in cancer-associated venous thromboembolism: Results from the Hokusai VTE cancer study. Thromb Haemost. 2018 Aug;118(8):1439-49.
11. Khorana AA et al. Role of direct oral anticoagulants in the treatment of cancer-associated venous thromboembolism: Guidance from the SSC of the ISTH. J Thromb Haemost. 2018 Sep;16(9):1891-94.
Key points
- DOACs are a reasonable treatment option for malignancy-associated VTE in patients without GI tract malignancies and at low risk for bleeding complications.
- In patients with gastrointestinal malignancies or increased risk of bleeding, DOACs may have an increased bleeding risk and therefore LMWH is recommended.
- An informed discussion should occur between providers and patients to determine the best treatment option for cancer patients with VTE.
Additional reading
Dong Y et al. Efficacy and safety of direct oral anticoagulants versus low-molecular-weight heparin in patients with cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Thromb Thrombolysis. 2019 May 6.
Khorana AA et al. Role of direct oral anticoagulants in the treatment of cancer-associated venous thromboembolism: guidance from the SSC of the ISTH. J Thromb Haemost. 2018 Sep;16(9):1891-94.
Tritschler T et al. Venous thromboembolism advances in diagnosis and treatment. JAMA. 2018 Oct;320(15):1583-94.
Quiz
Which of the following is the recommended treatment of VTE in a patient with brain metastases?
A. Unfractionated heparin
B. Low molecular weight heparin
C. Direct oral anticoagulant
D. Vitamin K antagonist
The answer is B. Although there are very few data, LMWH is the recommended agent in patients with VTE and brain metastases.
A. LMWH has been shown to decrease mortality in patients with VTE and cancer, compared with unfractionated heparin (risk ratio, 0.66).
C. The safety of DOACs is not yet well established in patients with brain tumors. Antidotes and/or specific reversal agents for some DOACs are not available.
D. Vitamin K antagonists such as warfarin are not recommended in cancer patients because LMWH has a reduced risk of recurrent VTE without increased risk of bleeding.